Wiktionary talk:Anagrams

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Misspellings[edit]

I'm going to assume that misspellings are disallowed. --AZard 16:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, or at least I hope so. Conrad.Irwin 17:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Beer parlour - significant discussions[edit]

  • November 2008: Creation of alphagram template and position of alphagrams. --AZard 17:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

and capitalised words which are not substantives[edit]

What does that mean, then? A proper noun is a substantive right? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Why?[edit]

What in the world is the point of cluttering up pages with anagrams? Why would anyone looking up the meaning of a word want to know what the word looks like rearranged into alphabetical order? If there's some useful reason to have the alphagram, can't they just figure it out on their own? —This unsigned comment was added by 71.167.63.79 (talkcontribs).

Someone looking for the meaning of the word might not care, but a person looking for anagrams would. Did you know that there are published anagram dictionaries? and that they are organized by alphagram? --EncycloPetey 00:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
They are important in word games, and people tend to enjoy trivia along the lines of "which word has the most anagrams?". I don't feel that they're vital but I think they're nice to have. Perhaps in future we'll have a more customizable layout such that you could hide sections you don't care about. Equinox 00:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps in the future there will be one central place to edit the full list of anagrams of a set of letters. Or maybe Wikipedia will get better interwiki link handling first. But here we don't need a software fix; we simply need to use new templates such as {{anagrams:aaagmnrs}}. Since we already have a bot working on anagrams, why not use this method? --NE2 05:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good starting point. To be honest, I would go all the way and just use {{anagrams}}, which renders as a link to a separate, special, fully auto-generated page, that collects all acronyms for that alphagram. As a nice touch, {{anagrams}} would simply render as "No known anagrams" if the corresponding anagrams page only contains that word. 124.147.76.165 02:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Uhm... I thought {{anagrams}} could automatically work out the alphagram using {{PAGENAME}}, but apparently templates are not good for even basic string manupulation. OK then, let's start from {{anagrams|aaagmnrs}}. I'll have a look at bots. Does anyone have any details about the current anagram bot? 124.147.76.165 04:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Anagrams are pointless and should be removed. Palosirkka (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Why again?[edit]

I was kindly pointed to this page by an editor answering my question at the Beer Parlour. I also happen to think that anagrams are a confusing waste of space.

Another point I was making is that if we really must live with this largely useless and overly prominent feature, it should be fully automated. Either anagrams are always "generated by a bot", or "users are free to add anagrams", and "You may include the alphagram" (yay, another useless automatable statistics to pollute the page!). What bot does this and how, and why would we allow manual intervention at all, if we trust what it's doing? Thanks. 124.147.76.165 23:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Anagrams Bot[edit]

OK, apparently the bot is User:Conrad.Bot. If this is confirmed, it should really be linked in this project page. I'll contact the author and look for the actual bot's code, so I can have a better technical understanding about what can and cannot be done. 124.147.76.165 04:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I cannot find the source code. 124.147.76.165 08:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The code is (now) at http://jelzo.com/stuff/anagrams.tar.gz, feel free to peruse. The approach taken is a multi-pass one, and you'll need a wiktionary dump and the corresponding definition list (from http://toolserver.org/~enwikt/definitions/) file. The passes are, vaguely:
  1. Work out what anagrams should be present by looking at the definitions lists (find_expected.py)
  2. Work out which anagrams are already present, by looking at the dump (find_existing.py)
  3. Work out the delta (merge.py)
  4. Upload the changes (upload.py)
It was supposed to have some clever stuff to ensure that if someone deleted an anagram from a page, it didn't re-add it; but I don't think that ever actually worked. Conrad.Irwin 22:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no need for this work...[edit]

There's no need to place anagrams inside the articles... it would be more practical and discrete to link this tool [1] which is currently used in various Wiktionaries... One should just ask the developer to translate the interface into English, and place a link in the left column... that's all --151.75.10.0 15:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The tool you link does not seem to be that much of a help for Dutch. It says geit doesn't have any anagrams, so it forgets (inflected) words like giet. --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

What is anagrams?

All of humanity is embarrassed by this[edit]

Can we remove the anagrams, please? Wiktionary is already the best dictionary, let's make it a serious one. 108.254.247.159 20:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Had this discussion a few times before. They are actually useful (mainly for players of word games) though I wouldn't mind hiding them in some kind of collapsible box, since most users won't care; and they are an objective "function" of the word, unlike, say, trivia sections. Equinox 21:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)