Talk:Wiktionary/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] REDIRECTing to Wikitionary?

Some one create an article on Metanoia, I moved the content to Wikitionary, tried to do a redirect with "wikitionary:" as the language, it didn't work... is there anyway to redirect to other Wikimedia projects? -- user:zanimum

Two issues there - firstly its Wiktionary, second you missed the #redirect. I have sorted it out. Morwen 15:37, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
... which raises the question: if I were to want to write a Wikipedia article on Metanoia (which I don't BTW), what is the quickest way I could get to the article to edit it? Bearing in mind that it is a REDIRECT to outside Wikipedia, there is no back-link from Wiktionary as there would be on an intra-Wikipedia REDIRECT. So other than troll through Morwen's contributions list, what's the quickest way? Enquiring minds want to know :-) Oh, and directly munging the URL is cheating: I'm looking for a mechanism within Wikipedia. --Phil 16:06, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
There is none, that's why interwiki redirects are BAD BAD BAD. Gentgeen 16:17, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
To continue on that line, the page should have been Transwikied over to wiktionary and then listed on VfD, otherwise someone will raise the point that the content was inappropiatly deleted from wikipedia. Gentgeen
Transwikied content is a Candidate for speedy deletion. Anthony DiPierro 16:34, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
That's what's on the policy page, but that category is disputed on the talk page, so I feel kinda underhanded if I list a transwikied article there. Gentgeen
In fact I don't think even looking at Morwen's contribs would help... unless you are a sysop and so can see the rollback button. Direct URL handling (i.e. writing &redirect=0 at the end) is the only way. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:34, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
... which gets the result:
Some people may spell Wiktionary wrongly as Wikitionary or Wikionary. The predecessor has become a redirection page, but the successor has not. I want to make the successor become a redirection page, but I think some people will oppose this. Therefore, I would like to seek advice from somebody about making such the redirection. QQ (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It is always a good idea to have a redirect if the word is a common misspelling. I don't have any data on whether Wikionary is a common misspelling, but if it is, it would make a useful redirect to have. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad title

Bad title
From Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
The requested page title was invalid, empty, or an incorrectly linked inter-language or inter-wiki title.

So is there a way to do this? I'm assuming the case where someone wanted to write a proper article on Metanoia, with presumably a link to the Wiktionary definition at some point. --Phil 17:05, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

you want http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Metanoia&redirect=no

FWIW, I really really dislike interwiki redirects, and get rid of them whenever I have the chance. First of all, I dislike the idea of Wikipedia articles redirecting anywhere other than other Wikipedia articles, and secondly they're a pain because you can only edit them with manual URL editing. --Delirium 06:45, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, I think we should avoid redirecting between namespaces, too. Granted, it's unlikely that anyone will try to link the word welcome in an encyclopedia article, but I'm not so sure about edit conflict - which could end up rather confusing. Until I changed it the other day, user account redirected to Special:Userlogin - but somebody had happily linked to it from root (disambiguation). Special: pages are particularly confusing, because you don't get a Redirected from: message - for example New pages isn't a piped link, it's a redirect in the main namespace here.
What's more, even if people understand what's happened, it's not a very good idea, because it makes it look like meta-information has been shoved in with the main content, which is what we're avoiding by having namespaces in the first place. Useful though they are if you can't be bothered to type "Wikipedia:" or "Special:" each time, they're just a hostage to fortune. [And don't forget you can do [[Special:Newpages|]] to stop the namespace showing up.] Imagine if you were flicking through a paper encyclopedia and under E it said Errata, and listed all the errata in that edition... - IMSoP 20:03, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
There are two templates available; {{wikt|name of article}} on Wikipedia, and {{-info-}} on Wiktionary. Keep in mind that some wiktionaries already do not capitalise their articles, so the spelling should be correct. GerardM 05:36, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are two templates supporting a pretty reference into Wiktionary.

  1. template:Wiktionary and
  2. template:Wiktionarypar

details of their use can be found at Wikipedia:How to link to Wikimedia projects#Wiktionary. Josh Parris ✉ 02:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] True or false??

