Wiktionary talk:Main Page/Archive 4

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

PURGE ALL PERIODS[edit]

Please, remove all periods from the end of definitions (which are not sentences) -- no dictionary is thus designed.

If you will take the time to look at some dictionaries, you will find that your statement is incorrect. The Oxford English Dictionary, the American Heritage Dictionary, Webster's, and Random House all place periods at the end of definitions, even when the definitions is simply a word or phrase. --EncycloPetey 13:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

spellcheck[edit]

This wiki, above all others, should have a spell check/spellcheck/spell-check (I don't know which one it is) for its search and articles. 71.236.79.160 01:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It does, but it is for people editing, not browsing...so you have to turn it on at the bottom of WT:PREFS. (Still in beta testing - occasional bugs. Remember to check the first checkbox also.) --Connel MacKenzie 03:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Note that if you simply load FireFox, the integrated spellchecker is much nicer. --Connel MacKenzie 20:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat related.. Didn't wanna create a whole new header when this one fit so well. I was wondering why misspelled articles aren't created sort of like disambiguation pages, linking to a number of properly spelled articles that the browser could have been searching for? (Or does that make sense..) no24.169.120.253 01:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

When you don't create a new topic at the bottom of this page, your comment(s) are not noticed...sometimes for weeks.  :-)
Incorrect spellings are not entered, as they find their way into altavista/yahoo/google searches (that are fed pretty much directly from here to their databases) and therefore create the impression that that spelling is "correct" if entered as a redirect. As the general rule though, don't enter misspellings. The List of common misspellings will identify common misspellings if you search for one. --Connel MacKenzie 20:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Archives and old stuff[edit]

[edit]

Yes, we know about the pronunciation thing, don't tell us here. Go here to discuss a new logo.

Better pages out there[edit]

We should redesign this page, and follow sr: instead of pl:. — Vildricianus 21:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll do it! --WildrickExpurgator t(c) 22:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I do like sr:'s gradient heading bars. --Connel MacKenzie 21:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I also like how it keeps the minimum of links and stuff there. We badly need to relieve our Main page. — Vildricianus 16:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The Anglo-Saxon wiktionary's looking really good nowadays, too! --161.243.63.153 20:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Order of languages[edit]

Please, move fi ("Suomi") to right place in Main Page: just before "Svenska" --Aulis Eskola 18:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It is in the "right place". The langauges are ordered by language code. It's not even possible to order them by native name as the native names are in many different scripts. — Hippietrail 03:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The current situation is very user-unfriendly. It is very well possible to order the alphabetically written languages according to their alphabetical order in the GUI (user interface). It is not necessary to produce a chaotic list for users just because the language codes are often based on the languages' English names whereas the GUI shows the native name. The old-fashioned English-centric language codes are a technical standard and jargon and do not need to be changed, but there is absolutely no reason to let this create a visible list for users that violates one of the foundations of all dictionaries in alphabetical scripts, the alphabetical order! Take a look at Wikipedia if you need a wiki model.
Similarly, it would be best to have non-alphabetical scripts in the list according to their order in alphabetical transcriptions of the languages' own names, not the English names (which results from the English name used in the language code). This has not yet been implemented or understood at Wikipedia yet; in fact, it perhaps hasn't even been suggested yet. --Espoo 08:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Your POV does not match the consensus previously reached by this community of contributors. --Connel MacKenzie 16:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you point me to that discussion, please? Don't you feel that the current situation is problematic? What reasons could possibly be so important that they defend producing a user-unfriendly interface that violates one of the foundations of all dictionaries in alphabetical scripts, the alphabetical order? --Espoo 23:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding. The alphabetic order was that of the language names (as they appear!) in English. Your POV that English readers should speak and understand 7,000+ languages is absurd. So, I hope I merely have misunderstood what you are suggesting, or you merely misunderstood what the point of that section actually is. --Connel MacKenzie 00:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
On the left side of every page is a list with the native language names, not their English equivalents. Here, Finnish is listed as Suomi before Français in the middle of the alphabet instead of where it belongs at the end before Svenska. Due to this listing in violation of the alphabetical principle, many people cannot find the language they're looking for in the list. This is very user unfriendly as i hope you'll agree. This order according to the English codes for the languages is fortunately not observed on most Wiktionary pages, e.g. hint peace answer
On the bottom of only the main page is a list of the languages grouped according to the number of entries in their respective dictionaries. This list has both the native language names and their English equivalents. This list could very well be according to the English names if these were listed first instead of second and in parentheses. As it is, it looks very chaotic and makes most users think the order in each group is determined by the number of entries and makes the languages hard to find. --Espoo 13:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The worst problem appears at left of screen - there are no codes, there are no English names. Situation is confusing for users. --91.153.26.28 23:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I have changed order to Wiktionary:Main Page/Otherlang:"suomi" before "svenska". Now suomi is on correct plece at left on main page. Does this have some "side effects"? --Aulis Eskola 00:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
How did you find that link to an editable version, at least of part of the page?
I also corrected the alphabetical order for other languages on the left and also in the list in the middle on the bottom. --Espoo 10:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I rolled that back - see comment above. The "Templates used on this page" section appears when editing a page, below the edit box section. --Connel MacKenzie 16:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Espoo that the order is strange. My reason is simply that it's not intuitive for the list of links to be ordered by the URL of the links instead of what's visible to the user. You are confused for a bit and then go "oh, I see! It's ordered by the thing that's visible at the bottom of the browser window when I move the mouse on top of the links!" If they have to be ordered by their language tags, why not have the visible link names in English too, or prefix them with the tags, e.g. "(fi) Suomi"? Using English would be logical, if (as you quite reasonably said) the reader can't be expected to understand the foreign-language names in the first place. -- 82.103.215.236 20:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem there is three-fold. First, that sort of interwiki link is used throughout Wiktionary, so any change would affect every page we have. Second, most of the additions are made by a bot, which would have to understand how to order the languages. Third, many other links are added by people who don't speak English and don't know the English names of the language. The current system allows the bot and editors to add links correctly with ease. But, you are correct that it would help if the language code were visible, so that people using the page could know why the languages are listed in that order. I don't know whether that's possible or how to go about finding out. --EncycloPetey 20:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Situation on many articles is like this: Suomi-link in on it's alphabetical place ("s"). --91.153.26.28 23:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

In translations of words language names are in English. Should we use that same style also at left with links to other wiktionaries? I mean should we change primarily to English names of languages? At main page we could write "Finnish (Suomi)", not "Suomi (Finnish)". --91.153.26.28 23:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

One additional confusing point: in Wikipedia "Suomi" is on main page and typically in articles ordered based on native name ("su", not "fi"). There ar not so much automation on linking languages, I think, and thats why robot problem is not so large. --91.153.26.28 23:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand. The content is for English readers; the left-column navigation bar is for all other language speakers. (Try visiting the main page of a dozen or so other language Wiktionaries, to see how important it is to have a link "somewhere" in your own language.) the only logical ordering for that task, is by the language's natural name for itself. --Connel MacKenzie 00:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I know the user problems because I am native Finnish speaker. But I don't know all the automatic systems "behind the walls" despite I am nerd also. (I am user of many different wiktionaries and also admin in some of them.) I have the same idea for navigation between wiktionaries: we should have native names also as links _if_ _possible_. But I trying "something else". If we can not get names to places there users normally are searching for them. Maybe English name in "correct" place are better than native names in "wrong" places ("correct" means here intuitive location for user not knowing codes and jargons). From Finnish viewpoint situation is different: only some enthusiasts know the language codes and can remember. Codes seem to have nearly nothing to do with language names. If your are using for example this English version you typically know some words in English. In that situation you typically know also your own language name in English. --91.153.26.28 00:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Main page / Wictionaries in other languages[edit]

Let's talk separately this question: Why not to change style "Suomi (Finnish)" to "Finnish (Suomi)" if the order is based on "Finnish", not "Suomi"? --91.153.26.28 00:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, that sounds reasonable, and I forget what the objection was. Perhaps this should be brought up in the central discussion area WT:BP? --Connel MacKenzie 08:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Word of Day: Whippersnapper and presumptious[edit]

Presumptious is not the correct spelling for presumptuous.--Williamfrederick 04:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. — Vildricianus 07:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What's going on?[edit]

Okay, why is there no main page? It's a redirect to Wiktionary:Main Page, which doesnt even exist? What is going on here? --Reaper X

It appears fine for me. --Connel MacKenzie 20:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry; another sysop had already corrected the problem. --Connel MacKenzie 21:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

spanish has more than ten thousand[edit]

it´s true, I don´t know why it´s located in the "more than a thousand" article. in fact, i can´t understand why it has less articles than portuguese or dutch.

Please don't post abusive comments. The number referred to is the number of entries included so far, not the total number of terms in the language. — Paul G 07:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem with main page[edit]

When I tried to enter the main page, a download-window of file "wiktionary_main_page" appeared. I clicked "cancel", and wasn't abled to open the page. Does anyone know why this is happenning and how to repair it? Tamuz

Update: I found out that if I try to enter Main Page, it loads fine. However, when I try to enter Wiktionary:Main Page (the page linked to by the site's logo on the upper-left corner), the occurance I have previously described happens. -- Tamuz

Odd behaviour. Did you perchance click the audio link (Loudspeaker.png) in the Word of the Day section? That'll download the audio file. If not, please specify your browser and operating system. — Vildricianus 17:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hm... awkward. Now it works fine, though nobody changed anything... Well, my browser does act kinda weird occasionally, so I guess it's just a problem on my computer. (I'm using Windows XP professional and browser Internet Explorer 6.0). -- Tamuz

Someone is trying to slip Wiktionary!!![edit]

The domain en.wikitionary.org is parked by CheapestDotCom.com. We need to get this domain name off these scandals. ja.wikitionary.org is taken too. www.wikitionary.org is owned by www.profitmatic.biz, which is in the Phillipines. —This unsigned comment was added by 219.89.70.184 (talk).

I don't think there is much that can be done about typo-squatters. Those kinds of things are common on the net. --Versageek 05:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
If they don't act unlawful in the name of "wiktionary" we should not intervene. Grtx, --Thogo (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
wtf its not about being unlawful its about using the wiktionary name!!!! Need to get these ASAP--68.127.242.136 03:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh?[edit]

  1. When I clicked on "post a comment," I got a message saying that the option was not available. Some-thing's screwy here.
  2. When I tried to open an account, I was told I had to read a message that was in the form of an image that needed cookies enabled. I can't do that.

—This unsigned comment was added by 71.202.88.152 (talk).

  1. Could you identify the page please? Several have a "post a comment" link.  :-)
  2. We get (proportionally) a lot more vandalism on en.wiktionary than any other wikimedia site. (In terms of volume, we are fortunately no where near Wikipedia.) To counteract the faster acting vandals, those measures are in place. Sorry, but if you cannot even use a public terminal in a local library to create an account, there isn't much we can do to help you. --Connel MacKenzie 20:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
That person had been able to scribe here,... So, possibly the discussion pages are not as secure as the primary ones [????].

