Talk:Vocabulary

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)