Discussion utilisateur:Interwicket

Le contenu de la page n’est pas pris en charge dans d’autres langues.
Définition, traduction, prononciation, anagramme et synonyme sur le dictionnaire libre Wiktionnaire.
Bienvenue !

Bienvenue sur le Wiktionnaire, Interwicket. If you don’t speak French, click here

N’hésite pas à consulter comment modifier une page pour de premières indications sur la création et l’édition des pages du Wiktionnaire, ainsi que les conventions et la liste des modèles utilisés. Tu peux également consulter la FAQ et faire tes essais dans le bac à sable.
Pense à consulter les pages d’aide ainsi que les recommandations à suivre, la règle de neutralité, la question des droits d’auteur...

Pour signer tes messages dans les pages de discussions, tape trois fois le caractère ~. Avec un quatrième tilde s’afficheront la date et l’heure. Les articles ne sont pas signés. Nous utilisons parfois des sigles mystérieux pour communiquer entre nous : tu pourras trouver leur explication sur la page jargon.

Si tu viens d’un autre projet Wikimédia, n’oublie pas de mettre les liens vers tes autres pages perso.

Tu peux utiliser ta page personnelle pour te présenter, et demander à te faire parrainer si tu le souhaites.

Si tu as des questions à poser, n’hésite surtout pas à me contacter ou à les poser dans la Wikidémie.

Bonne continuation parmi nous !

Stéphane8888 discuter 26 janvier 2009 à 16:49 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]

Merci! Robert Ullmann 26 janvier 2009 à 17:13 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]
Si tu es Robert Ullmann, pourquoi ne t'inscrits-tu pas sous ce nom Je suis très confusionné--Szyx 26 janvier 2009 à 23:57 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]
Ullmann est mon seigneur et maître. Il regarde le football, je travaille. Interwicket 31 janvier 2009 à 08:41 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]
Oui il s'agit d'un robot qui ajoute les inter-wiki. Quelque chose de très utile, je pense. PS les liens inter-langue n'ont pas marché, je les supprime, donc. Mglovesfun 31 janvier 2009 à 14:11 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]

Speed of bot[modifier le wikicode]

Hi, is the bot working at full speed yet? I've had a look through its edits and it seems to be doing really well. Mglovesfun 11 février 2009 à 14:09 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]

Yes, I have flags on most of the big wikts, including fr. Sometimes I have to make edits on 20 or 30 different wikts for one title. ::I'm looking for titles that have lots of mismatched links, either missing or not symmetrical. And watching recent changes on all the wikts. Ullmann, he watches me work. Interwicket 11 février 2009 à 16:48 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]
It seems to have slowed down at lot, Spacybirdybot is adding more interwikis than Wicket is. Mglovesfun 19 février 2009 à 21:35 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]
Oui, I am debugging a new control sequence. Should be faster, once it stops failing ;-). The objective is to catch all missing links, not just those on pages that already have links or are new. And integrate into one task. In the meantime, birdy can do some ... Robert Ullmann

Wrong behaviour of robot?[modifier le wikicode]

This robot changed in French "cardan" page:


but "gimbal" is English for French "cardan"

English "cardan" page only mentions Spanish verb "cardar"

So it looks like there's an extreme confusion here... How can we change that?

Or is that normal behaviour? Are those left-side links for *homonyms* or for *translations*? MathsPoetry 1 avril 2009 à 18:53 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]

No this is correct, it's not like Wikipedia. Interwicket only adds inter-wikis for pages that are identical. So jouer links to jouer and not to play, spielen, jugar, etc. Mglovesfun 1 avril 2009 à 18:58 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]
Traduction : Non c'est déjà bon, ce n'est pas comme on le fait sur Wikipédia. Interwicket n'ajoute les inter-wikis que pour les pages strictement identiques. Donc jouer a un lien pour jouer, et non pas play, spielen, jugar, etc. Mglovesfun 1 avril 2009 à 18:58 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]
Oups je sais pas pourquoi je cause ici en anglais moi (grosse fatigue !). OK, j'ai fait une bêtise, je vais rectifier, merci pour ces précisions et pardon pour le dérangement. MathsPoetry 1 avril 2009 à 19:03 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]
Ah ben si, je sais pourquoi j'ai écrit en anglais : l'intervention précédente est dans la langue de Shakespeare ! Clin d’œil MathsPoetry 1 avril 2009 à 19:05 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]

Interwicket and typographic apostrophe[modifier le wikicode]

Hi, I see Interwicket removed link of comme d’habitude (see here). It removes it because english article uses non typographic apostrophe whereas french article use typographic apostrophe. Can you correct it ? Pamputt [Discuter] 3 avril 2009 à 08:05 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]