If that is not true already, then the possible solution is permitting ip people to write on all discussion pages.

Beyond that, well, maybe I'm not fully comprehending the problem.

Thank You.

Hopiakuta 21:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is a wiki. Anyone can edit any page (that isn't protected or semi-protected) even if they don't (or can't) register. There is a technical proposal to have audio CAPTCHAs for blind contributors, but without cookies enabled you won't get very far. --Connel MacKenzie 06:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
What the hell are cookies enabled and where do you get them? I tried to log in on my machine at work, and was also told to get cookies. I tried to buy them at the local supermarket, but they looked blankly at me and offered me biscuits instead. So I still can't log on at work and my staff is getting fat. What to do? Andrew massyn 21:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
If you'd said what browser you're using, someone could have helped you. Or you could look in the help file of your browser (usually in a Help menu) or look in a reference work. For example, you could look in this dictionary's cookie article and find the article HTTP_cookie, which has a link to the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_cookie --Espoo 08:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Did the wikiwebservers crash & burn f/ several hours today??[edit]

Hopiakuta 20:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Two hours, 29 minutes, by my count. See WT:AN for info about the backbone routing problem. --Connel MacKenzie 20:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, what does hootspa(sp?) mean? I heard it on the daily show.

The word was probably chutzpah? —Muke Tever 00:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki[edit]

Please add interwiki link for Romanian Wiktionary --SCriBu

Looks like there already is one in the 1,000+ category which seems to be where it belongs. - TheDaveRoss 16:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Various other scripts - add Armenian?[edit]

There are a fair amount of articles in the Armenian script, and I was wondering if it was enough to be put on the main page under the "Various other scripts" section. I guess it would be Ա-Ֆ and ա-ֆ. Just a thought. -Rappo 05:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. --Connel MacKenzie 11:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionarizer tool at www.online-utility.org[edit]

Have you seen Foreign Language Tool at Online Utility? It puts link before each word to Wiktionary? It is aimed to non-english languages, but at that site there are other similar utilities for English language. --217.23.199.99 17:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


Are the wikis down?[edit]

This is the only wiki that works--66.41.169.244 00:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Namespace[edit]

WHy is the main page still in wiki space? Should it not be in article space or main page space? Shyam (T/C) 19:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It only got moved to the Wiktionary: namespace (relatively) recently. The entry at main page describes is supposed to describe the English phrase, while the default page of the entire project gives much different information. --Connel MacKenzie 19:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Is the main page redirected to wiktionary space, but it does not show the redirect page link. Will you help me to clear my confusion? Shyam (T/C) 19:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Correct. Since the page was moved only recently, most sister projects have not corrected their links to the original page, so it still redirects (for now.) MediaWiki:Monobook.js hides the redirection notice for that one particular page (too many people were annoyed seeing the redirect message.) I don't think we are quite ready to correct main page just yet. --Connel MacKenzie 19:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Got it :) Thanks for clarifying the doubts. Shyam (T/C) 19:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Please disambiguate these definitions, so that I might increase clarity:
  1. wiki space
  2. article space
  3. main page space

Thank You.

Additionally, I've just rolled-over my userpages. How, please, can I make my signon|signin conform thusly??

Thank You.

Hopiakuta 21:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That amounts to four answers. Please?[edit]

Hopiakuta 20:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

cookies[edit]

Help:Contents and Wiktionary:FAQ need info on cookies for users experiencing trouble using Wiktionary. At the very least, a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_cookie --Espoo 08:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

UK/US/other spelling[edit]

It's truly embarrassing that there is no info anywhere on what Wiktionary's spelling policy is, not in Help:Contents, Help:How to edit a page, Help:FAQ!

