Template talk:R:be:slounik.org

Restriction of search
It could be worthwhile to restrict the search to headwords and to Belarusian-Russian dictionaries, excluding Russian-Belarusian dictionaries. This would be achieved as follows, where un=1 is for headword-only search, for бабка:

http://slounik.org/search?search=бабка&un=1&dict=bn|bulykabr|stanbr|krapivabr|biez|miedbr|vierasbr|polisemija

And the following is for бабушка, and finds nothing, as it should:

http://slounik.org/search?search=бабушка&un=1&dict=bn|bulykabr|stanbr|krapivabr|biez|miedbr|vierasbr|polisemija

An advantage is that if a Belarusian term is in none of the dictionaries as Belarusian, the search finds nothing.

A disadvantage is that the search would no longer find Belarusian terms in Russian-Belarusian dictionaries, but one might argue that it suffices that the term is found in Belarusian-Russian dictionaries, and that the case where it is only in the former is rare.

Someone may want to double check that I have the list of dictionaries in the dict= parameter correct.

I obtained the list of dictionary codes by searching for кошка and clicking on Беларуска-расейскія in the collapsible tree at the right box.

The dictionary codes seem to be as follows:
 * bn: Беларуска-расейскі (Байкоў-Некрашэвіч)
 * bulykabr: Беларуска-расейскі (Булыка)
 * stanbr: ?
 * krapivabr: Беларуска-расейскі (Крапіва)
 * biez: Беларуска-расейскі безэквівалентнай лексікі
 * miedbr: ?
 * vierasbr: Беларуска-расейскі батанічны (Верас)
 * polisemija: ?

--Dan Polansky (talk) 08:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Anatoli T. thinks the restriction is sometimes detrimental. We could have the restriction by default but remove it when a certain template parameter is passed and set to 1. What do you think? Can you give examle entries where the restriction is detrimental? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, sorry I can't provide such an example at the moment. For a person using this dictionary I often have to try both options. Unchecked box may produce too many pages, so it can be beneficial as well to check it. If I find again, I'll let you know. "detrimental" was in the sense that only inflections were given, no translations. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I added nazounik and nazounik2013 to the dictionary list since they show inflection. It seems to me that the restriction is very useful, making the search results much more focused. The reader can still have more dictionaries shown by clicking at the appropriate node at the right. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. I promised to give you an example of where the checkbox is detrimental for the search. Try searching for with and without. Without it, it finds one hit - a Russian-Belarusian translation (Слоўнік фізічнае тэрмінолёгіі (БНТ)) and nothing with the checkbox. So, if I wanted to somehow reference the existence of мілімэтар in a dictionary, I'd need to have it unchecked. Not that I find that too important, the dictionary entry is very basic. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * : Thank you. I see that мілімэтар is something like a variant spelling of міліметр, which is found even with the restriction. Still, it would be nice to have мілімэтар supported by the template as well. What if we add alldicts parameter to the template? Thus, if the user passes alldicts=1 to the template, it will not restrict dictionaries and it will also not restrict un=1. The default would still be to make the restriction. What do you think? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, try and let me know. I don't mind. slounik.org includes both standard (Belarusian government) orthography e.g. "міліметр" and, e.g. "мілімэтар". The label I used shouldn't make these terms less important (British/US English orthographies). It's for users' info. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, template, template doc, and мілімэтар updated. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * : Hi, please be aware of the changes User:Dan Polansky has done. I have just searched for to check inflections but restrictions only gave a translation, no inflections.
 * An important definition I was looking for was цалаваць незак., каго-што цалую, цалуеш, цалуе, цалуем, цалуеце, цалуюць; цалуй, цалуйце; цалаваў, цалавала, цалавалі; цалаваны і цалованы; цалуючы // Граматычны дзеяслова --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The category of dictionaries "Агульныя" (general?) contains "sbm|nazounik|dzsl|prym|paronimy|epitety|sinonimyk|bkp2005" a these could be added to the list of dictionaries; since, the above "definition" is in Граматычны дзеяслова (dzsl). --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added these dictionaries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Aha, I see, each dictionary has a parameter. There are historical, scientific, encyclopedic, etc. I'm not so sure any more about the restrictions. Each dictionary may be required. Only Іншыя мовы, Расейска-беларускія, Ангельска-беларуска-ангельскія can definitely be excluded. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * (Outdent) We can still get some benefit of the changes by keeping un=1 for headword-only search but drop all dictionary restrictions. It still seems to me that the dictionary restriction makes the results much more focused and easier to work with, while for the words where the dictionary restrictions are not beneficial, the template use can still pass alldicts=1. But it's a matter of taste, I guess. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd rather not have any restrictions, it's clear enough whether a term is in the headword or not. Benwing2 (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If that's your and Anatoli's preference, so be it, and you can revert my changes. I find the changes I did to be a marked improvement in user experience. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, probably lifting restrictions is a good idea. I know it may be confusing to go through a wall of unknown texts for someone who is not familiar with either Russian or Belarusian but restricting makes it worse. This time, I couldn't find, which appeared in usage examples in "Тлумачальныя, этымалагічныя, гістарычныя/Тлумачальны (вялікі)" (tsbm) and "Дыялектныя/Прыказкі Лагойшчыны" (lahojsk) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not clear to me that listing '"ўдараць" in slounik.org' in References section of ўдараць would be a good thing. The clicking user does not see that the item is not a headword in any of the dictionaries at slounik.org. It seems rather misleading to me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

жыд
Moved from Talk:жыд:


 * Hi. I had to use alldicts=1 in here again but I don't know if this is the way. You can see, which dictionaries were skipped - etymological, historical and translation dictionaries. In any case, listing all examples proves that the term is/was used in Belarusian. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Anatoli T., if this is a proposal to change the reference template, it would probably better be made in Template talk:R:be:slounik.org so that we can easily find all the change-proposing discussions; if you create a discussion threre and ping me there, I hope to join in reasonable time frame. I think alldicts is very useful while admittedly creating inconvenience for a reasonably small set of entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * . Moved--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I see two separate issues: 1) having to fill alldicts is too much hassle for even the small number of entries where it is needed; 2) too many dictionaries are skipped by the template by default. Item 2) can be discussed and fixed without abandoning all dicts. As for 1) search "insource:/alldicts/" finds two entries, so that has not been too much of a burden so far. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As and for жыд, the defect seems to be that Беларускія народныя параўнанні (Google translate: Belarusian folk comparisons, probably similes, phrases and the like) is excluded from the default list of sources shown in the template. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)