Template talk:en-rank

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from Template talk:rank)
Jump to: navigation, search


New format[edit]

I have changed the format here to match User talk:Hippietrail/nearbypages.js while I'm gathering feedback on it.

After enough feedback we can decide whether to keep the matching format here, go back to the old format and use it also for nearbypages, or keep two very dissimlar formats. Whatever you guys decide. — hippietrail 23:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it just my computer, or are the words: Word frequency based on Project Gutenberg corpus missing from this format? (I can see that they are supposed to be displayed.) Dbfirs 13:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
It's a tooltip now. If your hover your mouse over the section generally but not over a link you will see it. The previous/next links also have no heading. Headings for these would seem too bloated and take up too much space in my opinion. Of course my opinion is not to have these rankings at the top of articles anyway since are simply not important parts of the articles. — hippietrail 06:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
But the apparently random words appear above the definition without explanation. Only the numbered link provides a limited explanation as a tooltip. I agree that they should not appear at the top of the entry. Perhaps they could just be in a float-right expandable box?
I don't want to alter the template, but why not put this heading back?
Rank of this word in the English language, from analyzing texts from Project Gutenberg.
[[{{{1}}}]] « [[{{{2}}}]] « [[{{{3}}}]] « #{{{4}}}: {{{5}}} » [[{{{6}}}]] » [[{{{7}}}]] » [[{{{8}}}]]
Dbfirs 08:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
... (later) ... oh, I see! The explanation appears if you happen to point at the blank space after the last word, or at the separators. Dbfirs 08:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that this template layout is not clear to a user. Maybe it would be better to place a small explanation header, insted of the appearing one when the cursor passes on it --Diuturno 16:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Let me experiment with a few things. I really don't want it to take up too much space though, especially at the top of articles before the senses and definitions. — hippietrail 23:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


The placement of this template is odd. The information is insignificant for it to be above the definitions. It's wrong semantically to have it's content not in any L3 (User:Hippietrail/nearbypages.js avoids this problem by being an optional add-on rather than being in wikitext). Two options I think would be better:

  1. Turn this information into a JS addon like nearby pages.
  2. Move the placement of this template to a =See also= section. A third of the entries already have such a section.

The first is probably more work (involves coding), slower (extra loading time), and more complicated (how to display this along with nearby pages below the L2). That's why I'd go for the second option. Do others agree, or have other ideas? --Bequwτ 17:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have just noted a change in appearance of this and its appearance despite my having Preferences set not the see it.
It doesn't belong at the top of any entry. DCDuring TALK 02:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't like the first of Bequw's two options, as JS should be used to generate content only when necessary (as for the nearbypages, although I suppose a bot could do that if someone would write such a bot); otherwise, if we want it, then it should be in the page proper, and if not, then it should not appear there by means of JS. I don't much like it where it is, but I do like it somewhere. The See also section is okay; the Trivia section is perhaps better, though I think some people wish to be rid of Trivia sections altogether.​—msh210 (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
This discussion was continued at Wiktionary_talk:About_English#Placement_of_Gutenberg_rankings. --Bequw τ 03:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

RFM discussion: March 2014–August 2015[edit]


The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

Same as above. —CodeCat 17:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

RFM discussion: March 2014–August 2015[edit]

See Template talk:en-rank#RFM discussion: March 2014–August 2015.