Talk:Wiktionary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on April 21, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
This is not a forum for general discussion of Wiktionary.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
Archive
Archives
1


To use Wiktionary on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Sister projects#Wiktionary and Wikipedia:Interwikimedia link.

Contents

[edit] Wiktionary pronounced with three syllables?

The IPA transcription on the logo surprised me. Is this three syllable pronunciation of 'dictionary' and 'Wiktionary' the most common in North America? Glennh70 15:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that people use three syllables in Europe, but four in America. I don't know how true that is. --Baryonic Being 16:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I suppose I've heard a few people use three syllables in England but it would be very informal. I'm suprised to see it written in IPA as a suggested pronunciation.Glennh70 07:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you surprised to see it use the most common pronunciation guide in the whole world except a few American dictionaries?? (I agree on the pronunciation itself though – it sounds very quaint.) Jon Harald Søby 19:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

it seems like 4 to me - Jedi Of Redwall

I agree! There needs to be a thesaurus next that wiki does. -A.

If it rhymes with "dictionary", I'd probably pronounce it in two: dik-shnree. British (London).

Really? is this a difference in cultures or definitions of syllable? I thought that dictionary had four dik-shawn-air-ee, and had been pronouncing wiktionary with five until i read this wik-i-shawn-air-ee. Tom in Ohio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trkritzer (talk • contribs) 00:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The number of syllables in both words (dictionary and Wiktionary) vary depending on the particular English pronunciation used. The standard pronunciation for the UK (especially the Received Pronunciation) gives dictionary three syllables and is the basis for the UK pronunciation of Wiktionary as well as the IPA transcription used on the Wiktionary logo. The typical US pronunciation gives dictionary four syllables because of an aditional secondary stress on the final a, which is not pronounced in the standard British dialects. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, dictionary is pronounced /ˈdɪkʃənərɪ/. It does not give an alternative pronunciation. Cambridge Advanced Learner's dictionary gives /ˈdɪk.ʃən.ər.i/ _US_ /-er.i/. The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English gives /ˈdɪkʃən ri $ -neri/. [1] Merriam-Webster gives \ˈdik-shə-ˌner-ē, -ˌne-rē\. [2] Thus, the argument that dictionary, and hence, Wiktionary is pronounced with three syllables in RP does not appear to be supported by the dictionaries themselves. Also see the discussion at wiktionary:Talk:Wiktionary. --Dforest (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's great, but the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary gives /ˈdɪkʃənri/. The Cambridge University Press English Pronouncing Dictionary makes the case more clearly. The primary UK pronunciation given there is /ˈdɪk.ʃən.ər.i/; the superscript schwas indicate that the sound may be omitted in casual speech. Thus, the three-syllable pronunciation in RP is in fact supported by both major dictionary publishers in the UK. Why are you recommending we look at an old anonymous comment on Wiktionary for guidance on this issue? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I referenced the discussion on Talk:Wiktionary because there is some legitimate discussion there about an issue that has not yet been resolved, and it is an issue that affects Wiktionary more so than Wikipedia. A number of Wiktionary editors have pointed out the inaccuracy of the /ˈdɪkʃənri/ transcription, and there appears to be interest in changing it to something more accurate. The transcriptions in OED, Cambridge ALD, and Longman DCE contradict your assertion that a three-syllable pronunciation is standard for the UK. Indicating that the schwa sound may be omitted in casual speech does not make it the standard to omit it. Rather, it indicates that there is some flexibility in the way the word is pronounced. Notwithstanding the issue of what is correct in RP, we should be using a pronunciation that reflects a global view of English, and if that cannot be done broadly enough to cover the differing pronunciations in one transcription, there should be two. Also note Oxford Advanced Learner's actually transcribes the word /ˈdɪkʃənri; NAmE neri/; you omitted the latter part. Dforest (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Competition' section

I think the competition section should mention other user-compiled on-line dictionaries in addition to looking at the general class of on-line dictionaries. Are there any other user-compiled on-line dictionaries that are topic-comprehensive? There are a number that are topic-specific. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of this section. Besides the fact that no websites are listed in this section, I can think of no other online or offline dictionary that is attempting to do what Wiktionary is attempting. Wiktionary is a collection of online dictionaries. Each dictionary seeks to define every word from every language into the language of that dictionary. For example, the English Wiktionary seeks to define every word from every language into English. There are plenty of other online dictionaries, but nearly all of them are either monolingual or bilingual. Comparing Wiktionary to such dictionaries is like comparing apples and oranges. Another thing that makes Wiktionary unique is that, as part of the Wikimedia family, Wiktionary can take full advantage of all of its sister projects. Please take a look at the following definition of a Mandarin Chinese idiom from English Wiktionary as an example of Wiktionary's potential: wikt:井底之蛙. Note how the quote's author (ex. Luo Guanzhong) is linked to his biography on Wikipedia. Moreover, a link to the Wikipedia article about the source text (ex. Romance of the Three Kingdoms) is included. Finally, the quote's source text on Wikisource (ex. s:zh:三國演義/第113回) is hyperlinked. Simply put, no other dictionary makes this sort of thing possible, period! Wiktionary still faces a number of challenges, but I've never seen anything more revolutionary than Wiktionary as far as dictionaries are concerned. -- A-cai 12:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Wiktionary Project has Failed

It is my strong opinion that the Wiktionary project has failed. Even after five years, it is a puny dictionary that no one uses or trusts. Even in ten years, it will still be smaller than other dictionaries, and by that time, it will also be out of date. In order for it to succeed, a change in direction is needed.

The first problem with Wiktionary is that it's a nightmare to edit. All of the simple English words have been defined, so the next step is rare words. But, many legitimate rare words are tagged for verification. So, unlike Wikipedia, where some one adds a {{citation needed}} tag to disputed statements, Wiktionary "editors" add an {{rfv}} tag to the article. If no one then adds three citations to the entry within a month, it is deleted. The same editors who insist on three sources also claim that other dictionaries don't count. This practice alone makes Wiktionary unsuitable for a wiki format. Adding one citation is a pain enough for people, but three simply isn't done by article creators. Doing so would be giving in to bullying, and is absolutely un-necessary anyway. Many on Wiktionary also dislike long entries. For example, editors adding definitions from Lewis & Short's landmark, public-domain A Latin Dictionary have been reverted. Even though a dictionary's influence is largely due to its comprehensiveness, these legitimate contributions are often rejected.

Many of these complaints are simply not true, or gross misunderstandings. Can you point to some entries where Latin were removed? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 18:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Beginning at the beginning: a, where you deleted the "landmark" dictionary's entry as "extremely dubious". —Muke Tever talk 19:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
In all fairness, Lewis & Short was a landmark 100 years ago. It contains errors, and its scholarship has been largely superceded by the OLD, in part because we have a much larger corpus of Latin documents available, much additional research, and databases that have made it easier to search for and find inflected forms that would have taken years to find in print form. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This leads to the second problem: There really aren't policies on Wiktionary. The three-source practice is not a policy. It is a belief of a very-tiny handful of administrators. There are "semi-official" pages, but those are ignored by some and have never been voted on. There actually is a semi-official page that states that a single respected publication is enough to verify a definition, but again, it is ignored by those who disagree with it. Without any voting, there is no definitive way to gauge people's opinions. There are, of course, discussions on best practices, but most people ignore them. Yet, those participating in the discussions mysteriously come away from them with a feeling that their actions have been legitimized! The result is pure anarchy, and the actions of administrators (100% of whom never have worked on a real dictionary and are mostly just computer people) are seen universally as arbitrary.

wikt:WT:VOTE doesn't exist? Oh my. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 18:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
100% of statistics pulled out of the air will be wrong. Hi, I'm a Wiktionary administrator, and I have worked on a "real dictionary", as both a writer and copy editor. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The last problem with Wiktionary is that the administrators there are rude. Unlike Wikipedia, administrators on Wiktionary call other editors trolls and vandals and block them when they are having hot content disputes with them! They block users who are testing (or worse, simply trying to help) after only one edit. These blocks are usually for several days, a week, or (often) forever. Editing on Wiktionary is like living in a very small town, but instead of being friends with everyone, you're enemies. It's a very, very unwelcoming, nasty little site.--Quintius Quintius 11:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I block a lot of trolls. Many other sysops do too. Are there specific blocks you are complaining about? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 18:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
In the three years that I've been working on Wiktionary, I've watched it grow from about 11,000 articles to over 315,000.
As for friendliness, I suppose we have our disputes, but I'd say we do a far more civil job of handling them, on the whole, than 'pedia.
Wiktionary can't have "notability" as a criterion. There are plenty of rare words that warrant inclusion. RFV is a check to root out the words that people have made up.
That Wiktionary is a small community and still growing does not make it a failure. Wikis grow by a somewhat random path, and given that the wikimedia software was in no way customized to the needs of a dictionary, I'd say the community has risen well to the challenge. I've seen all sorts of innovations and improvements, plus no small amount content not found anywhere else.
Also, I'd add that writing a dictionary definition is a rather particular skill that not everybody has. It is far more specific and structured than writing an encyclopedia.
If you don't like it, you don't have use it (though you're invited to contribute), but please don't count us out just yet. Cataloging all words in all languages might take us awhile longer. The experiment is not over. --Dvortygirl 19:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
You can belive anything you like about Wiktionary, Quintius Quintius, but don't post your opinions here. This is the place to discuss the article Wiktionary, not Wiktionary itself.Smartguy777 (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History and development

The above was composed but didn't get saved yesterday for some reason. Prior to the insipid rant above.

The second paragraph calls out one of my bots as being responsible for a lot more than it really is. The bot wikt:User:TheCheatBot is more likely the primary offender. I do understand it is easier to describe ThirdPersBot (and it does have a less inflamatory name.) But,

and this is a big "but,"

I think it is kind-of silly to talk about the various inflection bots, without describing why they exist. The paragraph seems to imply they exist to bump the article count. That has never been their intent.

They exist ease (or make possible) navigation to the correct term. To a dictionary, that deals with words, headword/title spelling is very important. (Contrast with Wikipedia, where the concept is what determines the title.) Misspellings are never to be simple redirects. Forms of words get their own entries so that when spellings overlap, the proper language section can be found.

The inflection bots exist to ease navigation...so that you can find the word you are looking for, in the language you intend.


Also worth mentioning (somewhere) is the general prohibition on #REDIRECTs on *.wiktionary.org. Misspellings are never redirected; instead they are called out explicitly, only for the most common spelling errors. (Otherwise, our readers would be unlikely to notice that they misspelled a word.) As automated exports increase, this becomes more and more important.

Some discussion is needed about what "all words in all languages" means...as it is a perennial problem for visiting Wikipedians. The English Wiktionary is for English readers, whether they are looking up a word in English, German, French, etc., they can read the description of the word in their own language. The French Wiktionary is where French readers can read about English, German, or French (etc.) words in their own language.


After the reasons why have been explained, then it would be reasonable to describe how the bots are functioning. The constraints of the two projects (Wiktionary/Wikipedia) are very unlike each other.

--Connel MacKenzie - wikt 18:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems people at wikid NARY, don't know meaning QUASH as editors in news use it, or the word PUFF, seems they have trouble with the word PALL too.71.7.32.110 20:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Connel, this section was written awhile back by Don Wiki Carlos-Jeméz. I cleaned it up formatting-wise and tried to make it sound less inflammatory, for instance removing the "Criticism" heading. I completely agree with your defense that these pages should exist, and it would be good to include some explanation for the verb and noun form entries. However, I think you'd be in more of a position to write that than I am, since I'm not that involved in the English Wiktionary, where the verb-form-entry-writing mainly takes place.

Don Wiki Carlos-Jeméz's section takes aim at the English Wiktionary, and I tried to make this clear. But the French, Russian, and Vietnamese Wiktionaries (where I do most of my tinkering) rely on bots the most, so focusing on the English version's use of bots may not be entirely fair. I'll add something in about the Vietnamese Wiktionary.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 01:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How about a criticism section?

I cannot imagine that people and academics have not been criticising the Wiktionary project. I know I have. Isn't there anything to mention in that area? Tomsintown 12:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


I agree. Constructive criticism is great to improve anything.

[edit] Merge from Kurdish Wiktionary

Please merge any relevant content from Kurdish Wiktionary per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish Wiktionary. Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 03:10Z

[edit] French...Kurdish...Wiktionary...blah...blah...useless!

Having many separate language Wiktionary pages is basically like having a blinker in your car to go straight ahead. It's useless! Why don't we add an article on Canadian English Wikipedia while we're at it! JustN5:12 01:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, because there isn't a Canadian English Wikipedia. There are a lot of articles for individual langage Wikipedias, and many of them have been listed for deletion (though kept). I see no problem with the same thing being done here – Qxz 21:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge them all!201.21.96.49 18:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Like you noted, Qxz, there was a reason for mentioning Canadian English Wikipedia (it's pointless!). JustN5:12 04:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Merging!

