Jump to navigation Jump to search
No No No! This is wrong. We do not used redirects this way on Wiktionary! This is the normal spelling of the word so this is where the article should be! — Hippietrail 02:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It can't work that way with Japanese words. Think about 目下(もっか) and 目下(めした), for example. The are two completely separate words that just happen to be written with the same kanji. There is no point whatsoever in putting them on the same page. We have to have a disambiguation page at 目下, and separate pages entitled 目下(もっか) and 目下(めした). Similarly, the main entry for 明るい must be entitled 明るい(あかるい) and both あかるい and 明るい must point to it. --Yajuu 14:17, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It already works this way with English words and every other language. It can work with Japanese too. Think about "bow" /b@U/ and "bow" /baU/. There is no point whatsoever in putting them on different pages. Think of a print dictionary. A bunch of words which are close in alphabetical order are all within view on a single page. When two or more words have identical spelling they are clearly visible on the same page. A naive user of a Japanese/English bilingual dictionary may well have no idea that 目下 has two readings. Having them both on the same page is a good thing. Just as we have sometimes words from 5 or 6 different languages which happen to have identical spellings all on one page. This is the way to do it which fits in with all our other languages:
- On the English Wiktionary we use redirects as sparingly as possible. Examples might be English compound words which can be spelled with or without a hyphen; languages such as Hebrew and Russian which under various circumstances can have some optional symbols; and languages which have a new Unicode character but are habitually typed with a similar but inferior ASCII character.
- For words which have identical spelling and several definitions there is no reason to artifically force them to different pages.
- Also each language Wiktionary gets to set its own policy so the Japanese Wiktionary may well have a completely different idea of what it thinks is the best way of doing things.
- I'll reply to the other points in the other article. — Hippietrail 15:18, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)