Difference between revisions of "Talk:Vocabulary"
Na'rìghawnu (talk | contribs) |
Na'rìghawnu (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
:: I agree - it looks awesome. I also agree that the translations of the sourced examples should be in quotation marks; I don't think the English definitions of the entries themselves should be, though (I'm not sure if that's what you meant or not, Wm.) -- [[User:Erimeyz|Erimeyz]] 16:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC) | :: I agree - it looks awesome. I also agree that the translations of the sourced examples should be in quotation marks; I don't think the English definitions of the entries themselves should be, though (I'm not sure if that's what you meant or not, Wm.) -- [[User:Erimeyz|Erimeyz]] 16:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
::: Right, I mean in the examples, not the definition. [[User:Wm.annis|Wm.annis]] 16:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC) | ::: Right, I mean in the examples, not the definition. [[User:Wm.annis|Wm.annis]] 16:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | :::: Ok. I will do this. [[User:Na'rìghawnu|Na'rìghawnu]] 16:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
: My next question — why use red to indicate the accent, when Frommer has already given us a way to do that, which is just as fussy in wiki markup as making the font red? | : My next question — why use red to indicate the accent, when Frommer has already given us a way to do that, which is just as fussy in wiki markup as making the font red? | ||
::Because underling often causes problems, e. g. to separate "y" and "v" (as it did in frommers message text too). I see the red color as a much better way not to interfere with the letters. [[User:Na'rìghawnu|Na'rìghawnu]] 16:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC) | ::Because underling often causes problems, e. g. to separate "y" and "v" (as it did in frommers message text too). I see the red color as a much better way not to interfere with the letters. [[User:Na'rìghawnu|Na'rìghawnu]] 16:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 16:30, 23 January 2010
Layout
This is excellent! But before you get too much further, I'm a little worried about using tables for everything. They frankly a pain in the butt to work with, and it's easy for even experienced Wiki editors to have trouble with them. Templates can take arguments... perhaps we could agree on some layout here, and then use that in the main dictionary (unless of course everyone else adores tables)? Wm.annis 20:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad, that you like it. About the tables: I'm not a very experienced Wiki-editor, so I choosed tables, because I thought they would do it. If there are other ways to produce alike results, I'm keen on learning about them. So, if you have got some advice or suggestions about better ways for the layout, Id like to hear them. Na'rìghawnu 08:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC) 22:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I suggest removing the tables and doing the vocabulary as plain text, like the following example. Any comments? Na'rìghawnu 08:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
'ekong [Ɂɛkoŋ] (N). beat (rhythmic), e. g. heart~. ► ekong telanä - the beat of the hearts (ASG, Weaving Song).
- That looks awesome. Wm.annis 15:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- It might be good to put the translations in quotes, so we can plain, unquoted text to make quick comments about the grammar of a word, etc. Also, do we really want to enter plurals as separate entries? Wm.annis 15:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree - it looks awesome. I also agree that the translations of the sourced examples should be in quotation marks; I don't think the English definitions of the entries themselves should be, though (I'm not sure if that's what you meant or not, Wm.) -- Erimeyz 16:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Right, I mean in the examples, not the definition. Wm.annis 16:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ok. I will do this. Na'rìghawnu 16:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Right, I mean in the examples, not the definition. Wm.annis 16:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree - it looks awesome. I also agree that the translations of the sourced examples should be in quotation marks; I don't think the English definitions of the entries themselves should be, though (I'm not sure if that's what you meant or not, Wm.) -- Erimeyz 16:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- My next question — why use red to indicate the accent, when Frommer has already given us a way to do that, which is just as fussy in wiki markup as making the font red?
- Because underling often causes problems, e. g. to separate "y" and "v" (as it did in frommers message text too). I see the red color as a much better way not to interfere with the letters. Na'rìghawnu 16:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
