Glottopedia:Problems

Please list any bugs, problems or request for upgrades and module installations here.

Please start a new section for each issue and sign all entries.

Summary

- An explanation for "Summary" (during editing) is missing. --NBlöcher

solved for English and German. --wohlgemuth (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2014 (CEST)

Sidebar Language

- A note concerning the fixed language setting of the sidebar (preferrably mentioned when setting the default language at the beginning) would be lovely. It was rather confusing in the beginning that my sidebar didn't switch to German when I was looking at pages in German. --NBlöcher

Definition of "Section"

- I am not sure whether I have formatted the issues stated above in the correct way ("Please start a new section for each issue"). --NBlöcher

Internet References

- I miss a guideline for internet-based references here Glottopedia:References. --NBlöcher

Two Versions of the Main Page

- Apparently there are two versions of the English main page: a short (older?) version and the one which I consider the "real" one. Can the first one be deleted? --NBlöcher

Yes, that ought to be removed. I made it so. --wohlgemuth (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2014 (CEST)

Random Article Function

- Would it be at all possible to create a "random article"-function? Especially for someone who has just recently started using Glottopedia this might be a nice feature. --NBlöcher

whoops. that is active by default. I never realized it's gone. --wohlgemuth (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2014 (CEST)

Article Languages

- On the main page there are some languages listed in which articles can already be found (Swedish, Italian, etc), but not all of those languages can be found in Category:Language Articles. I assume that either those articles have not been categorised properly or that they simply do not exist. Whatever the reason is, it might be confusing for new users who would especially like to contribute in their native tongue. Is there any other way to search for these articles? Otherwise the example languages on the main page should be replaced in order to avoid confusion. --NBlöcher

If they are not categorized via language categories, one can only browse through the entire list of articles and categorize them manually. :( Should you ever feel bored enough to do that, you'll be welcome. --wohlgemuth (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2014 (CEST)

TOC behaviour

(reported by Kajta) - TOC always aligns right when using the magic word __TOC.

This is due to the settings in Template:TOC which forced floar-right; automatied TOC are floating left, however.

I redefined the Template and created a new one Template:TOCRIGHT suggest using Template:TOCright for right-floating TOCs

--wohlgemuth (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2014 (CEST)

After our most recent discussion, I changed the TOC so that it's no longer a floating environment. It now appears directly over the paragraph where it's put. For a floating environment, Template:TOCright is still available. --KPolitt

Problems with the Search Function

- If I want to look up a term (let us say "Modalität") I get directly linked to the page "Modalität" without being shown suggestions such as "Did you mean "Physische Modalität", "Epistemische Modalität", etc. Is there any way to be shown alternative uses of words? Also does the search function seem to lack the ability to correct wrong spellings.

Please sign entries.

That seems to be a software problem. In Wikipedia, they solve this with disambiguation pages. -wohlgemuth (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2014 (CEST)

Glottopedia: About

- Two pages for Glottopedia:About exist: Glottopedia:About and Glottopedia:About_Glottopedia. Their content is identical, can one of these two be deleted? (Found this issue here, too, after looking around a bit.) --KPolitt (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2014 (CEST)

Yes, The latter should simply rediirect to the former. --wohlgemuth (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2014 (CEST)

It doesn't, at least for me. They appear as two different pages with identical content but different headings. --KPolitt (talk) 09:36, 29 June 2014 (CEST)

Stub articles that refer to another article

- How to deal with articles that refer to another, more commonly used term? I've come across articles just like Relativierter Kopf quite often. They tend to be marked as stub, but I would rather look as them as either synonyms or terms that are a part of another article. Can the stub categorisation be deleted in cases where a reference to another article can be found? --NBlöcher

One category too much?

- Apparently there are both the categories Category:Phonetics and Category:Phonetics and Phonology. Is it necessary to have them both? I could understand a differentiation between Phonetics and Phonology, but having those two does not make a lot of sense to me. --NBlöcher

Language categorisations "missing" in HTML?

- Not a real problem, rather something that has lead to some confusion. Articles that are clearly marked as "EN" or "De" on the regular page lack this category when I edit them. What I find to be confusing is that this mostly concernes the language categories, seldomly other categories such as Syntax, etc. An example can be found here Base (in morphology). Is there any explanation for it? Also does this article have to be re-categorised as "En", but I can't remove the "De" category: Behaghel's Law --NBlöcher

I changed the category to "En" in Behaghel's Law. The reason why it didn't was that is was still categorised as {{wb}} which attributes DICT and De. Adding a separate En doesn't overwrite that. To change the category to "En", simply exchange {{wb}} with {{dc}}. --KPolitt (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2014 (CEST)

Doppelganger articles

- Looks like we have a doppelganger: Bernouilli principle vs. Bernoulli principle
And:
Binding condition vs. Binding Condition Redirect vs. Binding Condition Version 2
blend vs. blending
bound form vs. bound morpheme
dvanda compound vs. dvandva
Finite and nonfinite vs. Finite vs. nonfinite
Incompatibility vs. Incompatible
--NBlöcher

Problems with reference formatting

- This might be more of an aesthetic problem than anything else, but sometimes I come across articles whose references are strangely formatted. An example can be found here: Conceptual Structure. Can anything be done about the space between the last two references? As far as I know this only happens with those references that are frequently used and thus have their own reference shortcut. --NBlöcher