Why is Glottopedia in ISO-8859-1 and not in Unicode? Wikipedia is in Unicode (UTF-8). --David Marjanović 01:56, 28 June 2007 (CEST)
- I am sure this will be fixed very soon. Glottopedia should be in UTF-8. --Sven Siegmund 23:19, 6 July 2007 (CEST)
- Now I'm not sure whether this UTF-8 encoding will be fixed soon. Whom shall we as kto do it? Who in Trier is responsible? --Sven Siegmund 23:18, 10 July 2007 (CEST)
Why is the URL of articles in Glottopedia hidden (when I enter via www.glottopedia.org)? It is really practical that one can edit the URL and get directly to some articles, categories, or templates. When I enter Glottopedia via http://urts120.uni-trier.de/glottopedia/index.php I can manipulate the URL as described. But this should be possible via www.glottopedia.org aswell. --Sven Siegmund 23:19, 6 July 2007 (CEST)
External Links Keep Glottopedia URL!
When you click on an external link in Glottopedia, the URL in the adress field of your browser remains http://www.glottopedia.org/ this should not be. Try this external link to Google: http://www.google.com/ --18:14, 10 July 2007 (CEST)
- LIRE is no longer used. "HYPO" stands for hypothesis and approach articles, although we need to think more about whether we need it and how exactly we apply it. It should be considered preliminary at this point. --Haspelmath 14:05, 12 July 2007 (CEST)
Rename LING to RESEARCH?
I'd rename the LING article type to RESEARCH. What do you think? --Sven Siegmund 23:11, 10 July 2007 (CEST)
- My original proposal was to name these articles "linguistics articles", to which Sven objected that in a way all articles are about linguistics. "Linguistic research articles" is probably better, although not all of them are about research in the narrow sense (basically they are about linguists' activities). Anyway, I like the abbreviation "LING" for "Linguistic research" much better than "LIRE". "RESEARCH" I find too long. But ultimately it's a matter of taste, and if someone else is strongly against "linguistic reaearch/LING", I'll be happy to go along with an alternative proposal.--Haspelmath 14:09, 12 July 2007 (CEST)
- Well, I thought if LINGUIST is not too long a category label, maybe RESEARCH would also be ok. For LING it is not immediately transparent what category it is. Anybody who wants to know what it is has to read it somewhere (where?). One thinks intuitively about "linguist", linguistics in general, but not of current research. I think this RESEARCH (or LING) category we could use for articles about current or recent projects: WALS, Autotyp, Negtyp, ... --Sven Siegmund 21:59, 12 July 2007 (CEST)