Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-07/Placing English definitions in def template or similar

Let me guess: Ensure that wikilinks within the definitions get #English as the target automatically. Please add more in way of rationale. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's already sufficient rationale for me. Under the status quo, if I'm at múin#Irish and click on teach, it takes me to teach#Irish instead of teach#English. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

That doesn't seem to be the status quo, at least for me. I just tried it and it took me to teach (i.e., the top of the page), not teach#Irish. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Angr probably has tabbed browsing enabled. You can try it by going to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets (tab Gadgets) and clicking "Enable Tabbed Languages". --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I like the gadget, though I agree with Angr that the way it treats links is a little annoying. To solve that problem, I think it might be better to make a modification to the gadget (maybe to make English the default tab when an English section exists and no other section has been specified), rather than a radical change to how we format entries. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't feel like {{def}} is a radical change to how we format entries. In its current form, it's a very minor change to how we format entries. However, if {{def}} evolves into something like what Darkdadaah suggested at Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-07/Using template l to link to English entries#Impossible alternate proposal, then it would be a more radical change. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

It clearly is radical. Sense lines are the last bastion of "just being able to type stuff". Imagine the outcry if Wikipedia decided that every sentence must be surrounded by markup. If we want to use XML we should just use XML. Equinox ◑ 03:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Due to its nature, Wiktionary would likely benefit from a markup structure (xml or else), contrary to Wikipedia where this kind of structure is only needed for things like data boxes (which use templates with lots of fields).

In my view this would be ideal, but it is indeed a radical change and it would have to be coupled with a Wiktionary-aware visual editor.

A {{def}} template would be a step in that direction, but we would need a tool similar to the translation gadget. — Dakdada 12:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree, something more XML-like would be ideal, but for now we have to work with what we got. I see no reason to keep the dictionary relatively hard to use for non-editors just to save editors some typing. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

The vast majority of non-editors surely do not use tabbed languages, so {{def}} will have little benefit for them, as far as I can tell. Moreover, Wiktionary needs more non-editors to become regular editors, and the easier it is to edit entries, the more likely that is to happen. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

And if entries were in an XML-like format we could have a real editing interface, we wouldn't have to make people edit wikitext, and we wouldn't have to worry about bullshit like yelling at people about formatting. Putting definitions in a template will make them easier to edit. And tabbed languages should be on by default. DTLHS (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I tentatively agree that it would be a good idea to switch to an XML-like format with a user-friendly interface or to turn tabbed languages on by default. But with the current setup, where neither of those things have been done, I think {{def}} makes entries harder to edit, and I don't see how it provides a significant benefit to more than a small number of users. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 02:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Even without tabbed languages, being taken to the top of the page instead of the English section can be unhelpful in some cases, e.g. a, where an un-logged-in user is confronted first with an enormous Table of Contents and then a Translingual section before the English section. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

What I don't get is, why don't all those XML lovers go contribute to OmegaWiki? It has all the strictures of an entity-relation model already in place, together with a GUI to edit that. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Let me add that Wiktionary is a wiki only as long as its primary editing interface is wikitext, in my book. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's extremely silly. You might do well to read our definition for wiki. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Fine. Now, what's not to like about OmegaWiki? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

As for "A collaborative website which can be directly edited merely by using a web browser, often by anyone with access to it": you mean like Google Docs? Is that a wiki? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Or is www.dict.cc/ a wiki? It is a collaborative web site to which users contribute using a browser. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, Wikidata is a wiki too, and you don't need a Wiki syntax to edit it.

As for Omegawiki, it made the mistake of using meanings as a unit. I.e. for Omegawiki the English apple exactly is the same as the French pomme. In Omegawiki's words, one concept is the same in different languages, but with a different expression. In Wiktionary, we have a meaning in apple and a meaning in pomme that are related, but separated. This subtlety is actually crucial, because for most words there is no 1 to 1 translation between languages. That only works for terminologies, but we aim to describe natural language primarily, so that can't work. — Dakdada 10:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Not to mention Omegawiki is tiny and largely inactive when compared to this project. If it was the bigger project, I'd have joined it instead of here. -Xbony2 (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why is Omegawiki tiny and marginally active? Could it be because of all these strictures, because of that straitjacket? Why is Wiktionary, which does not offer GUI and only offers plain text editing interface, so much more successul? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

What is the difference between en:apple:1 and fr:pomme:1, if any? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

That is an example of direct translation: that's the easy part. That is not the problem here. Try getting a 1 to 1 translation of the other meanings, e.g. pomme = face in French, apple = stairs. You will get something close that you can use to translate, but not something exactly identical. — Dakdada 16:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

What if a JavaScript gadget was used to do this instead of a {{def}} template? It would be less intrusive to wikicode and could be turned on and off. —suzukaze (t・c) 19:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have the same question. Tabbed browsing automatically retargets items in Synonyms, Antonyms, etc. Tabbed browsing makes {{l}} superfluous for Synonyms, etc.; it could also make {{l}} and {{def}} superfluous for definitions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply