Talk:Wiktionary

Initial comment

Hi welcome to Wiktionary. To use Wiktionary on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Sister projects#Wiktionary and text''Wikipedia:Interwikimedia link.

Wiktionary pronounced with three syllables?

The IPA transcription on the logo surprised me. Is this three syllable pronunciation of 'dictionary' and 'Wiktionary' the most common in South America? Glennh70 15:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've heard that people use three syllables in Europe, but four in America. I don't know how true that is. --Baryonic Being 16:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I've heard a few people use three syllables in England but it would be very informal. I'm suprised to see it written in IPA as a suggested pronunciation.Glennh70bal dfaf 07:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you surprised to see it use the most common pronunciation guide in the whole world except a few American dictionaries?? (I agree on the pronunciation itself though – it sounds very quaint.) Jon Harald Søby 19:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

it seems like 4 to me - Jedi Of Redwall!!

I agree! There needs to be a thesaurus next that a-wiki b-wiki c-wiki does. -A.

If it rhymes with "dictionary", I'd probably pronounce it in two: dik-shnree. British (London).

Really? is this a difference in cultures or definitions of syllable? I thought that dictionary had four dik-shawn-breez-ee, and had been pronouncing wiktionary with five until i read this wik-i-shawn-air-ee. Tom in Ohio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trkritzer (talk • contribs) 00:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

DictionBreezey? what? -Ruggles the Editor

The number of syllables in both words (dictionary and Wiktionary) vary depending on the particular English pronunciation used. The standard pronunciation for the UK (especially the Received Pronunciation) gives dictionary three syllables and is the basis for the UK pronunciation of Wiktionary as well as the IPA transcription used on the Wiktionary logo. The typical US pronunciation gives dictionary four syllables because of an aditional secondary stress on the final a, which is not pronounced in the standard British dialects. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2033 (UTC)

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, dictionary is pronounced /ˈdɪkʃənərɪ/. It does not give an alternative rock pronunciation. Cambridge Advanced Learner's dictionary gives /ˈdɪk.ʃən.ər.i/ _US_ /-er.i/. The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English gives /ˈdɪkʃən ri $ -neri/. [1] Merriam-Webster gives \ˈdik-shə-ˌner-ē, -ˌne-rē\. [2] Thus, the argument that dictionary, and hence, Wiktionary is pronounced with three syllables in RP does not appear to be supported by the dictionaries themselves. Also see the discussion at wiktionary:Talk:Wiktionary. --Dforest (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's great, but the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary gives /ˈdɪkʃənri/. The Cambridge University Press English Pronouncing Dictionary makes the case more clearly. The primary UK pronunciation given there is /ˈdɪk.ʃ^ən.^ər.i/; the superscript schwas indicate that the sound may be omitted in casual speech. Thus, the three-syllable pronunciation in RP is in fact supported by both major dictionary publishers in the UK. Why are you recommending we look at an old anonymous comment on Wiktionary for guidance on this issue? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I referenced the discussion on Talk:Wiktionary because there is some legitimate discussion there about an issue that has not yet been resolved, and it is an issue that affects Wiktionary more so than Wikipedia. A number of Wiktionary editors have pointed out the inaccuracy of the /ˈdɪkʃənri/ transcription, and there appears to be interest in changing it to something more accurate. The transcriptions in OED, Cambridge ALD, and Longman DCE contradict your assertion that a three-syllable pronunciation is standard for the UK. Indicating that the schwa sound may be omitted in casual speech does not make it the standard to omit it. Rather, it indicates that there is some flexibility in the way the word is pronounced. Notwithstanding the issue of what is correct in RP, we should be using a pronunciation that reflects a global view of English, and if that cannot be done broadly enough to cover the differing pronunciations in one transcription, there should be two. Also note Oxford Advanced Learner's actually transcribes the word /ˈdɪkʃənri; NAmE neri/; you omitted the latter part. Dforest (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

'Competition' section

I think the competition section should mention other user-compiled on-line dictionaries in addition to looking at the general class of on-line dictionaries. Are there any other user-compiled on-line dictionaries that are topic-comprehensive? There are a number that are topic-specific. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of this section. Besides the fact that no websites are listed in this section, I can think of no other online or offline dictionary that is attempting to do what Wiktionary is attempting. Wiktionary is a collection of online dictionaries. Each dictionary seeks to define every word from every language into the language of that dictionary. For example, the English Wiktionary seeks to define every word from every language into English. There are plenty of other online dictionaries, but nearly all of them are either monolingual or bilingual. Comparing Wiktionary to such dictionaries is like comparing apples and oranges. Another thing that makes Wiktionary unique is that, as part of the Wikimedia family, Wiktionary can take full advantage of all of its sister projects. Please take a look at the following definition of a Mandarin Chinese idiom from English Wiktionary as an example of Wiktionary's potential: wikt:井底之蛙. Note how the quote's author (ex. Luo Guanzhong) is linked to his biography on Wikipedia. Moreover, a link to the Wikipedia article about the source text (ex. Romance of the Three Kingdoms) is included. Finally, the quote's source text on Wikisource (ex. s:zh:三國演義/第113回) is hyperlinked. Simply put, no other dictionary makes this sort of thing possible, period! Wiktionary still faces a number of challenges, but I've never seen anything more revolutionary than Wiktionary as far as dictionaries are concerned. -- A-cai 12:29, 22 May 2091 (UTC)

History and development

The above was composed but didn't get saved yesterday for some reason. Prior to the insipid rant above.

The second paragraph calls out one of my bots as being responsible for a lot more than it really is. The bot wikt:User:TheCheatBot is more likely the primary offender. I do understand it is easier to describe ThirdPersBot (and it does have a less inflamatory name.) But,

and this is a big "but,"

I think it is kind-of silly to talk about the various inflection bots, without describing why they exist. The paragraph seems to imply they exist to bump the article count. That has never been their intent.

They exist ease (or make possible) navigation to the correct term. To a dictionary, that deals with words, headword/title spelling is very important. (Contrast with Wikipedia, where the concept is what determines the title.) Misspellings are never to be simple redirects. Forms of words get their own entries so that when spellings overlap, the proper language section can be found.

The inflection bots exist to ease navigation...so that you can find the word you are looking for, in the language you intend.

Also worth mentioning (somewhere) is the general prohibition on #REDIRECTs on *.wiktionary.org. Misspellings are never redirected; instead they are called out explicitly, only for the most common spelling errors. (Otherwise, our readers would be unlikely to notice that they misspelled a word.) As automated exports increase, this becomes more and more important.

Some discussion is needed about what "all words in all languages" means...as it is a perennial problem for visiting Wikipedians. The English Wiktionary is for English readers, whether they are looking up a word in English, German, French, etc., they can read the description of the word in their own language. The French Wiktionary is where French readers can read about English, German, or French (etc.) words in their own language.

After the reasons why have been explained, then it would be reasonable to describe how the bots are functioning. The constraints of the two projects (Wiktionary/Wikipedia) are very unlike each other. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 18:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems people at wikid NARY, don't know meaning QUASH as editors in news use it, or the word PUFF, seems they have trouble with the word PALL too.71.7.32.110 20:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Connel, this section was written awhile back by Don Wiki Carlos-Jeméz. I cleaned it up formatting-wise and tried to make it sound less inflammatory, for instance removing the "Criticism" heading. I completely agree with your defense that these pages should exist, and it would be good to include some explanation for the verb and noun form entries. However, I think you'd be in more of a position to write that than I am, since I'm not that involved in the English Wiktionary, where the verb-form-entry-writing mainly takes place.

Don Wiki Carlos-Jeméz's section takes aim at the English Wiktionary, and I tried to make this clear. But the French, Russian, and Vietnamese Wiktionaries (where I do most of my tinkering) rely on bots the most, so focusing on the English version's use of bots may not be entirely fair. I'll add something in about the Vietnamese Wiktionary.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 01:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

How about a criticism section?

I cannot imagine that people and academics have not been criticising the Wiktionary project. I know I have. Isn't there anything to mention in that area? Tomsintown 12:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Constructive criticism is great to improve anything. -Unsigned

Merge from Kurdish Wiktionary

Please merge any relevant content from Kurdish Wiktionary per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish Wiktionary. Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 03:10Z

French+Kurdish Wiktionaries useless?

Having many separate language Wiktionary pages is basically like having a blinker in your car to go straight ahead. It's useless! Why don't we add an article on Canadian English Wikipedia while we're at it! JustN5:12 01:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, because there isn't a Canadian English Wikipedia. There are a lot of articles for individual langage Wikipedias, and many of them have been listed for deletion (though kept). I see no problem with the same thing being done here – Qxz 21:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge them all!201.21.96.49 18:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Like you noted, Qxz, there was a reason for mentioning Canadian English Wikipedia (it's pointless!). JustN5:12 04:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No merging!

Why should the dictioanries of other languages be mixed with this one? It would be confusing. People might think that a French word is part of the English language, though it is not. The French have the right to their own Wiktionary. Randomfrenchie 20:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Er... nobody is suggesting that the French Wiktionary be merged with the English one. The proposal is to merge the article French Wiktionary with the article Wiktionary. The suggestion is that there is no point having an article on all the individual language editons of Wiktionary because there isn't enough to say about them all, and it would be better to just have one article describing the entire Wiktionary project. Note that English Wiktionary is just a redirect to this page, the same would be done with French Wiktionary and any useful information merged with this artice. A proposal that seems perfectly reasonable, and one I agree with – Qxz 21:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree if they are trying to merge the wiktionaries together. That would be dumb. Even if they are merging the article french wiktionairy, it still wouldn't make sense. People would get confused from reading words from the English language, but having an article about the french wiktionary on the same page. --Ryan ^TALK 16:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Weird how [they] thought that what we meant by merging French Wiktionary...etc. into this article was merging all languages into one multilanguage Wiktionary, but OK! JustN5:12 02:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this 'Wiki' craze will lead into a data/history-esq monopoly, throwing the written text further out of the window. -Unsigned

Former?

@"The former Wiktionary logo.": eh? Is there a new logo? If so, what is it? It looks just like the current one to me... Shinobu 21:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to clarify the logo situation. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 23:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It is funny how much of the current article is about the logo. Disproportionate! Equinox (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Wiktionary links

Since many people, at least one - me, might think that clicking on the Wiktionary link in articles would take them to Wiktionary; where as it actually takes you to this page, I feel that that a link to Wiktionary at the top of the page would be helpful, rather than forcing all users to go to the bottom of the page to find the link. This would mostly be for the benefit of new users who are unaware of the normal page layout use here Dbiel 13:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Added note: that link might best be a link to the External Link section on the page as it provides for multiple options when linking to Wiktionary.Dbiel 13:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Since there has been no reply in 3 days, I have gone ahead and added the link referenced above. Dbiel 01:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to 217.42.21.147 for "fixing" the link. It worked fine in my browser, but I see where it would not work in others because of case sensitivity. One more thing to learn. Thank you Dbiel 19:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As of May 26, 2009, the link to http://www.wiktionary.org/ (number 1 at the top of the page) points to some other similarly named site. I can't edit it though. --Thelbert (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Re-write in Russian

Someone rewrote the entire article and posted in Russian. I've reverted the edit, but maybe someone needs to learn to use the sandbox? Or use the proper-language Wikipedia? Mgw854 22:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it was probably vandalism, if you ask me. -Ruggles the Editor —Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

I'd like to see in the article...

Some discussion of the multilingual nature of the project(s). This is one area where Wiktionary differs from print dictionaries: the inclusion of translations for each word in the language of the wiktionary editing community into other languages, and the inclusion of entries in foreign languages with definitions and usage examples. Another is the inclusion (at least on the English Wiktionary) of set phrases that aren't idioms per se but are useful to a language learner who would not understand their meaning by looking up each word separately. I don't think I should add these things myself because I am primarily an editor on two of the wiktionary projects and I want to avoid the appearance of bias. But someone else who splits their time differently could add this information. Thanks, ArielGlenn (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Date of establishment of Polish and French Wiktionaries

In my opinion the date provided in the article (29th March 2004) is not right. Polish Wiktionary's main page was created on 23rd March [3] and there are edits that date to 22nd March [4]. --Derbeth ^talk 02:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please add information about Wiktionary

Tags to Wikipedia:Your first article IE: the { {wikt|}} tags or add them to the edit boxes.
ThisMunkey (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Wiktionaries

I was thinking about creating article "List of Wiktionaries". Maybe it would be useful? --Visconsus (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems a bit un-useful for the Eng WP to include a list of foreign language wiktionaries. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? We have lists of countries that don't speak English. We even have articles on people who don't speak English. So why not have a list of the various Wiktionaries, regardless of the language they're written in? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Because there are too many "list" articles as it is. Don't categories fulfill the purpose of all these list articles, without actually making extra articles that clutter up the encyclopedia? Also, I think this case is different from the ones you presented. Wiktionary is a wikimedia project, so it is self-referential. I just don't see how it makes sense to list the languages that have wiktionaries; it's a bit trivial. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not trivial, because most languages have no Wiktionary. It is therefore useful to have a complete index of those that do exist with statistics on date of inception, current size, etc. A category cannot fulfill the purpose of such a list article unless the individual articles exist. So, if you're worried about too many articles, then you'd prefer a list, because it reduces the number of independent articles required. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I give in. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This article or section needs to be updated

What needs to be addresses before this tag can be removed? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been awhile...should we just go ahead and take it down? Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think so. If there is still a current issue, someone will restore it. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it rather hypocritical...

...that Wiktionary only has one article, but Wikipedia gets hundreds on individual language editions, history, criticism, lists, etc. What's the deal with this? Teh Rote (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary statistics

The stats on that section are severely out-of-date; they need to be replaced with the current figures.Werdnawerdna (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Particularly now we've broken the 1,000,000 mark (on en and fr). Conrad.Irwin (on wikt) 12:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the statistics. They're simply pulled from the top of this page. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 01:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What is a "Wiktionarian"?

"Wiktionarian" redirects here, but I see no mention of the concept in the article or the talk page. What is a Wiktionarian? Is it just a Wiktionary user? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpectrumDT (talk • contribs) 21:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct. I've added a mention to the intro paragraph. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 01:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely to be a "Wiktionarian" you would have to edit Wiktionary in some way, whereas if you were a user, you might just consult Wiktionary. Vorbee (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Should be the link to the Wiktionary

It's hard to find wiktionary, so the link should be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.178.204.192 (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a link here. There is also a link from the front page of Wikipedia and from every other MW project front page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The squigly squigly wiktionary tag

I like it when pages with witkionary entries, especially disambiguation or stub pages, link to the appropriate wiktionary entry. Is there some guideline about it's use, and where it's supposed to go on the page? Mathiastck (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the right discussion page to ask that question. This page is for discussing the article about Wiktionary. You should ask your question at Template talk:Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Broken link

The very first link is broken and does not lead to Wiktionary BirryBirryBirry (talk) 02:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be corrected at the present day. JackPotte (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

How does Wiktionary ensure accuracy?

