Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-07/Using template l to link to English entries
Add topicRationale
[edit]To be entered by supporters. I imagine something like this: let all wikilinking be based on {{l}}
as far as possible so that the target language of the link is always specified. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- Do you support this? You haven't supported it so far. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Dan's been on a spree of creating votes he opposes. --WikiTiki89 17:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Separate proposal
[edit]I have a separate proposal. Create a new template, possibly named Template:def, and use it around the whole text (except the "#") of each definition that is not {{n-g}}
or {{form of}}
. The template {{def}}
should work exactly the same as {{l|en}}
. See the code below, and note that in the end result, the links are anchored to the English section, without the cumbersome addition of "{{l|en|...}}" in every link:
- # {{def|A [[meowing]] domestic [[animal]].}}
- # {{l|en|A [[meowing]] domestic [[animal]].}}
Rationale:
I like that the code below is anchored diretly to the English section, but I dislike that the "{{l|en|...}}" makes the code more cumbersome to read.
- # A {{l|en|meowing}} domestic {{l|en|animal}}.
I dislike that the code below is not anchored diretly to the English section, but I like that the code is easier to read.
- # A [[meowing]] domestic [[animal]].
The {{def}}
I proposed above has both items I like and none of the things I dislike. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- I proposed this before, but suggested coopting
{{d}}
as a shortcut rather than{{def}}
. See Wiktionary:Grease pit/2012/June#A template for linking English terms to their definitions. —CodeCat 14:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC){{d}}
would look good in definitions as you suggested IMO, but it is currently a shortcut to{{delete}}
. Apparently people are already used to using{{d}}
to ask for quick deletion of entries, and would have to change their habits if{{d}}
became a definition template. With that in mind, I consider{{def}}
to be the second best choice at the moment, and I'd be happy to use it. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)- I think
{{d}}
is used as a deletion tag on almost all Wikimedia projects, so I would be loath to change it here. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)- But for a template that tags every definition, something as short as
{{d}}
is highly desirable. It would be used much more often than{{delete}}
. —CodeCat 20:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)- I checked to see how many wikis other than Wiktionary use "Template:D" to ask for speedy deletion. See: this page. Turns out it's 7 wikis, apparently. (if we are generous and count Wikimedia Strategic Planning and Testwiki). Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikispecies, Wikidata and Meta do it. Commons and Wikisource use "Template:D" for purposes other than deletion of pages. Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikiversity currently don't use "Template:D". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- I know that using obscure abbreviations seems to be a (strange) feature on this project, but from a readability perspective,
{{def}}
is way better since anyone can understand what it stands for. — Dakdada 08:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- I know that using obscure abbreviations seems to be a (strange) feature on this project, but from a readability perspective,
- I checked to see how many wikis other than Wiktionary use "Template:D" to ask for speedy deletion. See: this page. Turns out it's 7 wikis, apparently. (if we are generous and count Wikimedia Strategic Planning and Testwiki). Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikispecies, Wikidata and Meta do it. Commons and Wikisource use "Template:D" for purposes other than deletion of pages. Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wikiversity currently don't use "Template:D". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- But for a template that tags every definition, something as short as
- I think
- I don't like this. But if we do do this,
{{def}}
is better than{{d}}
. --WikiTiki89 15:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Impossible alternate proposal
[edit]I believe it's not possible to do it in the first place, but if it were possible, I'd prefer doing this: creating two new templates, {{def-top}}
and {{def-bottom}}
, and placing them above and below every definition list. The point is, they should be able to automatically turn all [[...]]
links into {{l|en|...}}
links.
{{def-top}} # A [[club]] used in [[sport]]s. # A [[nocturnal]] [[flying]] [[mammal]]. {{def-bottom}}
P.S.: The example word is bat, and I realize I placed two senses from different etymologies together.
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- This is possible:
{{def| # A [[club]] used in [[sport]]s. # A [[nocturnal]] [[flying]] [[mammal]]. }}
- --WikiTiki89 15:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- I support all of the above separate proposals. But why is stuff being scratched out in the Support section because of people supporting {{def}}? Philmonte101 (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Those support votes were stricken out by the voters themselves, who are now voting oppose.
- @Angr initially voted "Support unless something better like the
{{def}}
template proposed on the talk page can be implemented." Naturally, this was before{{def}}
was created. Once{{def}}
was created, he withdrew his support and cast an oppose vote. - @CodeCat voted "Support" but quickly changed to oppose with the comment "mistook the meaning of the vote." She created
{{def}}
. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)- I retracted the vote because I realised the vote was about automating it, not allowing it. I'm for allowing it, but with
{{def}}
I think it would be better to use that instead in the long run. —CodeCat 01:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)- @CodeCat: Thanks for clarifying. Can't we have a single
{{def}}
for the whole set of definitions, as shown by @Wikitiki89 above? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC){{def}}
can be used across multiple definitions as in Wikitiki's example, but it leaves extra blank space above it. I'm sure that's easy to fix, though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- @CodeCat: Thanks for clarifying. Can't we have a single
- I retracted the vote because I realised the vote was about automating it, not allowing it. I'm for allowing it, but with
- I support all of the above separate proposals. But why is stuff being scratched out in the Support section because of people supporting {{def}}? Philmonte101 (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
At the moment, if we remove the space between the headword line and the definitions, {{def}}
seems to work perfectly, without leaving the extra blank space you mentioned. The code would be like this: (but I'd prefer not having to do it this way; I hope the module can be fixed)
===Noun=== {{en-noun}} {{def| # A [[club]] used in [[sport]]s. # A [[nocturnal]] [[flying]] [[mammal]]. }}
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it is a bad idea to use a template for the whole list of definitions. I actually think that it is the perfect opportunity to unify the various sense templates into a better structure, i.e.: {{senseid}}
, {{label}}
, and of course {{l}}
(and maybe others). For example:
=== Noun === {{en-noun}} # {{def| A [[club]] used in [[sport]]s. | label = sports | senseid = sport_tool }} # {{def| A [[nocturnal]] [[flying]] [[mammal]]. | label = zoology, mammal | senseid = flying_mammal }}
If the def is used for non-English word, there would be a lang parameter too (not used for the links in the def of course). Note the label part which avoids the use of | for the more natural comma (yet easily parsable). — Dakdada 10:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- I like this idea, but I'd have separate a separate category= parameter, because not everything worthy of categorizing needs to be displayed in a label. We could even have multiple parameters for all the disparate things that
{{lb}}
currently lumps together, e.g.subject=zoology
(for zoological technical terms, not for everyday names for animals),register=colloquial
, ordialect=Australia
. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to do this using one line per definition.
=== Noun === {{en-noun}} # {{def|sports_tool|sports|A [[club]] used in [[sport]]s.}} # {{def|flying_mammal|zoology, mammal|A [[nocturnal]] [[flying]] [[mammal]].}}
Or:
=== Noun === {{en-noun}} # {{def|flying_mammal|register=foo|dialect=bar|subject=zoology|A [[nocturnal]] [[flying]] [[mammal]].}}
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't like that because all those extra parameters should be optional, and that is very messy to read. --WikiTiki89 19:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- We should use "topic" instead, and have a separate "jargon" parameter for terms used in mostly or exclusively in a field. We don't currently distinguish these types, but we should. The sense id should be optional as well, since most senses don't need it. —CodeCat 20:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Topic" is fine, too. I agree that optional parameters should be generally named rather than positional (unless a template has only one or two parameters to begin with). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- It looks like there is a general agreement that the only mandatory field is the definition text, as parameter 1, with any other parameter being optional and named.
- The template doesn't care in what order we input the fields then, or if we put them on the same line or not. I would still argue that putting each parameter on a separate line greatly increases readability and maintainability. — Dakdada 11:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- It does make it more readable, but it departs further from what we're already accustomed to, which has them all on the same line with the definition last. I think we should let editors decide this for themselves, and see what comes out of it. —CodeCat 12:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- "Topic" is fine, too. I agree that optional parameters should be generally named rather than positional (unless a template has only one or two parameters to begin with). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- We should use "topic" instead, and have a separate "jargon" parameter for terms used in mostly or exclusively in a field. We don't currently distinguish these types, but we should. The sense id should be optional as well, since most senses don't need it. —CodeCat 20:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
If adding the senseid and/or the label (register/subject/etc.) in the {{def}}
makes it messy to read, then I prefer doing as I suggested in the first message of this thread. In my opinion, the whole point of {{def}}
is to provide links to the English section when the language is unspecified. The rest can be done with separate templates.
{{def| # {{senseid|sports_tool}} A [[club]] used in [[sport]]s. # {{senseid|flying_mammal}} {{lb|zoology|mammal}} A [[nocturnal]] [[flying]] [[mammal]]. }}
Changing {{lb}}
to allow for "register=", etc. is another idea:
{{def| # {{senseid|sports_tool}} A [[club]] used in [[sport]]s. # {{senseid|flying_mammal}} {{lb|subject=zoology|whatever=mammal}} A [[nocturnal]] [[flying]] [[mammal]]. }}