Re: Langmaker and FrathWiki (was Re: Wikipedia:Verifiability - Mailing lists as sources)

On 05/03/2008, Sai Emrys <sai@...> wrote:

>
>  So, if an article about a language is available *in* that language, we
>  have a standardized two-column format. Sorta like you'd find in e.g. a
>  original-and-translation Bible at the most detailed (with footnotes on
>  translation quirks and all), or other parallel-translation text more
>  commonly.
I suggest having a toggle that works in the same way as the "other
languages" links in Pedia. (Which reminds, I noticed the other day
there was no page for Kēlen, only its Conlang 12 relay text page,
which brought to mind the many, many languages out there that are
fascinatingly well-developed but aren't on a wiki or such collective
resource -- Verdurian being a prime example -- and also the question
if it would be right to do any more than create a reference link stub
on Frath etc.)

>
>  If an article is one of the very few for which we have more than one
>  translation - e.g. Babel Text, Hamlet, or one of the more standard
>  form primers - then we set up something special. Maybe one translation
>  per page, parallel with the version of source used. Maybe even (this
>  would take a bit of wikiwizardry but is doable) something where
>  someone can select any given two translations to see 'em side by side.
>
>  (For reference, I have in mind something like e.g. halyihev and
>  tsiasuk-pron on ZBB frequently posting parallel translations in their
>  conlangs.)
>
>  In any case, the point - just as with the categorization etc - is to
>  not have such a translation languish unseen. And pragmatically, that
>  means it should be seen together with the English version, because
>  English is the real IAL of our era.
>
>  This would have the additional benefit of making all instances of this
>  an extension of the primer, for people who want to learn the language.
>
An additional function perhaps, to the wiki software that says "Add
your own translation" besides "article", "discussion", "history" and
"edit? Perhaps the new translation'd appear in the toggle box that I
suggested above.

>
>  >  I'd like to help, but have no knowledge about programming, and am not
>  >  confident will come up with something everyone's satisfied with (dang,
>  >  people might even dislike what I can give), so if anyone has the time,
>  >  or doesn't find me a pain in the ass... (:
>
>
> Experiment. ;-)
>
>  Create a new page to use as a sandbox, copy whatever you want to edit
>  into it, and then link to it from somewhere people will see once you
>  get something you like (or you get stuck). Try asking on wikicommons
>  or metawiki if you have questions about how to *do* something per se.
>  See if there's something on Wikipedia that looks like what you want
>  and copy it.
>
>  I'm hardly a wikiwizard, but I've managed to do things - usually by a)
>  trying naively, b) searching for an explanation or FAQ about it when
>  that doesn't work, and c) shamelessly copying something similar and
>  then just trying random things in a harmless place until it does work
>  like I want it to. FWIW, the most complicated things I've done on
>  Wikipedia are <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Constructed_languages>
>  and <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WP_conlangs>.
>
>  I had no idea how to do either when I started - as you can see if you
>  look at the (many) revisions on the history pages before I got
>  something that worked. ;-) Most of that is the same process - try,
>  copy, try again, edit, view, edit, view, add new thing, repeat.
>  Eventually you'll just osmose the stuff. :-P
>
How's not so much the problem, since, as you said, experimentation can
usually solve much of the snags. Can empathise with what you had to go
through to pick up the wiki software; while editing Pedia had to
endure much of the same. Was looking more for people willing to
collaborate/give opinions on structure, layout, design, content. Added
benefit being that work could probably continue apace even if, say, I
landed a major job giving me an hour of free time every day. (: Though
you're right, the sandbox thing could probably do very well.

Something I realised, though, is that many of the templates and
automated functions that make Pedia seem to work like a breeze require
administrator privileges on the server. Tried to copy certain
history/geography/linguistic templates and boxes from there, before
realising that the important code was all in a back page and the box
itself contained only references to such as I could not access. So boo
there, and which explains why I mentioned coding/programming.


On 05/03/2008, ROGER MILLS <rfmilly@...> wrote:
> On the general subject of editing-- I don't think ANY authorial errors
>  (including egregious mis-spellings and bad grammar, html boo-boos or even
>  ovbious typos, not to mention content) should be corrected without notifying
>  the author and obtaining consent, or allowing him/her to make the
>  corrections herm-self.
>
I'm guilty of that. Correcting spelling, I mean. I just did it twice
in the past week, or something like that. Whoops. Though I think
probably typos, spelling errors or straightforward grammar errors
(heck, any straightforward errors -- i.e. no hidden implications)
could probably be corrected at will, and the author would probably be
thankful the edit wasn't referred to him for a missing plural, say, or
a missing </b> tag (which is pretty darned obvious on the page ;) ).


Eugene