Discussion utilisateur:Interwicket

Bienvenue !

Bienvenue sur le Wiktionnaire, Interwicket. If you don’t speak French, click here Si vous souhaitez contribuer, n’hésitez pas à consulter comment modifier une page pour de premières indications sur la création et la modification des pages du Wiktionnaire, ainsi que les conventions, la liste des modèles utilisés et les critères d’acceptabilité des entrées. Vous pouvez également consulter la FAQ et faire vos essais dans le « bac à sable ». Vous pouvez également consulter les pages d’aide ainsi que les recommandations à suivre pour la rédaction, les règles sur la neutralité de point de vue et la question des droits d’auteur. Pour signer vos messages dans les pages de discussions, tapez quatre fois le caractère ~, ou cliquez sur le bouton de la barre d’outils en mode édition. Les pages de contenu ne sont pas signées. Nous utilisons parfois des sigles mystérieux pour communiquer entre nous : vous pourrez trouver leurs explications sur la page jargon. Vous pouvez utiliser votre page personnelle locale ou générale pour vous présenter, et demander à vous faire parrainer si vous le souhaitez. Vous pouvez aussi personnaliser votre compte. En haut de votre page personnelle cliquez sur Préférences. Dans la nouvelle page vous pouvez obtenir des informations sur votre compte, changer votre mot de passe, personnaliser votre signature, opter pour les courriels, modifier l’apparence du site, et utiliser des gadgets en Javascript. Si vous venez d’un autre projet Wikimédia, vous pouvez le signaler avec un lien. Certains modèles le font d’ailleurs automatiquement. Si vous avez des questions à poser, n’hésitez surtout pas à me contacter ou à les poser sur nos pages de discussion. Bonne continuation parmi nous !

Stéphane8888 discuter 26 janvier 2009 à 16:49 (UTC)

Merci! Robert Ullmann 26 janvier 2009 à 17:13 (UTC)

Si tu es Robert Ullmann, pourquoi ne t'inscrits-tu pas sous ce nom --Szyx 26 janvier 2009 à 23:57 (UTC)

Ullmann est mon seigneur et maître. Il regarde le football, je travaille. Interwicket 31 janvier 2009 à 08:41 (UTC)

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)

Speed of bot

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)

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)

It seems to have slowed down at lot, Spacybirdybot is adding more interwikis than Wicket is. Mglovesfun 19 février 2009 à 21:35 (UTC)

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?

This robot changed in French "cardan" page:

 -en:gimbal
+en:cardan

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ah ben si, je sais pourquoi j'ai écrit en anglais : l'intervention précédente est dans la langue de Shakespeare ! MathsPoetry 1 avril 2009 à 19:05 (UTC)

Interwicket and typographic apostrophe

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)