In addition to making this whole project look and be very amateur, this produces chaos and wastes time, e.g. by producing several articles for the same lemma instead of combining efforts into one. For example, we now have "shortcut" and "short cut" and "short-cut". These should be combined and short-cut should be deleted or marked as a rare variant. It's not in any UK or US dictionaries i have; all have either shortcut or short cut, and the former is clearly gaining acceptance in the UK. In fact, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?dict=CALD&key=73060 shows "shortcut" is even beginning to be considered the normal one in the UK too. --Espoo 10:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn, you would've saved me a lot of trouble if you had just told me up front that this is en-uk.wiktionary.org, not en.wiktionary.org. Oh wait... --Connel MacKenzie 20:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess you mean the previous editors of Wiktionary, not me? --Espoo 10:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think that after we decide whether to use US or UK on the page title, we use the other for rediracts and make mention of both on the eymology section. That way, you can efficiently find either spelling. --DavidBurgess 01:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't really understand what you're saying either, DavidBurgess. Is there an official decision on whether UK or US spelling is the default spelling in Wiktionary or not? If not, each article should say whether the spelling is a regional or global one. As it is, the dictionary is unreliable and amateurish because one can never know if the spelling is global or if someone just forgot to put a regional label on it. Redirects without labels are no help for this. In addition, lots of time is wasted by more than one article being created for the same words with different spellings because editors don't notice the other spelling and because there is apparently no spelling policy. --Espoo 10:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
What you seem to be forgetting, it that we aim to have "all words in all languages." The example you give above perfectly demonstrates why they need to be separate entries! Obviously, the UK POV is that theirs is the only true English, while the American POV is that en-us is the international language of choice and by far the most common, therefore it should be the default. India's POV is that with over a billion people, their dialect has the most solid base of speakers, so their spellings should be default. The Australian POV is that theirs is the most sensible. The Canadian POV is that their dialect is the most inclusive. The Jamacian POV is that their dialect is the most flexible. There is no NPOV way to combine separate headwords. On en.wiktionary.org, they each get separate entries that refer to each other.
I'm not sure if the comment about "spelling policy" is a troll, or just what. "All words in all languages" seems pretty clear. --Connel MacKenzie 16:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems neither you nor DavidBurgess understood what i'm trying to say. The FAQ and help pages have absolutely no info on what Wiktionary's policy is on regional variations in spelling and meaning. I have no idea how someone could misunderstand that factual statement as trolling. Since the policy is apparently that all variants in all forms of English are considered equally valid, then this should be stated, as it is for example in WP's manual of style. (And these different regional English spelling habits and meanings have nothing to do with different languages; they're all still the same language.) In addition, the policy and FAQ should clarify that it's better to add info about alternative meanings and spellings to already existing entries instead of creating parallel ones and thereby wasting their own and other editors' time and confusing users. The software should also list the search results first, instead of after "You can create an entry with that title" which is as far as many seem to read. In fact, the software should automatically prevent a new full entry for "after party", for example, if "afterparty" already exists; it should automatically enable only the creation of a redirect page in this kind of a clear situation.
And yes, DavidBurgess, the whole problem is that the first editors know what kind of English they mean or at least what kind they're using, and they may even be aware that their spelling and/or meaning is different from those used in other forms of English, but the articles do not automatically say what kind of English they describe. So when users and editors come across an article, they don't know whether the article was created by a US, UK, or other kind of editor. It would be important for all articles to say whether the editor decided to first describe US or UK or some other kind of English. Since many people have no idea that their spelling or meaning is different from what's used elsewhere, all articles should automatically be labeled according to the editor's kind of English. All editors should be required to enter a regional label in their account settings that describes what kind of English they speak and write before being allowed to create articles. The software could then automatically add a label saying what kind of English the creator of the article normally uses. (If editors are confident they know about other regional use too, they can then edit the articles and add a second regional label manually.) Future editors could then check to see whether the article's spelling(s) and meaning(s) are also appropriate for their kind of English and add the label for their own kind of English after having added new info if necessary.
In any traditional dictionary, users know that an entry without any regional label is acceptable worldwide; here in Wiktionary, they have no idea if they're seeing only a regional use that is not correct elsewhere and that is simply missing the regional label. --Espoo 23:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
No, redirects are not acceptable, particularly in that situation. A "soft redirect" might be acceptable. Yes, each entry should be tagged to identify the region(s) applicable. If you see a regional term missing the tag, please add it, as indeed, the expectation is that any term not tagged is acceptable worldwide.
Are you suggesting the addition of a {{worldwide English}} or {{all dialects}} tag, on every definition of every entry, to reduce the ambiguity? I don't think that would work very well.
--Connel MacKenzie 18:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciations for Three Words[edit]

I am searching for information on how to correctly pronounce these words: Pliny Misenum Herculaneum Thank you very much. Frances 00:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Pliny already does have an IPA pronunciation entered. The other two, you'll need to identify the language for, then request pronunciation on that language Wiktionary, I think. --Connel MacKenzie 20:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, they're Latin words, and I'm studying them. I can't give an IPA pronunication but I can spell it out:
  • Plinn-ee
  • My-see-num
  • Hur-kyoo-lane-ee-um
62.56.117.239 15:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

what is the difference...[edit]

between this site and something like urbandictionary.com? Is this wikitionary supposed to gather slang etc as well? 84.191.103.232 18:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Our goal is quite different from UD. UD is exclusively a slang dictionary. Wiktionary's focus is on words, not slang. The goal here is to provide a usable dictionary free of copyright protections. --Connel MacKenzie 20:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Slang words are words, so there is no reason not to include them. I haven't seen any Wiktionary policy that prevents adding slang, and that would indeed be very strange since all modern dictionaries now include slang. The main difference between us and UD is that we strive for verifiable accuracy whereas UD also accepts fanciful and downright incorrect and made-up "definitions", even words made up by the editors. That also means that we remove incorrect or strange definitions and words that are too rare (especially words used only used by a single editor!). In addition, we strive for a description of the most common standard meanings of a word first and only add possible slang or rare and obsolete standard meanings later.
It's true we don't have many expressions or phrases yet, only some of these are mentioned at the article for the main or first word of the phrase (policy missing!), but i'm sure that'll change once we have entries for all the most common English words. --Espoo 11:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
We have our criteria for inclusion to weed out the "urbandictionaryisms" that creep in; on the other hand, we have many entries in category:Slang. What exactly is the question? --Connel MacKenzie 16:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Interwikis[edit]

I see that the Hrvatski Wiktionary is not listed in the interwikis. (You can get to it for example from an interwiki from the page for "m".) Would you please add a link to it? I think it's hr:Glavna stranica. I wonder whether it is the only one missing. The English Wikipedia doesn't list all interwikis on its main page, but it has a big box at the bottom of the page with links to the complete list of languages, and it also now has a link called "Complete list" visible on Java-enabled browsers at the bottom of the list of interwikis on the left. There should be links from the English Wiktionary Main Page to all other language Wiktionaries. Also, I'm curious about how the interwikis are done on this page; I don't see them in the source -- are they in one of the templates? Thanks. --Coppertwig 04:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Other Wiktionaries with less than 100 entries are not listed from the main page, but are listed from Meta (which should still be linked from there...I'll recheck in a moment.) On any page, when you edit it, the "List of templates used on this page" appears below the edit box section. Yes, the interwikis are in a template. --Connel MacKenzie 05:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh. Well, it would help the other Wiktionaries to grow if they were a little easier to find. Maybe a "complete list" link could be added, similar to the one at the bottom of the interwikis on the English Wikipedia Main Page? Or a link somewhere on the main page telling people that not all the Wiktionaries are listed on the left and leading them to the complete list. Otherwise, how do people who are able to contribute to a Wiktionary find out that one in a language they know exists? 100 is a pretty low threshold, though. It's not too bad. --Coppertwig 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I should have read your question more closely. The left column interwikis list only those Wiktionaries that have 1,000 entries or more. The main reason for this, is so the left column isn't three times longer than the main content panel page length. In the main content panel, the bottom of the "Wiktionary in other languages" section has two links, that give different views of all Wiktionaries. Note that those lists are not (and probably cannot be) maintained here. How would you like those two links to be reworded? Actually, you should be able to edit Wiktionary:Main Page/Otherlang yourself... --Connel MacKenzie 07:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh. I should have read the Main Page more closely before making my comment. However: other people besides me may see the list of languages on the left and jump to the conclusion that those are all the languages with Wiktionaries. It would be good to have a "Complete list" item as the last item in the list of interwikis at the left, as on the English Wikipedia Main Page. There, it's been implemented for Java browsers only, requires admin privilege or something to do I think, and I don't know how to do it. I just think it's a good idea, and actually I pushed to have it implemented there. 1000 entries is too many for one person to easily write on their own, so the Wiktionaries with fewer than 1000 entries need others who speak the language to be able to easily find them, so they can grow. I was going to look up some Hrvatski words in the Hrvatski Wiktionary and after looking at the Main Page here, I thought there wasn't one and gave up. Later I happened to notice it when I was looking up "m". OK, it's small so only one of the words I actually wanted to look up was in it, but still. Not everyone will think of reading all sections of the Main Page if they're looking for interwikis, which are usually on the left. --Coppertwig 17:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I'll try to javascript-in that link. If I forget again, please remind me on my talk page, or request one of the other sysops to add it (probably the grease pit is the best place to ask.) --Connel MacKenzie 00:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

English/American[edit]

This is a genuine question, so please dont lock me out (in thinking that this is a spam). Wicktionary seems to be American spelling and not English (e.g. "Authorise" cannot be found, while "Authorize" caanot)! Is the dictionary supposed to by English or American spelling (or both)? If it is an American based dictionary, could the english alternative be mentioned (either in the main document or in the 'Translations' section)?. When the dictionary does mention the alternative spelling, it does not seem to say which is which.

It's both, please see color for an example of how we deal with English/American spellings. So, you may do the same with authorise/authorize. Thanks. Kipmaster 10:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

- Just realised a similar topic is already up (which I did not spot) because the Contents has been labled incorrectly.

Wiktionaries with +100,000 entries[edit]

Can someone put French and Vietnamese into their own section for wiktionaries with 100,000 or more words ? It seems unfair to classify these two huge wiktionaries with the rest, especially since they have 20 times 10,000 words. --81.51.130.81 12:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Anniversary![edit]

It's a day late, but congratulations to all the contributors! --CocoaZen 18:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

CHRIST! (sorry but) Wiktionary's editing tools are embarrasing, please add an IPA input tool.

It's there. Just select it from the drop-down menu (near the bottom of the screen) when in edit mode. SemperBlotto 23:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Wiktionary.org heading in the right direction?[edit]

I noticed that Wiktionary.org is not such a useful place for finding a translation of a word. It just does not look and feel like a useful dictionary. Here are some of the reasons:

There is no translation dedicated search (for instance, I cannot look up a word in English and get translations just in Spanish) Having multiple translations is good for general purposes, but it is annoying when you quickly want to look up a word.
It seems that every dictionary domain (en, fr, sp).wiktionary.org wants to define every translation in every language, without using existing definitions. For instance, when I looked up a word 'call' in English, all the translations in other languages were pointing to the English domain. This is, strictly speaking, a good approach, since you will explain the translations in English, but it is an awful waste of time! Think about an English-Spanish speaker who wants to contribute to Wiktionary: she would need to translate all English words into Spanish for both English and Spanish domains (and vice versa)! This is an n! progression and it will take a huge amount of time.
Wiktinary.org should use more pictures, not only for nouns, but verbs and adjectives as well, when the meaning can be conveyed easily (e.g. run, jump, angry, happy etc.).

Lead paragraph is wrong...[edit]

"In this English edition, started on December 12, 2002, we currently have 318,655 entries in 389 languages."

Hmm. --128.12.78.17 13:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  • What is your point? In the English Wiktionary, English words get a definition, non-English words get a translation into English. In the French Wiktionary, French words get a definition, non-French words get a translation into French. And so on. SemperBlotto 14:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Yea, and the first half of the first sentence "Welcome to the English-language Wiktionary, a collaborative project to produce a free, multilingual dictionary " is poorly worded. I rekcon you need to say "Welcome to the English-language Wiktionary, part of a collaborative project..." 202.180.72.232 09:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Poorly worded in what way? The English Wiktionary is a multilingual dictionary. We have entries for words in mearly 400 languages. For some langauges, we have more than 10,000 entries. Most multilingual dictionaries I've ever seen are designed for use by someone who reads/speaks a specific language, but who needs to be able to translate words from several other languages. That is what we do. I have never seen the term "mutlilingula dictionary" used to mean that the dictionary is written for users of every language. --EncycloPetey 15:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I love WOTD[edit]

Thanks guys, this is really helping expand my vocab. CuCulon 14:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Good words[edit]

I have been thinking about this idea for awhile. Basically wikipedia has its featured articles, and what do we have as a benchmark for quality? AFAIK nothing. Why dont we create something like a "good page", a page that is formatted correctly, defined correctly, and translated correctly. If a page is given this status it could be put in a category, and tagged on its talk page as good, and to also see which articles are lacking.

