Open main menu

Wiktionary β

Latvian color terms

Fragment of a discussion from User talk:CodeCat
Edited by author.
Last edit: 17:16, 18 January 2013

Yes, I understand that, from my intro-to-Wiki/Wiki-101 course. My point is that there is such a thing as a bad template, and list templates are egregious examples. So: if the template is indeed improved (how is this being done?), and if it looks better (a running list with less-than-single spacing and with superscripts at the end, looking like nothing else on Wiktionary?...), I shall have no objections to its use, nay, I shall start using it myself. (Is there a discussion on the format of the new template somewhere? I'd like to see it.)

17:16, 18 January 2013

I am not aware of anyone complaining about the format of list templates. As far as I know, the only complaint was about how they were implemented.

17:17, 18 January 2013

Let me be the first one then. Basic complain: they don't look like anything else here at Wiktionary; as in all dictionaries, it would be, I think, better to follow standard formatting. I would much rather they looked like a table -- like the ones we have for translations, synonyms, derived terms, etc. when they are too many.

17:28, 18 January 2013

You're free to change {{list:days of the week/lv}} and others to look different, so if you prefer a table you can do that. But I would strongly recommend against writing it all out manually in each entry, that just increases maintenance problems with very little benefit.

17:31, 18 January 2013

But it seems to me all list templates should be made to look more like Wiktionary. Why should there be something here that looks so different? Of course, I could change things manually for Latvian templates, but I'd rather not, exactly for the reasons you mention. Isn't it in the interest of Wiktionary consistency to make things look more similar? (I've occasoinnally seen outside of Wiktionary negative comments on the various formats for inflection tables here.)

17:33, 18 January 2013

It is better to be consistent, but also harder because it means we have to get everyone to agree on something. I'm not sure if my talk page is the right place to discuss it, though.

17:35, 18 January 2013

Indeed. Where should it be discussed then? The Beer Parlor? Should I start a thread there? Where are matters pertaining to the list templates being curreently discussed / done?

17:37, 18 January 2013

Beer Parlour would be best, yes.

17:37, 18 January 2013

OK -- I'll open a thread there now. Thanks for the input.

17:44, 18 January 2013
 
 
 
 

Also, should this rather poor format be chosen to stay, I would rather simply not use the template at all (and leave the non-template lists I've added to those pages as they are) than to change only the Latvian subtemplates -- much as I don't like the format, I like even less the idea of having inconsistent subtemplates. It would be preferable, I think, to simply delete the Latvian subtemplates in this case.

17:36, 18 January 2013
 
 
 
 
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Thread:User_talk:CodeCat/Latvian_color_terms/reply_(4)
en.m.wiktionary.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-30
45338
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:W43AHJMRL2EUAG23OPM4LTDCT5Z3KV3D
<urn:uuid:b5f22b3c-b321-4e07-8935-6bac5ac47816>
2017-07-21T02:55:13Z
208.80.154.224
text/html
sha1:OCOQBUF3AJXPSBXNAW4DLLDTC7XAI4CM
<urn:uuid:482188a2-eae3-49d4-ba5f-56ee1f2d315d>
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Thread:User_talk:CodeCat/Latvian_color_terms/reply_(4)
length
response
<urn:uuid:10b3de65-932f-4d9c-a136-3eeecba174f0>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-232-203-68.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-30
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for July 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf