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

Following on to Polyglot's note, I think that irregular forms (matrices, went, people, etc.) definitely should have their own entries, similar to this one.

I don't see any need to give each regular form (oranges, jumped, chairs) its own entry. There will be some cases where a regular form may have its own entry on other grounds. For example, dogs can be slang for feet (my dogs are tired), but you wouldn't say *my left dog hurts, so dogs should probably have its own entry for that sense.

-dmh 21:00, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

When I see people add the translation of a plural of a given word (or the female as is sometimes being done on the French Wiktionnaire), I feel like creating a new entry. One day, I would like to be able to parse the entire contents of Wiktionary with a computer program. That's why I want to see it being built up in a way that is as consistent as it possibly can be. This may create redundance, but I think that is be preferred over ambiguity. Bits are cheap, so we don't have to worry about that. If you are worried about readability, I think that entries that all look the same are much easier to read than entries that are all different from one another.

People reading an entry in a dictionary are quite capable of skipping information that is not relevant for them. I know I am. Polyglot 22:01, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Bits are cheap but time isn't. If there is some way to indicate to a visiting bot that a noun or verb is irregular, then I don't have any strong objection to having a bot generate entries for regular forms, so long as we're not continually removing "goed" and "foots".
On the other hand, if the secondary entries are to be entered by hand, this seems like a waste of time. I won't do it, for one. There is strong evidence that regular forms are, as the term implies, generated by rule. Having separate entries for them adds very little information.
Here's a slightly different perspective. At this point, Wiktionary is not yet ready for prime time use as a reference. Producing meaningful content is more important than improving its ease of use as a reference. Amenities like separate entries for regular forms only make sense now if they're cheap. Otherwise, wait until there is a clear demand.
I realize there is something of a chicken-and-egg problem here -- ease of use will help bring users. My guess is that Wiktionary is easy enough to use already that, again, content is the more important consideration.
We really won't know what's important for ease of use until Wiktionary starts seeing significant use. At this point, we have best guesses based on existing practice and the opinions of wiktionarians. This is a good starting point, but not a basis to commit major effort.
All this is IMHO, of course. If people want to put in entries for regular plurals and tenses, I certainly won't remove them. I suppose it wouldn't be hard to hack up a script to add them automatically, with the only human interference being to supply the root in the first place. In this scheme, you just don't tell your script to produce entries for "go" and "foot".
-dmh 00:01, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hmm. Check the history for euphemisms. Evidently at least one person would have benefitted from a separate entry. -dmh 00:07, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)