User talk:JohnC5/Sandbox2

Parameters

I would suggest using n=sg and n=pl to indicate that a word has only singular or plural forms. Other templates already use this. —CodeCat 14:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@CodeCat: I was a little confused to be honest. The Ancient Greek templates all use |form= and the Latin, |num=. I chose the AG format because the behavior is slightly similar with sing-av, but I do prefer the brevity of |n=. Which other templates already use it, by the way? —JohnC5 15:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Latin is one, it only differs in the name of the parameter (I made it before I settled on the n= name). Then there's Finnish, Slovene, Russian. There may be more. —CodeCat 15:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, you don't necessarily need different templates for different values of n=. You could just use one table and show "-" when there is no singular or plural. Alternatively, there could be two templates: one shows both singular and plural, the other shows just one of them. There's no real need for separate singular and plural tables then. —CodeCat 15:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I am a big fan of the separate tables, to be honest. I find the having a whole mess of dashes distracting. I suppose an argument could be made that it is more clear to explicitly say the form doesn't exist, but I feel that not providing the forms along with a caveat like singular only is very clear. Do you have strong preference one way because I tried to implement it exactly how I thought it should be done?

I was also hoping you or Kenny could help me with the transition with one of your respective bots.

PS: do you prefer to be called Code, Cat, CodeCat, or something else? —JohnC5 15:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

What I'm referring to is that {{de-decl-noun-sg}} and {{de-decl-noun-pl}} are pretty much identical. They could be merged into one. Also, I think "table" should be added to the name to make it clear that these are only the tables, not to be used directly. —CodeCat 15:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Aha, I misunderstood. Yes, I will implement that when I get back from work. Should the new table be named {{de-decl-noun-table-sg-pl}} or something like that? —JohnC5 15:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

So far, I've named them {{de-decl-noun-table-single}}. —CodeCat 15:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey @CodeCat, Kc kennylau, could one of you use a bot to finish up the migration to the new declension scheme? It the only templates that need doing are {{de-decl-noun-m-s-unc}}, {{de-decl-noun-f-unc}}, and {{de-decl-noun-n-s-unc}}. I'm getting tired of doing it by hand. They each accept no parameters so the following should work in each case:

• {{de-decl-noun-m-s-unc}} → {{de-decl-noun-m|s|n=sg}}
• {{de-decl-noun-f-unc}} → {{de-decl-noun-f|n=sg}}
• {{de-decl-noun-n-s-unc}} → {{de-decl-noun-n|s|n=sg}}

Then I can go through {{de-decl-noun-unc}} and remove whatever is left over. —JohnC5 04:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Done and deleted the templates. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I just noticed the interesting example of Facebook, which is genderless. I may have to add some functionality that allows genderless nouns and that parenthesizes the articles for proper nouns. —JohnC5 13:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that entry. Its usage notes are actually mistaken. - -sche (discuss) 17:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

Planning to revolutionize Template:de-decl-adj+noun-m? (e.g. Toter) --kc_kennylau (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kc kennylau: I could, but what all needs to be done?

1. Proper noun functionality
2. Singular table
3. Genderless?
4. Anything else?

—JohnC5 18:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I can think of fixing repeated links. What do you mean by proper noun functionality? --kc_kennylau (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I just added the |notes= and |prop= parameters to the noun declension tables which add a notes section for the first and parenthesize the articles and adds the phrase proper noun for the second. I thought these would be nice to have.

As for the "repeated links," I was actually thinking of changing the noun template to include {{l-self}} for all forms because I think the current situation looks weird, is coded poorly, and doesn't allow for German-direct linking. It seems far better to have all link than just a few. What do you think? —JohnC5 19:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kc kennylau: What do you think about this linking issue? —JohnC5 19:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@JohnC5: I think that multiple references to the same declined form should not be linked manifold. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kc kennylau: Sorry for the delay there. Here are my issues about the current linking system:

• It looks inconsistent and spotty.
• The logic is not correctly implemented in several places (e.g. Junge and others that I don't recall at the moment).
• It currently doesn't support the language-direct linking used in orange linking, and fixing that would be difficult.

Is the main complaint the added linking overhead or just the sheer redundancy of the extra links? —JohnC5 17:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@JohnC5: Isn't Junge using Template:de-decl-noun-m instead of Template:de-decl-adj+noun-m? --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kc kennylau: Sorry, I've been talking about whether to add links to all the forms in the noun tables as opposed to removing the extra from the adj+noun tables. I'm swinging ever further in the opposite direction from you, I guess. —JohnC5 18:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)