Aren't we the only Wiktionary to use that? Also, is there one on a QWERTY keyboard, as I have to copy and paste one every time I need one. Mglovesfun 3 avril 2009 à 09:40 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]
Yes, this is the only wikt to use it. (English) QWERTY keyboards only have ' (and, amusingly, `) but not ’. It seems very odd to me to use RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK for an apostrophe... (Yes, in rendering/typesetting. But in content? ;-)
See en:User:Interwicket/redirects for a discussion of this and many other issues. The English wikt links to redirects, but here the default is as it was, to not link to redirects, however useful. (Gerard was adamant that linking to them was somehow wrong (?), and unilaterally imposed that attitude on all the wikts while running RobotGMwikt.) There are quite a few cases of differing conventions between wikts; it isn't possible to compensate in code, it would involve a large and endlessly growing series of exceptions and special cases. (;-)
Also by using the redirects the local convention for any given entry can simple be changed around at will.
Note that the entry in the en.wikt en:comme d'habitude, which does link to redirects, has an iwiki that properly arrives at the entry here.
If you add a link to the redirect on the English wikt, Interwicket will not remove it, but the other interwiki bots will. (Which is why they are prohibited from running on the en.wikt, so as not to remove the links to fr.wikt redirects, etc, etc) Robert Ullmann 3 avril 2009 à 12:09 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]
Could you please ignore the difference between ' and ’ here on French Wiktionary? That surely causes a problem. Not all language versions have pages with ’, and Interwicket deletes interwiki links again and again. That is really annoying. — TAKASUGI Shinji (d) 26 avril 2009 à 01:40 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]
I agree that this is an issue. One solution might be to change Interwicket (special case). Another solution might be to add redirects between the two kinds of apostrophes on en.wiktionary (and on all other wiktionaries as well), and that all interwiki bots accept links to redirects for wiktionaries. Lmaltier 26 avril 2009 à 06:33 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]
Also note that ’ is the normal character to be used as a typographic apostrophe (whatever the name it may have in standards...) Lmaltier 26 avril 2009 à 06:33 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]
It may be "normal" for French, but it is wrong in English. The entry here at (for example) wasn’t, is incorrect, as an English word it should be at wasn't. (English keyboards don't have  ;-)
It would be possible to "special case" this just for the French wikt, but there are many many special cases overall. Please see en:User:Interwicket/redirects. What we should do is enable linking to redirects on all wikts, and then all of the special cases can be handled as needed. (In this special case other wikts would either use ’ (U+2019) for French words, or redirect them to the usual ASCII apostrophe, as they prefer.)
And do note that this is the proper function of redirects in wikis, we just need to allow the interwiki links to use them; not linking to redirects was an extremely poor design decision (before my time) Robert Ullmann 28 avril 2009 à 04:29 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]
Sorry, but what you state is wrong. Just have a look to any book or magazine, you'll see that wasn’t is the normal typography. Actually, it's exactly the same in English and in French (and in almost all other languages):
  • Publishers use the typographic apostrophe.
  • Early keyboard designers chose not to include this apostrophe (just as they chose to propose a single key for 1 and for l). Their idea was the fewer keys, the better.
  • Neither AZERTY nor QWERTY keyboards have this key. This is why ' is more usual in Internet pages, whatever their language (but text processors usually correct this into ’).
But I agree that allowing interwiki links to redirects helps to solve this issue. Lmaltier 28 avril 2009 à 06:55 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]
Pardon me, but my family was in the printing business, and I grew up learning this. I've run a Linotype. It has (second row from the bottom in the center section, usually blue keys :-) a character (font matrix) called "quote", and one called "apostrophe". These are used in combination to set single and double quotes: `` '' and ` ', and apostrophe '. They are represented in ASCII (decimal 96 and 27), with a double quote character (22) added (not removed to reduce the number of keys) so as to provide reasonable rendering in monospace fonts. (which is all there were on computers ;-) The Unicode/ISO standards then misrepresented "left single quotation mark" (96, `) as "grave accent", and added a spurious "right single quotation mark" (U+2019) saying that should now be "apostrophe" as well (!). Which results in the lousy presentation `` '' and ` ', and apostrophe ' in some fonts (including here). But the US and British standards specify (27, ') as apostrophe, and real typesetters like the Linotype and the optical film replacements for the Linotype set apostrophes (code 27) correctly, with the glyph you call a "typographical apostrophe" ... (;-). Enough history? All of which is off the direct topic, which is how to make the redirects work, as you say. Robert Ullmann 28 avril 2009 à 11:15 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]
(I'll also point out that I did all my schoolwork on a Royal Deluxe manual made in 1926, and have thousands of hours on an ASR 33 Teletype, so I know how those code sets fed into ASCII etc. ;-) Robert Ullmann 28 avril 2009 à 11:28 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]
As far as I know, this part is incorrect:
>The Unicode/ISO standards then misrepresented "left single quotation mark" (96, `) as "grave accent",
It’s the Americans who used the grave accent wrongly for the left single quotation mark. See Apostrophe and acute accent confusion and ASCII and Unicode quotation marks. — TAKASUGI Shinji (d) 28 avril 2009 à 11:47 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]
That author is saying what he thinks should be done, given the present state; but he is wrong about the original characters. The two characters (60 and 27) come from the left quote glyph (called "quote") and the right quote/apostrophe glyph, called "apostrophe", used in hot-metal typesetting from 1886 into the 1980's. Check out the keyboard I referred to; very familiar to me. Look at the appearance of "Quote" and "Apostrophe" in the bottom middle (in the full size image). It got messed up with 27 being mis-represented as a "straight" quote in computer fonts (but never in typesetting); so now if gets hacked (by MS word notably, and fr.wikt), to try to make it "look" right; to the point where the right single quote code is "preferred" to force the desired appearance for apostrophe in poor fonts. Robert Ullmann 28 avril 2009 à 17:04 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]

