Wiktionary talk:Multilingual coordination
- This is the talk page for a deleted page. It is being kept for historical interest.
I was also not seeing the purpose of this page a few days ago. I thought it was just me... not being smart enough, or something.Polyglot 09:34, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- This is seems to be a page a coordinating the various language wikipedias whereas Wiktionary:List of languages seems to be a list of pages on en.wiktionary.org and the Index links on that page link to indices of non-English words on the English server. The point of this page seems to be to make sure that the wiktionary projects for French, Italian, Esperanto, etc. stay at least slightly interlinked to the English project. --Bill 20:43, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- 1 Cross-language organization proposal
- 2 Define the language on both sides of the translation.
- 3 Update List
- 4 Please, update Suomi (Finnish) on list
- 5 Request for update
- 6 Update: Sesotho wiktionary
- 7 Northern Sotho
- 8 Update: Greek Wiktionary
- 9 Quenya
- 10 Polish wiktionary
- 11 Deletion debate
Cross-language organization proposal
Use directories to divide terms from separate languages
I feel that terms from different languages should be separated from one another somehow for several reasons:
- Some terms related only by spelling are grouped together. A particularly brutal example is ni
- Various languages are different in the ways that they traditionally define words. Ex.: Basic Esperanto terms are typically listed by their root and the various forms are explained within (see: aĉet-). From an Esperanto speaker's POV, the flexibility of Wiktionary is actually harmed by lumping all terms from all languages with the same spelling together.
- If terms were divided up by language namespace, we could provide much more powerful (and more specific) search functionality. We would be able to utilize the current feature of specifying the namespace(s) in which to search.
Terms would be divided into directories or namespaces based on their language:
- On the English server (all pages in English, as current):
- en/world or English:World : a description of the English term world
- sv/värld or Swedish:Värld : a description of the English term värld
- fr/c'est la vie or French:C'est la vie : a description of the French term c'est la vie as used by a French speaker
- en/c'est la vie or English:C'est la vie : a description of the French term c'est la vie as used by an English speaker
- On the Esperanto server (all pages in Esperanto, as current):
- eo:en/world or eo:Angla:World : a description of the English term world
- eo:sv/värld or eo:Sveda:Värld : a description of the English term värld
- eo:fr/c'est la vie or eo:Franca:C'est la vie : a description of the French term c'est la vie as used by a French speaker
- eo:en/c'est la vie or eo:Angla:C'est la vie : a description of the French term c'est la vie as used by an English speaker
You might ask, "How is this different from our current practice?" In this proposal, all descriptions on the EN server would be in English, as current practice, but the terms for different languages would be split into directories or namespaces; with further MediaWiki development, I could, for example, restrict my searches to English and Esperanto directories (or with namespaces, no further development is necessary). With further MediaWiki development, if a term of the moment feature were integrated into the Main Page, I could restrict that to show only Swedish words or words from any language. This proposal offers clear organization (clearer than the current organization) in these ways:
- terms are divided by langauage, allowing for the potential for searches or random terms to be restricted by source language.
- Words with completely different meanings that happen to be spelled the same as a word in another language will have their own separate page allowing for faster data retrieval (by the user), more legible articles,
- this format would allow for a more concise structure in terms of article formatting.
- we will be able to organize various forms of a root word for each language as necessary. Arabic and Esperanto have multiple forms for the same root. I Esperanto, it makes sense to lump the basic nouns, verbs and adjectives together in an article for the root word (aĉet-). In English, however, it usually makes sense to just have one big soup of words.
- It will be difficult to guarantee that the same structure is used across all sites. (It seems to be traditional to define Esperanto words based on their root: mond- for mondo, monde, etc. but some servers may end up with eo/mond-, eo/monde, eo/mondo, eo/monda, rather than condensing all of the variants to eo/mond-. (See an ideal implementation at aĉet-, aĉeto, aĉeti, and the other forms of aĉet-).
--Bill 07:25, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC), modified 09:09, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC).
An extension of this idea is to split translations off into another sublevel of the term (to make the actual definition more concise and to allow users to print the definitions, and not necessarily the translations, for reference):
Actually plurals should redirect to the singlular form for ease of maintenance:
--Bill 08:06, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Define the language on both sides of the translation.
If we are to implement this syntax for defining words and their translations, it ought be noted, as well, what language you are translating to:
This, of course, is not nearly as robust as a language dictionary ought to be, especially if there is redirect for plurals to singular. The translations ought to include a link to a page that has the full declension, sense/nuance, pronunciation (for english--sound bite and pronunciation key), etc described more carefully. I realize that Wiktionary already has word definition pages, but that is hardly useful to speakers of other languages, especially beginners, who want to understand the word better.
In a perfect world, each contributor would do a page in both the source and target languages to fully define the word.
I could say a lot more about this, but time has run out.
Should languages be removed from the list when Wikis are finally updated in that requested language? 18.104.22.168 10:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Dpr)
Please, update Suomi (Finnish) on list
Please, move Suomi to category 10000+ on main page wiktionary.org. There is no common access to that page. --Aulis Eskola 15:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Request for update
Please update the mainpage of http://www.wiktionary.org/. The German wiktionary has recently reached 10,000 entries and should be moved to the 10,000+ category. Thanks. --22.214.171.124 20:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- Congratulations, de:! I've added you to template:wiktionarybiglangs now. Please make these requests on Talk:Main Page in the future. -- 20:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
To start with Marathi language dictionary I need support for Marathi (Devnagari) fonts.--SAM
Update: Sesotho wiktionary
Could you please move the Sesotho (Southern Sotho) Wiktionary, http://st.wiktionary.org/, listing on the first page from 100+ to 1000+ as there are more than 1000 entries on that Wiki. Thanks!
--JAKoli4 14:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems the language has been added, but with the wrong link - can this be fixed please? http://st.wiktionary.org/wiki/ --JAKoli4 08:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to get the Northern Sotho wiktionary started. I presume using ISO code it should be nso.wiktionary.org
How do I go about in getting it up and running? --JAKoli4 08:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Update: Greek Wiktionary
Could you please update the mainpage of http://www.wiktionary.org/? Greek Wiktionary (http://el.wiktionary.org/) has to be placed in the 100.000+ entries category since it has over 109.000 entries. Regards, 126.96.36.199 21:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Bye ^^ Duken
Could you please update the mainpage of http://www.wiktionary.org/? Polish Wiktionary (http://pl.wiktionary.org) has to be placed in the 100.000+ entries category since it has over 114 167 entries. PMG 13:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)