Wiktionary:Landsbybrønden/For mange skabeloner?
For mange skabeloner?[redigér]
Når man skal starte en artikel på den danske wikiordbog om et dansk substantiv skal man skrive:
{{=da=}}
{{-noun-|da}}
{{pn}} {{c}}
mens man på den engelske wikiordbog skal skrive noget der på dansk vil svarer til:
==Dansk==
===Substantiv===
{{da-substantiv|c}}
hvor man i da-substantiv kan angive noget om bøjning. Er den engelske måde at gøre det på ikke langt mere overskuelig? Jeg er bange for at den nuværende form på den danske wiktionary skræmme mange nyebegyndere væk fordi det er for meget kode/skabelon-programmeringsagtigt. Med den "engelske" form kan vi også fjerne __NOEDITSECTION__ fra vores skabeloner så brugerne kan nøjes med at redigere et afsnit i stedet for som nu at være tvunget til at redigere på artikel niveau. Kinamand 1. jun 2008, 09:02 (UTC)
- Originally the idea of the =da= template was to make it easy for people who do not speak Danish in this case to still contribute because the same template was supposed to be used on all wiktionaries. The idea was that otherwise it would be hard to find contributers that are e.g. fluent in both Danish and Mongolian, which would mean that the smaller language communities would be disadvantaged in finding material 'in all languages'. The idea was that the templates would make it so that a Dane should still be able to contribute something, say a Danish word in the Mongolian site, using templates we could all understand like -noun- of -adj- and especially the ISO templates for the languages. This idea has pretty much died, because everybody has started to introduce their own formats usually specific to their own languages. And yes the smaller communities have suffered and the fr and en thrive.
- The english wikti was the first to break with that principle, I think mosly because of the noeditsection problem and also because 'everybody speaks English anyway'. (Do they?) Besides, Anglophones don't follow, they only lead... By doing so they have created a problem too, because the =da= template automatically categorized a word in a language category. This is why it is easy to come up with a pretty complete statistic by language here (and at nl,fr etc where the ISO templates are still in use.) but on the english site they could not. They have later realized their problem and have now introduced a new type of template (inf) to compensate for that.
- Of course there is another disadvantage to the english format: people have to know not only what Mongolian is is Danish but also how many = signs to put around it. That means that someone has to police all the headers to make sure they have the right format. If you have a big crowd that is not such a problem and if you work quasi-alone neither but in between you may end up with a mess.
- I wish Dutch (and Danish) contributors would come home rather than to be told that is is 'impolite' to use their mother tongue amongst each other. For some reason people would rather be exploited by the anglophones than work on their own site. I doubt that abolishing the templates will change the situation. If people like this kind of work, they'll learn either way. If fact sometimes we get vandalistic usually sex-oriented new pages that are in perfect format... What does that tell you: that the templates are really that hard?
- We considered abolishing them at nl. One thing you could do is make use of {{subst:=da=}} to replace them all. By a bot e.g. Even with only 35000 pages that is still quite a lot of edits. So we decided not to, but don't let that stop you Kinamand. I understand perfectly that you would like to get more users. Maybe the only way to get them is to follow english example for the sake of following english example, because there is a lot of people who think it is not good enless it is english. Even at nl.wikipedia I have found it was easier to write something in english on the en:wiki first and than 'translate' it into Dutch than to write the same story first in my mother tongue because then the would-be-anglophones would come and tell me it could not be good enough because it was only Dutch..
- Jcwf 1. jun 2008, 18:49 (UTC)
- Som jeg ser det, er skabelonerne en perfekt metode til at gøre det grammatiske indhold let at kopiere mellem sprogene - og så mangler der bare "fritekst"-delen. At man på enwikt ikke er med på ideen, undrer mig ikke, men jeg er også bare en sur gammel mand ;-). Jeg har i øvrigt overvejet om der på Projekt Runeberg måske er en dansk (eller dansk-X) ordbog, som man kunne importere med noget script. --Palnatoke 2. jun 2008, 19:13 (UTC)
- Jcwf 1. jun 2008, 18:49 (UTC)
- Jeg har nu været rundt på mere end 20 forskellige wiktionaries i forbindelse med at jeg lavede artiklen afrikaans og må sige at skabelonerne med sprognavnene i oversættelsesafsnittene kan være til hjælp men ellers er skabelonerne langt fra en perfekt metode. Kig f.eks. på den franske. Den bruger skabeloner meget kraftigt. Jeg tror det skyldes at de fleste artikler er automatiske genereret og det kan man se på at næste alle danske ord er angivet som værende enten hankøn og eller hunkøn. Hvis de var oprettet af et menneske ville de ikke have så oplagt en fejl! Så skabeloner er gode til bevistløs kopiering/oprettelse af artikler men det er jo ikke det vi ønsker! Målet må være gode artikler fremfor mange dårlige artikler.
- Et andet problem med skabelonerne er at de er så forskellige fra wiktionary til wiktionary. De engelske skabeloner er ikke altid perfekte. Faktisk virker den tyske wiktionary som den wiktionary med højste kvalitet men samtidig er den opbygget temmeligt forskelligt fra de fleste andre. Den tyske wiktionary har mange artikler om f.eks. kinesiske ord der er bedre end dem man finder på andre wiktionaries sammenlign f.eks. en:火 og de:火.
- Et særligt problemer er skabeloner til overskrifter fordi det forhindre at man kan have edit på afsnit af en artikel men det ser ud til at man på den tyske wiktionary har fundet en løsning sådan at man kan redigere afsnit for et sprog hvilket man også kan se på de:火. Kinamand 20. jun 2008, 08:03 (UTC)