Voir meta:WM:IW-WIKT Robert Ullmann 28 avril 2009 à 11:35 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]

I must say that I'm not a specialist. I misunderstood you: I thought that you were explaining that ’ was the normal character in French and that ' was the normal character in English. What I wanted to say is that the apostrophe character is the same in French and in English, which is very clear when you read books. You may disagree with Unicode/ISO, but we have to do with this standard, as we use it. I don't want to enter into theoretical considerations (I'm not competent), I only want to ensure that readers printing Wiktionary pages get a good result. Lmaltier 28 avril 2009 à 13:11 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]
As you note, the problem is that the screen fonts don't display (27, apostrophe) correctly (it should look like the glyph for right single quote) so people (not just fr.wikt!) (mis-)use U+2019 to the point where it becomes "preferred". (Oddly, the windows console screen font does it correctly!) A fine mess.
I'm not suggesting fixing the fr.wikt (or the fonts), just getting the redirects to work. Can we allow links to redirects from fr.wikt? Robert Ullmann 28 avril 2009 à 16:44 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]
I'll (I’ll ?) get a discussion going to see if we can't find an answer. Mglovesfun 28 avril 2009 à 17:09 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]
As I have written in en:User talk:Interwicket/redirects#Apostrophe, U+2019 (’) is the standard Unicode character for both apostrophy and right single quotation mark (U+2000-206F). U+0027 (') is supposed to have a vertical shape, because it is used not only for apostrophe but also for both left and right single quotation marks (U+0000-007F). The old typesetting machine actually doesn’t matter here.
> Can we allow links to redirects from fr.wikt?
There will be no problem. — TAKASUGI Shinji (d) 29 avril 2009 à 15:02 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]

Why is Interwicket removing the links from the English Appendix:Variations pages to the Frech /voir pages?[modifier le wikicode]

Identity of title should only apply in mainspace. I realize that the /voir pages (e.g. am/voir) are technically in mainspace, but they function as an appendix, for which the English variations pages (e.g. Appendix:Variations of "am") are the closest equivalent. The links between these pages are, therefore, useful and should be kept. Cheers! bd2412 T 7 juin 2009 à 06:32 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]

As you say, these are appendixes; they should be moved out of main namespace. Given the way they are used, they could and should simply be moved to Template (Modele) namespace. (The redirects might be left for the time being, so as not to modify any pages.) Robert Ullmann 9 juin 2009 à 12:54 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]
I agree with you, see Wiktionnaire:Wikidémie/juin_2009#Pages_.2Fvoir. --Szyx (d) 9 juin 2009 à 13:07 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]


la page anglaise ne mentione que la forme verbale, pas le forme nominale, qui semble être workout en un seul mot. N'étant pas un spécialiste de la langue anglaise, je te laisse juge de la pertinence de ce que tu as écrit.

Cdang 19 août 2010 à 12:12 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]

Oui, "work out" is never a noun, the noun is always workout. Robert Ullmann 19 août 2010 à 14:09 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]

Robert Ullmann, utilisateur du bot Interwicket, est mort le 19 mars 2011. (→ en:User:Robert Ullmann) — TAKASUGI Shinji (d) 30 mai 2011 à 11:09 (UTC)Répondre[répondre]