Hm. This is the English language dictionary, no? At the very least we should be using Latin characters for page titles. --mav
- The vague vibes I'm getting are that this is the everything->English portion of the dictionary, so Taw's brief English translations of Japanese words are very much on topic (though they need to be expanded further). Limiting ourselves to Latin characters for titling entries of words in languages that use other writing systems would be bizarre and substandard, and I would not recommend it. Want a romanized index? Make redirects. --Brion
- But how is this useful to the English speaker who, if anything, will only be at all familiar with the Romanized versions? --mav
- How is a printed dictionary useful to someone who can't read? ;) Pronunciation and standard romanizations can and should appear in the entries, naturally, along with all the other information. --Brion
- The first thing they will teach you in any Japanese course worth your time is hiragana. And in case of Japanese there is no such thing as standard romaniziaton. There are two major "standards" (Kunrei and Hepburn), with lot of versions (ou vs. &omacron; vs. ô, spelling of borrowed words and many other issues) and most people mix two of them at will anyway. Taw
- OK I see now. Since this is a dictionary we should be a lot more pedantic about usage. We also don't have to worry as much about catching spontaneous links. Just don't get any silly ideas about having non-Latin based titles in Wikipedia. --mav
- Polish Wikipedia contains much more dictionary data than Wiktionary and no non-Latin characters are used in titles, so you don't have to worry too much Taw
Really ? As far as I can see the articles (Pies and all that stuff) this is many-to-English dictionary. There's no point in starting English-to-English dictionary as we have some already (Webster, GCIDE, foldoc and tons of others etc.).
And welcome to CJK world. ASCII is what you will find here not. Taw 01:27 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)
Just for information, I can read the UTF-8 encoded CJK characters fine here, in both article titles and bodies. (using mozilla 1.0.1 on Gentoo Linux 1.4rc1). -- The Anome
I see something like this in the RC using Lynx on Linux console :
* (diff) (hist) . . N Traditional Chinese; 02:37 . . Taw * (diff) (hist) . . N ; 02:34 . . Taw * (diff) (hist) . . N ; 02:34 . . Taw * (diff) (hist) . . User:Taw; 02:31 . . Taw * (diff) (hist) . . M Connotation; 02:30 . . 126.96.36.199 (de)
Can something be done about it because I can't follow links to ; articles (they're not there).
Kpjas Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:42:39 +0100
- This seems to be a Lynx bug -- it won't let you select a link which consists only of characters not in is currently configured charset. Go into options and monkey around with the character set options... I can get it displaying and following the links (in a gnome-terminal window) by setting charset and display to Unicode/UTF-8. Getting this to display correctly on the console may be trickier, but it will allow you to select and follow the links. --Brion
Hi Taw, and welcome to Wiktionary. I'm interested in your additions in Polish (as I am in any other language). One remark though: why do you precede your entries with "Polish word" and "Polish language"? Up to now no contributor has done that. If there has been any discussion on the issue I haven't found it. If not, don't you think it should be discussed first before "flooding" Wiktionary (your words...) with page titles in that format? Best regards. D.D. 16:03 May 22, 2003 (UTC)
- Indeed there was a discussion about namespaces. I would also favor clear namespaces. In fact the absence of namespaces refrains me from adding entries in foreign languages. Unfortunally the namespace-idea didn't went through so far. (cf. Wiktionary:Beer parlour maybe we should continue there) - Henryk911 07:59 May 23, 2003 (UTC)
Information about one language should be clearly separated from information about others. Some kind of prefixing (or postfixing) is necessary for that. Taw 17:01 May 22, 2003 (UTC)
Hi Taw, I was thinking along the same lines as DD, but I let him take the honors to make the remark. Please have a look at articles like nicht, boom, at, on, etc to see how we take care of the words that have the same spelling in different languages. Cheers, Polyglot 17:26 May 22, 2003 (UTC)
Just because they are spelled the same doesn't mean they should go to single article. On Wikipedias they would get disambiguated. Taw 18:11 May 22, 2003 (UTC)
This is a dictionary, it's interesting to know which words have the same spelling across languages. It would also be interesting to be able to quickly find the 'faux amis', the words sounding the same across languages. I guess you can do how you please, until somebody with more influence than us gives his opinion. I only hope you won't start to disambiguate our entries. Polyglot 18:38 May 22, 2003 (UTC)
Some more remarks:
- Taw, I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, or that your ideas about Wiktionary cannot serve as a basis to make it better. All I'm saying is that it would have been better to discuss them first. Please consider the fact that some contributors might feel you come "barging in" on your first day "flooding" Wiktionary with your title format.