True or false: Wikipedia and Wiktionary need to be merged into a single project. 66.245.100.146 01:43, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am on the side of true. Coincidentaly, it would be nice to have some discussion of merger within wikipedia community in the article. -- Taku 05:44, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
So do I: Perhaps we should merge them? On a second thought I see however also some reasons to keep them separate. I presume this discussion has been helt before? Donar Reiskoffer 19:50, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Strongly in favour. The distinction appears to be artificial and damaging to both projects. In dead-tree land it makes a pragmatic kind of sense; books, even multi-volume books, have a size limit, so you trade off depth for coverage. In wikiland there's no such size constraint; there's therefore no need to compromise on either depth or coverage, and any such compromises harm their projects unnecessarily. The split reduces the network-effect benefits of wiki, makes it harder to find information (since you won't necessarily know whether an unfamiliar word is a "dictionary" term or an "encyclopaedia" term), and leads to substantial duplication of effort for nouns and noun phrases. Mike Capp 19:19, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This was also my first thought, on a second thought I discovered one problem: on the Wikipedia article Boot the German interlanguage link is de:Stiefel. On the Wiktionary article Boot the German interlanguage link to de:Boot. But perhaps there may be other approaches to link the wikipedia and wiktionar more closely: for each wiktionary article a stub with a direct link to the wiktionary article could be created in Wikipedia? Donar Reiskoffer 08:00, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
False, most emphatically. Read about the Ultimate wiktionary on Meta. Because of the structure inherent in a dictionary, all Wiktionaries should be merged into one (relational) database. This will benefit the quality of the project as work done will impact related occurences in other languages. Wikipedia does not have a similar structure.
Besides, there are over currently over 40 translations for many names of languages. This would mean that these articles would drown out the wikipedia content. GerardM 05:28, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)</nowiki>
I vote true. I think they should be combined (for some of the same reasons already mentioned). I don't see any good reason for keeping them separate, but perhaps someone can enlighten me? SpectrumDT 15:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I vote true too. I reference wikipedia and wikitionary in my blog (wrote my own php code to support this). I use "<def>" and "</def>" in my blog and find myself wanting to use similar tags in my wikipedian contributions. It should be there already. I don't think that wikipedia and wikitionary should be one, as it may confuse the distinction between the two.. In fact I find myself and others puting wikitionary entries in wikipedia to augment an article in wikipedia. It would be okay to have a tag that allows references to wikitionary and verifies the existence of the term in wikitionary.. The idea is to make it easy for people to add wikitionary and wikipedia references in the course of defining something that does not already exist, quickly and easily. There may be problems with adding terms quickly and easily, but I find myself amazed when certain references do not already exist in wikipedia/wikitionary. The problem is not bloating wikipedia/wikitionary, the problem frustrating contributors. Wikipedia/wikitionary are evolving as a result of people's care for detail and correctness of topics. But at the very least there should be a reference to every part of speech, every thought, every word that people should expect to find wikipedia/wikitionary,

otherwise these references could lose relevance in the future. --Rofthorax 18:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I vote FALSE Most Wikipedia system operators act responsibly in their relationship with contributors whereas Wiktionary system operators more often than not behave as spoiled adolescents at the age (usually between 5 and 8) when learning word definitions becomes the focal point of intellectual stimulation. They lack the maturity that is expected of a Wikipedia system operator. Besides in the real word dictionaries and encyclopedias are distinguished from each other and that distinction should be maintained here as well. PCE 10:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

PCE has been trolling Wiktionary lately. /ignore. Jon Harald Søby 15:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I vote False a link would be perfectly Ok (an animal article could link to wikispecies) but I disagree that they should be the same, a short thing about other uses of the word at the top (or bottom)would be a good idea though; another thing: if someone had a acount on wikitionary AND wikipedia, which one would he keep? - jedi of redwall

This is not the place for this discussion. That place is Meta. I also encourage editors to read encyclopaedia, dictionary, encyclopedic dictionary, and use-mention distinction. Uncle G 16:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced?

I think the {{unsourced}} tag is absolute nonsense. The Wiktionary home page is already linked to twice in this article. Okay, you can have a separate "Reference" section and link to it a third time. But why would anyone want to do that? Are we now about to see that tag attached to thousands of articles where the source is obvious? Or does anyone think all the information on Wiktionary has been gathered from the Encyclopaedia Britannica? <KF> 17:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The Wiktionary main page is not a source. Uncle G 18:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Your answer is not very illuminating. Do tell us what the sources are please. <KF> 18:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
      • What what sources are? Uncle G 19:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Come on. Under "References" it currently says that "This article does not cite its references or sources. You can help Wikipedia by including appropriate citations." So again: What should be put there instead? What would be your avuncular advice? <KF> 19:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Source citations, as the notice says. Uncle G 23:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
            • I'm not playing games with monosyllabic uncles. Have a nice day. <KF> 23:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps there is a source for the description of, or purpose of, Wiktionary? Is there a Wiktionary "About" page, or an archived message proposing Wiktionary? (SEWilco 05:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Lexicon

Wiktionary is a sister project to Wikipedia intended to be a free wiki dictionary (including thesaurus and lexicon) in every language.

Lexicon says: A lexicon is usually a list of words together with additional word-specific information, i.e., a dictionary. So what's the difference between "a dictionary (including thesaurus and lexicon)" and "a dictionary (including thesaurus)"? Mark1 10:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  • See the very next paragraph in that article. Or see lexicon. ☺ Uncle G 21:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiSaurus

Any plans by anyone as of this moment to make WikiSaurus a separate Wikimedia project?? Feel free to include any appropriate links. Georgia guy 00:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree that it Sould be seperate, but I have no authoritie to make it that way - jedi of redwall

[edit] Interwiki link weirdness

An example of a well-formatted entry would be the "wiktionary: WikiSaurus: insane" page.

