Disputatio Formulae:coniugatio-Xsum

New Tables

Recently I added this template to Victionarium, mostly to see how it would look here. Might I suggest that we update current verb tables to use this format? It first of all looks much better and information is easier to find at a glance than the current tables. I wouldn't mind doing the updating, but I'd like to run this by other active editors before doing that. If you want to see the template on Wiktionary, it can be found here.

Additionally I noticed that some of the .css and .js will have to be updated to fully accommodate the changes though, but for now that's a worry for later.

So what's everyone's opinion? :)

curate ut valeatis,

-CeNobiteElf 11:21, 21 Maii 2011 (UTC)

Welcome and thanks for contributing! I do have to say I have a few things against the en: template—

• Their template uses colors at random — who will keep these regular? Clearly we won't want color formats that vary from language to language as they do on en:; cf. en:Template:fo-conj (Faroese, brighter colors), en:Template:fi-conj (Finnish, blue), en:Template:sv-conj-base (Swedish, gray), en:Template:ja-verbconj (Japanese, different gray). But then this would mean assigning colors to moods; would this be done by name or by function? And how would the semantics be chosen? (What's blue about the indicative?)
• They arrange the data irregularly—number and TAM actually switch axes about halfway down the chart for no reason other than, apparently, to keep the table square. They also change halfway down from "first, second, and third" person to using the example pronouns "you, he/she" instead, and I'm not sure why.

As far as the css/js changes, is that in reference to the way en: hides information from users? I've always thought that a terrible misfeature and I don't know how it took off; it breaks in-browser search, printing, and the ability to scan quickly through a page without locating and clicking all the tiny 'show' links first. (The OED website does something similar, but it tells you at the top of the page that you're seeing an "outline" and gives you the option to see "full entries" with one click; personally for Wiktionary I think 'full entries' should be the default in general, but I'm guessing that's just me.)

Now, we here on la: haven't had much of an issue with "too much information on a page" showing up here yet in the first place—especially because we don't have the problem of single pages being about multiple topics in the way en: does (en:sum puts articles on ten different words on the same page)—but I believe the current practice, when this is necessary, is to make separate articles, Wikipedia-style. On sum itself there is the example of sum (notatio) for all the etymological data. I don't know if a single Latin conjugation is enough information to merit this kind of treatment, though. —Mucius Tever 14:02, 21 Maii 2011 (UTC)

In regards to your first point: the Japanese and Swedish tables make sense, because the information is more like a list. The consistent use of colour in the Finnish one makes sense as well, because the table is far too big to divide the parts into different colours (that would look like a rainbow), in this case the colours would make it more confusing than actually help. The Latin conjugation tables are small enough to be broken down into different colours and at a glance see where what is.

In my opinion it depends on the languages, it's structure and the active editors for that language. If the majority of Finnish editors liked that table, that colour, thought it represented the structure of their language (or aspect thereof) well and didn't want to change a thing about it, who are we that don't speak the language to decide how to best display information about their language? Additionally, you won't edit words or look them up in a language you know nothing about, you wont even care about templates for them, so most likely only someone that either speaks or shows strong interest in the language will actually edit it or use the information.

As for the second point, I don't know, maybe look at it more like 4 stuck together tables, than one huge table and a table that reads easier than 4 loose tables. :P

I'm not saying that the tables should be used as is. Change it and adapt it, it's only natural. As for css/js, yes, I am proposing the hide button, naturally the default can be set to show the tables. It gives the user a choice on whether he wants to see a table or not.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

-CeNobiteElf 16:15, 21 Maii 2011 (UTC)

Haha, don't get me started on people editing words in languages they don't know or care about — we get plenty of that here, even not counting the people who don't know Latin. ;) Now, thing is, these boxes aren't really made by the majority of editors; usually they're the work of one person, and other people just use them and don't bother to change them unless something's obviously broken about them. I'm just not fond of the patchwork nature of the en templates—it should be a dictionary of all words in all languages, not a bunch of dictionaries, each covering one language, that just happen to share the same site. en has the excuse that it started first and it sort of grew organically, but the newer Wiktionaries should be working with a more consistent plan in mind.

Still, about the show/hide links — On Wikipedia articles, for example, they're generally used for tangential things (like the boxes at the bottom of pages that are basically mini-categories), but not for data integral to the article (like infoboxes). Something like 'formae affines' might go in a show/hide box—not really being data about the word itself—but a verb's conjugation seems more like the sort of thing that ought to be shown.

(Really though, this is just me rambling — would probably want to hear from our other admin on this, if he's still around.) —67.217.15.34 04:02, 22 Maii 2011 (UTC)