- As Polyglot pointed out, this is not Wikipedia. Wikipedia has certain conventions (such as disambiguating) or even "unwritten laws" which fit very nicely with the Wikipedia concept. Wiktionary is much younger, and it's obvious that such conventions haven't yet been established here (although there are some preferences here and there). But it has become clear to the regular contributors that Wiktionary demands another vision. You cannot simply imitate the Wikipedia way of doing things in Wiktionary.
My point is: explain your idea, discuss it, and I'm sure we can get something useful out of it. D.D. 19:30 May 22, 2003 (UTC)
Discussing first ? Have been tried many times, it doesn't work ;-)
My idea is that I want to add examples to Polish language course in a way that doesn't collide with the rest of Wiktionary. If they also serve as articles about various Polish words, it's fine, but that's not their main purpose. If people reading the course would suddenly end in article about word "foo" in some languages other than Polish that would be bad.
Polyglot: If you want to find words that are spelled the same way in different languages you can use search engine (title search) or something. Taw 11:46 May 23, 2003 (UTC)
I understand your concern. You wrote a great introduction to the Polish language and if you refer people to an example word, you don't want them to be confused with words of the same spelling in other languages. I believe that most people interested in learning Polish as a foreign language, can be trusted to be intelligent enough to browse on through an article to find where the definition of the Polish word starts. What I am worried about, is duplication of information. That's why we should try to find a consensus about this. You are going to refer to your articles and somebody else will probably start entries for the terms you have already described in the way the rest of the Wiktionary is set up. One of both entries is going to be less elaborate compared to the other, so people will find less information than they could have. Which is a pity. Polyglot 12:31 May 23, 2003 (UTC)
As nobody else is writing about Polish language now, it's not very likely that such conflicts would happen. ;) Anyway, it doesn't have to be decided now - we have bots after all, we can fix it later. Taw 15:02 May 23, 2003 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Polyglot and Dhum Dhum. There is no benefit to having the tag "Polish word" in the title of an article. The concern about having the word confused with an identical one from another language is unfounded. Polish spellings strike me as quite distinct from anything else; the fact that they often appear quite unpronounceable to the foreigner is an asset in this context. Having a series of Wiktionary:Polish index ... articles would bring the treatment into line with the approach that has developed with other languages. (I admit that I have had some reservations about that system, but as long as I don't have anything better to offer I would like to promote some consistency in its usage.) Another benefit of keeping individual word titles simple relates to interlanguage linking. Some of our contributors have been keen to show a list of translations for English words. The items on such lists have been presented in a "Language: word" format. Having a special treatment "Polish: Polish word" would not likely be remembered by some contributors.
- The idea of having some bot fix things up later leaves me very uncomfortable.
- The content of the specific Polish word articles seems like an excellent presentation, and a similar approach should be recommended to people writing about other languages. Eclecticology 16:41 May 23, 2003 (UTC)
Articles are generated by a script from short descriptions, mainly to reduce number of mistakes that happen when writing by hand.
Why are you against bots ? We have done that - postponing decision and mass-fixing by bot later - a couple of times on Polish Wikipedia. Taw 17:24 May 23, 2003 (UTC)
- I have no problem with the scripts, and clearly agree with the way you are using them when the structural aspects of a group of articles are all going to be the same anyway.
- The matter of bots for making changes has come up on the English Wikipedia. With (among other things) British and American usages being so different the concern has always been that using bots could force changes where no changes are intended. As an extreme case consider a situation where a vandal has replaced the name "George Bush" with the word "cunt" wherever he could find it. Using a bot to reverse this damage could even cause correct uses of "cunt" to be changed. It might not be approrpriate to refer to a part of the female anatomy called a George Bush -- no matter how hairy it is. Eclecticology 18:18 May 23, 2003 (UTC)
Hello, Taw. I just want to inform you that I started to put a complete list of radicals in English wikipedia. See http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_(Chinese_character). We may want to coordinate about Chinese characters stuff between here and wikipedia. Best wishes, -- TakuyaMurata 20:52 May 27, 2003 (UTC)