But it links to nothing... Adam Marx Squared 04:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Vildricianus 07:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stats need explanation

The stats for wiktionaries need some explanation. Most columns in the table are self-explanatory but columns like "good" are not. Please explain how the difference between total and good arises. Would be great if somebody could write a little figure caption. Jasu 17:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table adjusted

Some things have been adjusted. Now, the table listing the top ten Wiktionaries is more legible, and not so srunched up. --Blurrzuki 01:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Frankie's mama



How about a link at the top of the page in bold

Usually I go to wikipedia for definitions if that doesn't help I go to this page to link to wiktionary.

[edit] How do I add a term to Wiktionary??

I'm new to wikipedia and would like to add a new word, but I don't understand this interface at all. How do I enter a term???

Thanks,

John

Go to wiktionary http://en.wiktionary.org and enter the term in the search box. If it doesn't exist you'll be given the opportunity to create it. Rich Farmbrough, 14:55 23 October 2006 (GMT).

[edit] Why did the French and Vietnamese wiktionaries grow so quickly? nm

Rich Farmbrough, 15:01 23 October 2006 (GMT).

It was mainly through the use of bots, software that automatically generates articles using a database. The French and Vietnamese Wiktionaries both imported large sections of the Free Vietnamese Dictionary Project (FVDP), which provides free content bilingual dictionaries to and from Vietnamese. The French Wiktionary has used other sources, such as the Unihan database of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean characters. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 01:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
French Wiktionary has slightly more explanation about how they grew so much. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 01:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Culture

I know this sounds out of the context, but does Wikipedia seem to have more life than Wiktionary? iM nOT S0Ber !!!!!!! 19:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Per user?  :-) I doubt that. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 20:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should this really have an article?

Has this gotten any substantial media coverage? Voretus/talk 21:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia's inclusion standards, but many websites less notable than Wiktionary have articles here. I don't think the standard is whether the website has received "substantial media coverage", but I suppose Wiktionary has received a trickle of press mentions because of its relation to Wikipedia. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 06:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Voretus, if you feel very strongly about this and you have good reasons based on policy to feel that way, take the article to WP:AFD ... however, I guarantee you that the result will be 'speedy keep' and the nomination will be seen as either against common sense, in bad faith, or an attempt to make a point. I'm just relating what I see as the most likely outcome. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Guardian (UK) seems to like to pick on Wiktionary (en especially.) An OED editor here and there have also mentioned it a few times, likewise m-w.com (I think Erin was even at Wikimania!) I suppose you could trawl through the Wikinews archives to see which major publishers have articles, but that is not where my interest lies. As Ceyockey pointed out, an AfD would certainly be laughed out of existence rather quickly. Compared to Wikipedia, our piddly little 17,000 to 30,000 anonymous visitors per day must seem quite small. But when compared to many website articles here on Wikipedia that don't get that many hits per month I think it is reasonable to assume that it is now notable, in and of itself. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 09:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't mean that it's a real dictionary, though. Most of the entries are impossible-to-read, irrelevant, robot-generated entries. Take those away and you have about 150,000 entries. Then, take away phrases that are given seperate entries, e.g., "Decline and Fall," which 100% of other dictionaries don't define. Then, take away foreign words. Then, you have some number lower than 150,000, which is about the same as the Pocket Oxford English Dictionary. The Pocket OED doesn't have an entry of its own on Wikipedia, so Wiktionary probably would have been speedied if it weren't created by us. Humans overestimate the importance of their own actions, which is why it has an entry here.--Quintius Quintius 09:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean impossible-to-read? Examples? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 18:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Wiktionary doesn't just compete with monolingual dictionaries; it also tries, as you noted, to define words in other languages. But I'm sure you've heard of a paper dictionary that translates from one language to another. Instead of simply tossing those entries out of Wiktionary's count, it would make more sense to compare Wiktionary to the OED + CEDICT + Merriam-Webster's Spanish-English Dictionary + EDICT + Larousse Pocket Dictionary + Le Ba Khanh / Le Ba Kong + a slew of Hippocrene Standard dictionaries. Obviously, Wiktionary would not fare very well in such a comparison. But you can't just summarily discount a large chunk of the project because you wouldn't find it in, say, a pocket dictionary.
By the way, the dictionary on my desk, the Random House College Dictionary, doesn't have an entry on Decline and Fall, but it does have one on the book's author, Edward Gibbon (1737–94, English historian), who doesn't have his own Wiktionary entry yet. So maybe that makes up for your example, since many dictionaries define proper nouns to some degree.
 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 02:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That graph

...Really needs an update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterus (talk • contribs)

The caption is out of date; clicking through to the graphic, it is in synch with the source @ http://stats.wikimedia.org/wiktionary/EN/PlotsPngArticlesTotal.html; from the footer of that page "Generated on Tuesday December 12, 2006 from recent database dump files. Data processed up to Thursday November 30, 2006." --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)