Also, translation projects could work on making sure that each translation is correct, and have their own little tag.

What do you all think?

Bearingbreaker92 20:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please move this to WT:BP#Articles de qualité. Great minds think alike - apparently at the same time, too! --Connel MacKenzie 20:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC) I meant you, Bearingbraker92, and User:EncycloPetey. Idiom abuse! I accept three demerits. --Connel MacKenzie 21:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict -- that makes three of us) I think this would get more visibility in WT:BP (where you may well be pointed at past conversations generally agreeing with you, and maybe even some action in that direction). --Enginear 20:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Wherever it gets looked at is fine with me! Bearingbreaker92 21:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sesotho Wiktionary[edit]

Could you please move the Sesotho (Southern Sotho) Wiktionary, http://st.wiktionary.org/, listing from 100+ to 1000+ as there are more than 1000 entries on that Wiki. Thanks!
--JAKoli4 14:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it maybe possible to change the link on the front page http://www.wiktionary.org/ ?
--JAKoli4 14:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, again. Reminder: www.wiktionary.org requests are handled somewhere on meta:. --Connel MacKenzie 02:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Firefox Plugin for Wiktionary[edit]

We could use a plugin for Wiktionary. It will be extremely productive, and also we would have a lot more entries and edits. If there is one, please tell us where to get it at. Thanks. --Bookinvestor 20:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm copying this to the Grease pit where it will get a wider (and more technically biased) audience. --Enginear 21:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Front text[edit]

Surfing GerardM's blog, I took an hour to watch Erin's presentation to Google...spectacular. Anyway, we don't really have an equivalent to a regular print dictionary's "Front Text" anywhere. Do we? Since the interwiki list is now longer than the Main Page content layout, perhaps we could add another minor section to it, to balance it out a little better? Thoughts? --Connel MacKenzie 08:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

honest/confidential[edit]

hi there! can someone help me by telling me the difference between honesty and confidentality... i mean in professional life how is it possible to be honest and at the same time ensure that you are not leaking out confidential information about your work or organization. regards Anastashia 06:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)sai

"I'm sorry, [sir/m'am], but I am not authorized to disclose any confidential information." --Connel MacKenzie 06:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Legal dictionary[edit]

I think it could be a neat feature not present in other normal dictionaries to have legal definitions among the entries and explanations. What do you people think? Lordmetroid 13:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC) You're right, we should do something about that.220.245.170.215 06:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitions specific to the legal industry are tagged with the {{law}} qualifier. That, of course, results in the Category:Law. Of all terms we have on Wiktionary, those should (and sometimes are) be regularly scoured for copyright violations. --Connel MacKenzie 02:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Couldn't find a reference desk so I'll ask here. Is there a specific name for adjectives that mean "of or pertaining to..." ? Is there a list of such words? 172.200.98.233 09:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The shortcut to the Information desk is WT:ID. I'll move this there for you. --Enginear 13:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit[edit]

Could an admin add <div id="mainpage"></div> exactly like that, this should change the tab's title from "project page" to "main page". Thanks, Wiki bean dude7 00:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Why should it be misleading, like that? --Connel MacKenzie 02:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you being sarcastic? Wiki bean dude7 02:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
All pages in the Wiktionary namespace have "project page" as their tab. --EncycloPetey 02:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know, but since this is the main page, not a project page, it should include the code, to change the tab. Look at the English Wikipedia's main page for more info. Wiki bean dude7 20:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Main Page is already mangled to appear the same as Wiktionary:Main Page. But without that link (that you want eliminated?) one cannot press ALT-C to arrive cleanly at the page intended (sans redirect.) Again, why would you want it to be more misleading? --Connel MacKenzie 18:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Automatic IPA to SAMPA conversion[edit]

Is there a way to include automatic IPA to SAMPA conversion ? Frigo 12:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Not at this time. Know anyone adept at converting one to the other? --Connel MacKenzie 02:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
A converter wouldn't be hard except that you'd have to be sure the IPA was free of tonal and aspirational markings. --EncycloPetey 02:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
There was a mention in WT:GP about adapting fr:wikt:'s Javascript converter. I haven't had time for it, myself, yet. --Connel MacKenzie 07:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia terms as entries[edit]

Wikipedia has a terminology, just most companies and activities and lifestyles have a terminology. I think Wikipedia terms meet Wiktionary's criteria of inclusion. Wikipedia is Wiktionary's sister site. Wikipedia terms include terms like "stub", "vandalism", and "original research." Tedius Zanarukando 02:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I use {{wjargon}} for that sort of thing. If someone goes overboard adding more than a dozen or so terms (total) though, someone is bound to notice, and they'll all be deleted (again?) --Connel MacKenzie 02:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is this discussion happening on the Main Page discussion page? --EncycloPetey 02:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Croatian (Hrvatski) Wiktionary[edit]

I didn't know how to get into contact with an administrator elsewhere, so I decided to post this here on the oft-read English Wiktionary's main page discussion area. Hopefully nobody will mind.