Why should the dictioanries of other languages be mixed with this one? It would be confusing. People might think that a French word is part of the English language, though it is not. The French have the right to their own Wiktionary. Randomfrenchie 20:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Er... nobody is suggesting that the French Wiktionary be merged with the English one. The proposal is to merge the article French Wiktionary with the article Wiktionary. The suggestion is that there is no point having an article on all the individual language editons of Wiktionary because there isn't enough to say about them all, and it would be better to just have one article describing the entire Wiktionary project. Note that English Wiktionary is just a redirect to this page, the same would be done with French Wiktionary and any useful information merged with this artice. A proposal that seems perfectly reasonable, and one I agree with – Qxz 21:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree if they are trying to merge the wiktionaries together. That would be dumb. Even if they are merging the article french wiktionairy, it still wouldn't make sense. People would get confused from reading words from the English language, but having an article about the french wiktionary on the same page.
--Ryan TALK 16:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Weird how [they] thought that what we meant by merging French Wiktionary...etc. into this article was merging all languages into one multilanguage Wiktionary, but OK! JustN5:12 02:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


I think this 'Wiki' craze will lead into a data/history-esq monopoly, throwing the written text further out of the window.

[edit] Former?

@"The former Wiktionary logo.": eh? Is there a new logo? If so, what is it? It looks just like the current one to me... Shinobu 21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to clarify the logo situation. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 23:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiktionary links

Since many people, at least one - me, might think that clicking on the Wiktionary link in articles would take them to Wiktionary; where as it actually takes you to this page, I feel that that a link to Wiktionary at the top of the page would be helpful, rather than forcing all users to go to the bottom of the page to find the link. This would mostly be for the benefit of new users who are unaware of the normal page layout use here Dbiel 13:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Added note: that link might best be a link to the External Link section on the page as it provides for multiple options when linking to Wiktionary.Dbiel 13:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Since there has been no reply in 3 days, I have gone ahead and added the link referenced above. Dbiel 01:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to 217.42.21.147 for "fixing" the link. It worked fine in my browser, but I see where it would not work in others because of case sensitivity. One more thing to learn. Thank you Dbiel 19:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-write in Russian

Someone rewrote the entire article and posted in Russian. I've reverted the edit, but maybe someone needs to learn to use the sandbox? Or use the proper-language Wikipedia? Mgw854 22:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'd like to see in the article...

some discussion of the multilingual nature of the project(s). This is one area where Wiktionary differs from print dictionaries: the inclusion of translations for each word in the language of the wiktionary editing community into other languages, and the inclusion of entries in foreign languages with definitions and usage examples. Another is the inclusion (at least on the English Wiktionary) of set phrases that aren't idioms per se but are useful to a language learner who would not understand their meaning by looking up each word separately. I don't think I should add these things myself because I am primarily an editor on two of the wiktionary projects and I want to avoid the appearance of bias. But someone else who splits their time differently could add this information. Thanks, ArielGlenn (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Date of establishment of Polish and French Wiktionary

In my opinion the date provided in the article (29th March 2004) is not right. Polish Wiktionary's main page was created on 23rd March [3] and there are edits that date to 22nd March [4]. --Derbeth talk 02:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please add information about wiktionary

tags to Wikipedia:Your first article IE: the { {wikt|}} tags or add them to the edit boxes.
ThisMunkey (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Wiktionaries

I was thinking about creating article "List of Wiktionaries". Maybe it would be useful? --Visconsus (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems a bit un-useful for the Eng WP to include a list of foreign language wiktionaries. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Why? We have lists of countries that don't speak English. We even have articles on people who don't speak English. So why not have a list of the various Wiktionaries, regardless of the language they're written in? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Because there are too many "list" articles as it is. Don't categories fulfill the purpose of all these list articles, without actually making extra articles that clutter up the encyclopedia? Also, I think this case is different from the ones you presented. Wiktionary is a wikimedia project, so it is self-referential. I just don't see how it makes sense to list the languages that have wiktionaries; it's a bit trivial. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not trivial, because most languages have no Wiktionary. It is therefore useful to have a complete index of those that do exist with statistics on date of inception, current size, etc. A category cannot fulfill the purpose of such a list article unless the individual articles exist. So, if you're worried about too many articles, then you'd prefer a list, because it reduces the number of independent articles required. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I give in. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article or section needs to be updated.

What needs to be addresses before this tag can be removed? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been awhile...should we just go ahead and take it down? Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I think so. If there is still a current issue, someone will restore it. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism on this protected page

NT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.182.97.10 (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I find it rather hypocritical...

...that Wiktionary only has one article, but Wikipedia gets hundreds on individual language editions, history, criticism, lists, etc. What's the deal with this? Teh Rote (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)