Talk:Wiktionary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Early discussion

Wiki dectionary must be reretored and a seperate section must be made, culture have different views and must be desplayed seperatly to prevent issues in the future.

Simpley do not merge . merging would cause conflicts

[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:

[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.

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? <K F> 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. <K F> 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? <K F> 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. <K F> 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)"? Mark ¹ 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] 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).

[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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[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)

[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)

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)

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)

[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.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Talk%7EWiktionary_96fa.html"