The Croatian Wiktionary ( http://hr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Glavna_stranica ) has surpassed 1,000 articles, and yet still the main page of Wiktionary ( http://wiktionary.org/ ) displays it under the "100+" category, instead of "1,000+". Somebody please notify the necessary person to correct this. —60.241.71.229 03:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been fixed. There are many, many Wiktionary projects now. Updating can take a few days. --EncycloPetey 18:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately it does not seem to be the case that it has been fixed. Observing the main Wiktionary page ( http://www.wiktionary.org/ ), one does not see "Hrvatski" (Croatian) under the 1,000+ heading, but sees it under the (false) 100+ heading.
It still requires fixing. Where did you get the idea that it has been fixed? —60.241.71.229 07:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a meta: (meta:Wiktionary?) page for such requests (and you are correct, there are a couple meta: admins that read this page occasionally.) I think EP meant that en.wikt:'s page has been updated. --Connel MacKenzie 07:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Aha, I see. Well, I have posted a request in the discussion page of that link which you gave to meta:Wiktionary. Hopefully somebody who can take care of it will notice it over there. —60.241.71.229 13:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the one who usually updates the Wiktionary and Wikipedia portals, but since I rarely have enough time to read discussion pages these days (even my own talk page here), I rely on m:Wikimedia News for milestone information. From now on, would you mind updating Wikimedia News when you notice that a wiki has reached 100, 1,000, or 10,000 entries? Thanks. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 11:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiversity link[edit]

Wikiversity link is showing in red. 86.145.148.103 Mglovesfun 18:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC) (I forgot to log in)

Where? It looks fine on my computer and the link works. --EncycloPetey 18:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Question[edit]

I can't find the word: "damsire" anywhere! What is the definition and why isn't it here? —This unsigned comment was added by WikiAlexC (talkcontribs).

It's been added now. --Enginear 10:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Translation[edit]

Hi I'd like to translate http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Help:How_to_check_translations into German, which is my mothertongue. So I wanted to ask for permission. Or is it restricted? Regards

This is a wiki, you don't need permission ... by all means create a sub-page in German, and add a link at the top of that page. (Or at least, that's how I'd do it.) If you are asking if you can "steal" it for the de.wikt, go ahead. Robert Ullmann 17:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No that's not what I wanted ^^ thank you

what's the point?[edit]

why is there a wiktionary and a wikipedia??

So that people may look up information. --EncycloPetey 19:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bortobore: Wiki+Dictionary=Wiktionary Wiki+Encyclapedi=Wikipedia

Simple math. (and last time i checked encyclapedias and dictionarys were different things. Speaking of im on the wrong website.)

  • If there is no translation function corresponding between languages, there seems to be very little value in having a "Wiktionary." This product is very cumbersome, if not useless to use. It's primary purpose seems to be defining words in languages users are already familiar with. If I want to use a language that I am not familiar with, I need to buy a converting dictionary for that language to English OR find an online version, rather than use Wiktionary. Stevenmitchell 15:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Building content is different from using it. Wiktionary is still in a very early stage. But we do provide translations (on en.wiktionary to/from English, on fr.witk: to/from French, etc.) Native speakers of any language are welcome to contribute to the growing collection of knowledge here. For learning another language, you probably are better off finding another resource at this point in time. Eventually, this will surpass anything out there. --Connel MacKenzie 18:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Good luck buying all those dictionaries. To get the coverage we have on the English Wiktionary, you'll need Spanish, Italian, French, Swedish, Chinese, Japanese, Danish, ... And those won't be cross-linked to other wiktionaries and the Wikipedia for relevant articles. --EncycloPetey 21:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Googled[edit]

Its a common term used by many people. "You can google it" . "I googled it and came back with nothing. That is, to search using Google. 68.6.234.23 01:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing the Main Page. (But to answer your inquiry, it's already on Wiktionary... Google). ~MDD4696 01:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Search engine links[edit]

What's with the lame "display: none" search engine links at the top of the main page (view the source)? There's absolutely no point in having them... web crawlers and search engines have evolved beyond simply looking at links to categorize websites. It just cries out "we're new here and not confident about ourselves". ~MDD4696 01:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Alexa significance[edit]

Looking at http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?site0=en.wiktionary.org&site1=m-w.com&site2=dictionary.com&site3=urbandictionary.com&site4=&y=r&z=3&h=400&w=700&range=max&size=Large&url=en.wiktionary.org I see several things I find pretty significant...

One is that the surge of users/newcomers at the end of summer isn't specific to Wiktionary; it does seem to be a worldwide phenomenon that internet use decreases each summer, only to redouble each fall. Wiktionary's steady (exponential) growth is interesting in that light.

The other thing I noted when I checked it last night, was that http://en.wiktionary.org/ (the main page) was taking 6.9 seconds to load. This morning it is a more reasonable 1.4 seconds. But still, for a webstite's main page, we should probably be aiming for something more like www.google.com used to have: very, very, very little. A big search box, front and center, is really all that belongs on the main page.

That would be a pretty radical departure from what we've done in the past though. So general discussion is probably the best start, on such a wide topic...

--Connel MacKenzie 20:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

More on English/American[edit]

I think that it is impossible to try and maintain Wiktionary as "English" (covering all varieties) when it is clearly American English.

Amusingly, in Wiktionary, variations of spellings written in the Queen's English, as opposed to American English are often indicated as such with "British English", which in itself is an American-only English term. Amongst speakers of the proper form of English 'British English' is incorrect use of the term 'British'.

