| User talk:AnWulf Jan 30th 2012, 03:26 Middle English entries not in accord with WT:ELE: | ← Older revision | Revision as of 03:26, 30 January 2012 | | Line 137: | Line 137: | | | :::As for the alphabetical order, I quote: ''English comes next because this is the English Wiktionary. After that come the other languages in alphabetical order.'' The last time I checked, Middle English is still English. It's not a different language. It is not an OTHER language it. It is still English. You can make the case that OE is different (and maybe should be called Anglo-Saxon which would put it up high on the list) but ME is mainly knowing the vocab and working thru the spelling variations. In the case of bir that would put down about 7th or 8th on the list. Does it really make sense to you that someone reading a ME passage and uses wikt should have to scroll past seven OTHER (FOREIGN) languages to get to meaning of English word found in ME? If you want to move it, go ahead. But it make a lot more sense that it should be before any FOREIGN language. ... And not only that, it's a lot easier and faster to work with when it is up top than having to scroll thru the other mess to make the entry. --[[User:AnWulf|AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal!]] 01:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC) | | :::As for the alphabetical order, I quote: ''English comes next because this is the English Wiktionary. After that come the other languages in alphabetical order.'' The last time I checked, Middle English is still English. It's not a different language. It is not an OTHER language it. It is still English. You can make the case that OE is different (and maybe should be called Anglo-Saxon which would put it up high on the list) but ME is mainly knowing the vocab and working thru the spelling variations. In the case of bir that would put down about 7th or 8th on the list. Does it really make sense to you that someone reading a ME passage and uses wikt should have to scroll past seven OTHER (FOREIGN) languages to get to meaning of English word found in ME? If you want to move it, go ahead. But it make a lot more sense that it should be before any FOREIGN language. ... And not only that, it's a lot easier and faster to work with when it is up top than having to scroll thru the other mess to make the entry. --[[User:AnWulf|AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal!]] 01:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC) | | | :::: That quotation formatting is ''not'' fine. If you don't want to track down all the helpful detailed metadata, that's not a big deal, but the overall format still needs to be the same. —[[User: Ruakh |Ruakh]]<sub ><small ><i >[[User talk: Ruakh |TALK]]</i ></small ></sub > 02:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC) | | :::: That quotation formatting is ''not'' fine. If you don't want to track down all the helpful detailed metadata, that's not a big deal, but the overall format still needs to be the same. —[[User: Ruakh |Ruakh]]<sub ><small ><i >[[User talk: Ruakh |TALK]]</i ></small ></sub > 02:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC) | | | + | :::::Sure it's fine and let me explain to you why it is. First of all, I got that formatting from copying others. In fact, 90% of what I'v learned has come from seeing how others hav done it before me. Wikt does not lead new folks down the yellow brick road on how to make entries. Indeed, I'm still discovering switches that don't seem to be explained elsewhere. That format is very widespread, otherwise I wouldn't know about it. | | | + | :::::Now, you admin folks like to play Calvinball. You make up the rules as you go and when someone points out that it's not what the rules actually say, well heck, you're Calvin so you go and change the rules. But as it stands the last time I looked, the rules say "preferred" ... Now, if I need to explain "preferred" to you, then you need to giv up your admin privileges. You say that the "overall" format needs to be the same yet there is one format for "examples" and a "preferred" one for quotes ... and they're different ... So already, they're not the same. | | | + | :::::Then it starts becoming more style and preferences ... personally ... I find having to make another click to see to a quote to be irksome. For a word with one meaning, it's not a big deal. But for word with several meanings which means that I have to make several more clicks then I start cursing the bonehead who came up with that idea. Very poor user interface. And to be honest, all that megadata is clutter. Websters does it right when it gives a quote with a name ..."blah, blah, blah"—Chaucer. Do users truly want to know the year, page, publisher, and exact piece of work in a dictionary? I think not. It may make it easier for the admins to verify the quote but otherwise it is clutter to the avg user. It would be nice if the megadata itself were in a separate dropdown for the few who want it rather than the quote and the megadata cluttering up the space for everyone. | | | + | :::::So, YOU can spend 5-10 minutes to put in the format that YOU "prefer" (I don't really care ... I just do what is faster for me) or keep whining and spend even more time to chase down the megadata and put it in yourself. --[[User:AnWulf|AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal!]] 03:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC) | | |
