Benutzer Diskussion:GerardM

----> Neue Nachtricht <-----

templates

ahoi, wir haben vor monaten dazu eine diskussion gefuehrt: Wiktionary Diskussion:Formatvorlage/Archiv2004/Mai#Kompatibilität mit anderen Wiktionaries. sind denn alle aspekte der diskussion bedacht worden? ausserdem sind wir dagegen, dass zum beispiel die sprachen wie Afrikaans in Tschechisch verlinkt werden. ausserdem sind auch die sprachen nach der automatischen uebernahme nicht nach dem deutschen alphabet sortiert (betrifft beispielsweise weissrussisch, deutsch, jiddisch). und wie passt das mit unserer formatvorlage zusammen, gibt es eine moeglichkeit die dinge zu kombinieren? gruss vom etwas verwirrten Justy 13:21, 20. Okt 2004 (UTC)

Hoi,

The templates that have been created, are the same as in use on many more wiktionaries. It was at first developped at the nl:wiktionary, transplanted to the en: the fr: vi: hi: it: cs:. The consequence is that a lot of new content can be created on the de:wiktionary. For all the languages here, there are many translations. The only thing to be added is the definition of the word. When required the etymology. As the referring from translations to the language the translation is in, is done within the local content of the template, there is nothing stopping you from making them text only (in stead of a wiki). I created this content to swow you what it looks like. It is also helpfull as I can SEE what languages have content and which do not.

The template -de- contains the Kategorie:Deutsch and as such all words that use this template, will exist in the content of the category automagically. NB I started this excercise as the capitalisation had been turned off. Now it makes sense to create the templates, otherwise you have to do the work twice.

Thanks, GerardM 13:34, 20. Okt 2004 (UTC)

we know that this solution exists, i wrote you (above), that we had the discussion about this templates in may 2004 and our main-admin said that it will slow the server. also it isnt easy for users to add languages to this because they wont know the abbreviation of the languages. its right, that the exchange is much easier than in other versions. so, we will see, what will happen and greetings Justy 13:48, 20. Okt 2004 (UTC)

(please write on my page and not on yours if you want to answer)

Moving entries

Hello GerardM, please wait with moving so many entries from nl to de. We have some serious points to discuss previously! E.G. we will not link languages (like Afrikaans). It gets to complex. We have to discuss (here on de.wikt) and to agree to some serious points first. One more example are the hundreds of templates. Please wait until we have a common opinion on de.wikt. We will work together with you, but we need time to discuss some things! -- Best wishes, [[Benutzer:Melancholie|Melancholie - Diskussion -]] 19:06, 21. Okt 2004 (UTC)

RobotGMwikt

Please have a look on Benutzer_Diskussion:RobotGMwikt! -- Melancholie→Diskussion 12:34, 12. Jul 2005 (UTC)

Your bot should be unblocked since 14:17 UTC, by the way (if MediaWiki 1.5 works properly ;-) --- Otherwise let me know, Melancholie→Diskussion 16:47, 12. Jul 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer

Thanks for answering (anybody curious? → [1]). I do not entirely agree - but then, that would be boring *g* --Jonas (= 09:22, 11. Dez. 2005 (UTC)

You mention not to entirely agree. When you do not give arguments why, it is empty information. Information that has no value because it does not give food for thought. GerardM 14:47, 18. Dez. 2005 (UTC)

It is not empty, it opens (but leaves open where to). Which is, in a way, quite a wiki way =)

But I'll have look if I can offer you any food at your blog... ;-) --Jonas (= 16:00, 18. Dez. 2005 (UTC)

Now I have information that has no value, although it is not empty... It seems to me you are anything but starving, and have loads of food for thought. You mention a lot of things in your blog that I do not understand, and unfortunately I lack the time to follow the links and investigate. But a few questions: Does the Ultimate Wiktionary (UW) have a corpus? A selection of texts that is the basis for the choice of "LexicalItems" as well as their meaning and function? Is there a reference system? - How will different phases of languages be dealt with? Word X may have a certain meaning in a given century, and change its meaning (but not its form) in later times. On the other hand, Word Z may change its form, but not its meaning. How will the UW deal with the historical changes that languages go through? Yours, Jonas (= 16:16, 18. Dez. 2005 (UTC)

Like the current Wiktionaries, WiktionaryZ has no corpus at this moment. What do you call a "reference system" ? The development of languages is at this moment only partially modelled in the database. So far, the Ultimate Wiktionary project is particularly intended for modern languages and their contemporary use. Changes of spelling are included; it is therefore possible to inform about the compulsory changes in languages like German and Dutch.

Changes in meaning over time do not have a place either in the Wiktionaries and in WiktionaryZ. This is something that can (and should) be added in time. At this moment we still have to find the functionality to say that a noun can have a gender or that a noun can have multiple genders (depending on the locale). GerardM 11:38, 9. Jan. 2006 (UTC)

By a "reference system" I mean a way to give evidence for a word (or its use/ meaning). This may be a full quote (where the word is found) along with its source, but it can also be an abbreviation e.g. for title and page/line of the quote. It could also be a hyperlink leading to such a quote (and, obviously, leading to problems ;-). This may not seem urgent: usually native speakers will know a word and its meaning. But there are a lot of rare or new words, which are not found in the common dictionaries, and sometimes also not in the specialized dictionaries (for single authors, areas, magazines, sociolects...). Sometimes discussions erupt about the claimed (non-)existence of a word. What kind of evidence is required for a word to be added/ saved from deletion? How is this evidence referenced?

Or in short: You might see a reference system as useful for a "NPOV" in the Wiktionary(Z). PS: I like the idea of a unified search for all Wikimedia projects :-))) Yours, --Jonas =) 14:05, 9. Jan. 2006 (UTC)