This is true for several reasons; in the real world (outside of USA) 'British' implies the whole of Great Britain, in which there are several local variations of English (influenced by various Celtic languages), and does not imply, as it should, an association with the national language of the English people of England. "British" is not a language. In fact, several languages are spoken throughout Great Britain. Americans commonly (mis)identify only the English as "British", when in the real world, British people could be anyone from several nations, speaking any of several languages.

Secondly, the real form of English is not only spoken within England, or Great Britain for that matter, it is also the national language of other countries, including Australia and New Zealand, which are in no way "British", and is commonly spoken and written by many millions of people throughout the globe, who vastly outnumber the speakers of the American brand. I see that some pages present the real English term as an 'alternative' (secondary) spelling under the title "Commonwealth English". This is an improvement over "British English", but there is clearly no facilitation of consistency, and an unfair under-representation of the language in international terms.

Therefore - I denounce the identification scheme used by Wiktionary, which presents the real English language as a kind of bastard half-brother of the American variety, and also incorrectly and inconsistently names the language, and presents a truly and disproportionately biased 'international' dictionary of the English language to the world at large, containing what really only amounts to rampant international cultural Americanisation (spelled with an 's').

Anton Gerdelan, New Zealand

Oh, quit trolling already... funny counterexample though: sympathise and sympathize. (If someone fixes it, sympathize redirected to sympathise, which defined itself as an alternative spelling of sympathise). ~MDD4696 02:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
We will gladly welcome more contributors who are kiwis, or from down under, South Africa, Liberia, Belize, India, and any of the other myriad places where English is spoken. Unfortunately, we have very few such contributors. In actuality, most "British" terms here are identified as "UK" or "RP" (for pronunciation), not "British English". These are only marked when the term is restricted to that region. We also mark some terms as "US" when the term is restricted to the US. We also identify words with "Canada", "Australia", and "NZ" when we know that a term is restricted in meaning to one of those areas. So, the whole basis for your complaint is unfounded. And, by the way, we have far more Europeans contributing to this Wiktionary project than Americans, so please stop throwing your unfounded biases around. If you want to see improvement, please step in with help by voicing concerns in the various community fora. Better still, why not join the project an fix problems yourself? Complaining once and then leaving solves nothing. --EncycloPetey 02:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. Consistency is very important and also somewhat difficult to maintain. As an American living abroad I am well aware of the differences. However, I cannot personally attest to what is Commonwealth vs. what must be identified more specifically. Please feel welcome to contribute. Even if you do not think the term "Commonwealth" is ideal, we can all agree that it would be an improvement, and by the way it's not too difficult to change the label later once the initial distinction has been made. 203.154.48.179 15:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation re: Upload Page[edit]

A user EncycloPetey on Wikipedia, who is an administrator here, sent me a message requesting that I upload to commons a couple images I had uploaded here. He wanted me to do it so that the upload would be credited to me rather than him. Considering he was nice enough to do that, I did so, and in the process even converted the images from JPG to PNG. Then I left him a message that I had uploaded the images to Commons and changed the pages that used them to reflect that the images were now PNGs instead of JPEGs.

Noting that he was trying to remove those images from Wiktionary, I went back to check (by clicking on that link) and they are removed. It shows a link saying that they are missing, you could upload them (which is correct). So I figured, since the user who contacted me doesn't want any more uploads to Wiktionary (it does make more sense to use Commons) I'd see what happens. Using that link indicates that the page is restricted to sysops, which in this case is valid. But I felt that the PHP source of the page should be edited so that rather than just blandly saying it's a restricted page, it should also say that uploads should be directed to Wikimedia Commons, and have a link to the upload page there.

I am going to suggest this on Bugzilla, but I also wanted to pass it on here in case it is something that is a local change rather than a codebase change. Rfc1394 07:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but the normal upload link is to commons. The upload page can be edited by any sysop here. What would you like it to say? --Connel MacKenzie 00:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No Esperanto link[edit]

I don't know if this is the right forum to to discuss this, but there is no link to the Esperanto-version of Wiktionary under "in other languages."SonPraises 07:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Look again; it's under the section for 100+ articles. --EncycloPetey 23:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages of transcluded content[edit]

Of all the subpages transcluded onto the Main Page, only two, Wiktionary:Main Page/AOL and Wiktionary:Main Page/Otherlang, have non-empty talk pages. Should the others be redirected to this talk page or just left alone? I assume someone's watching all these subpages for any discussion... - dcljr 00:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm watching one of the non-empty ones (for Wiktionary in Other Languages), because I periodically update the subpage and want to know of concerns/questions people have. I've no idea about the others. --EncycloPetey 00:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

500 000[edit]

Anyone know link to article #500 000?

I *think* it's the Scots & English verb form boaks, but I'm not sure. The milestones page gives 16@r's French verb rigoler. --EncycloPetey 06:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wictionary needs improvement[edit]

I am a newcomer, and I happen to be having a very difficult time understanding the policies and guidelines here, as there aren't too many pages describing them. We need to improve on this. Joey Felder 09:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right. We do need more help for newcomers. Part of the reason we don't have more is that we have fewer than 100 regular contributors. Part of the reason is that most newcomers edit only one word, then never return. Part of the reason is that we are currently discussing and voting on issues that may cause significant changes to our policies and guidelines. Part of the reason is that some of our community like to avoid creating lots of written policies and be more flexible.
This does not change the fact that there should be more help for newcomers. If you can name specific questions and issues which would be most helpful, the community might be able to make a start on those. I recommend that you make a short list and post it in the Beer Parlour, our primary discussion forum. --EncycloPetey 18:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)