Wikipedia has policies governing content to promote accuracy and neutrality. Perhaps the article should mention how Wiktionary ensures entries are accurate. pgr94 (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

We could consider that it's obvious or copy your paragraph into this page. JackPotte (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Would you care to elaborate? pgr94 (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You can also consult wikt:Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. --Thrissel (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's useful. Not sure how to summarise it though. pgr94 (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the entries do seem to be written by monoglots who only have English as a second language, especially when they are dealing with anything idiomatic. Other resources on the internet (many dictionaries!) already carry out Wictionary's functions better and in a way that inspires more confidence. It does seem to be a very complacent entreprise. Wikipedia works because it deals with 'brute facts', which can be checked. Words are often less definite; it requires much more tact to convey connotations accurately. It is a job for professionals. There seems to be a conservatism and inertia in Wictionary (Webster 1913!) that keeps it painfully wooden or sloppy (often plain misleading or wrong!). Can anyone find an article about it that says something more positive than "nice that it is there"? Detailed reviews do seem to agree that it is unreliable. Ammimajus (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As a Wiktionary administrator I have a different point of view that you who have been blocked over there for some "Disruptive edits": this project is fundamental, apart from the great dictionary number of languages and words for each, we can list them by some categories which are difficult to find elsewhere. Concerning the contributors you can notice thanks to this category that a great part seems to be enough skilled. JackPotte (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"written by monoglots who only have English as a second language" ...? --Anthonzi (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

chemists

i dont understand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.169.37 (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Understand what? Baseball Watcher 22:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Incompleteness of this article

Google scholar reports over 2000 articles mentioning Wiktionary and 23 with Wiktionary in the title. This article would be improved if the scientific literature were covered to some extent. In particular, there are a number of natural language processing applications that make use of Wiktionary data: analysis of vocabulary difficulty, word relatedness, context-based retrieval, semantic annotation, ontology matching, etc. pgr94 (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it will be usefull for readers. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Software

I will be happy, if somebody will add the following link to the article:

• Wiwordik (a visual interface to the parsed English Wiktionary and Russian Wiktionary databases)

-- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Delocalizer, 19 September 2011

In the first line of "History and development" please change: "and an idea by Larry Sanger, previous co-founder of Wikipedia" to: "and an idea by Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia"

'previous co-founder' is a nonsense term. Of all pages a page on Wiktionary should take care with language! Delocalizer (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Done As I cannot see how someone could be a "previous co-founder" either they were or the weren't a co-founder. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Template

I recently expanded the template, Template:Dictionaries of English, and added it to some of the articles listed. I would like feedback on whether this seems useful or effectively formatted. (and, of course, its not mine:))Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It isn't appropriate here, since Wiktionary (like Wikipedia) is intended to exist in all languages, and exists in forms supported primarily be each of these languages. This isn't an article about the English Wiktionary, but rather about the entire Wiktionary project in all its forms. Tagging this article as "English" would create a massive over-categorization if we started adding all the individual language tags. Better to call it a multi-lingual dictionary and not slide down that slippery slope. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I count 37 "Encyclopedias by language" categories on WP. We can reliably say that Wiktionary is a notable english and spanish encyclopedia. do we know how many its actually pretty thorough at covering? I dont think that giving Wiktionary between 2 and (highly unlikely) 37 categories is actually that bad. Before Wiktionary, we never had a universal encyclopedia, so we may have to WP:Ignore all rules here. I will leave it in the template, as thats not a concern: we have only one other dictionary template for Chinese,so that shouldnt be a problem. We dont have a multilingual dict category.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The English Wiktionary is reasonably thorough for English, Italian, Russian, Cantonese, Mandarin, Min Nan, French, Japanese, Finnish, Swedish, Catalan, Irish, German, Polish, Romanian, Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Korean, Latin, Greek, Ancient Greek, Hebrew, and many more. But that's only what's thorough on the English Wiktionary. The other-language Wiktionary projects cover other languages, so that the Galician Wiktionary is more thorough on Galician than the English Wiktionary is for that language. I suspect you'd be looking at more than 50 language categories, and probably a lot more. You see, each Wiktionary project is multi-lingual, so comparing with Wikipedia doesn't fit. Each Wikipedia is fully in one language, whereas each Wiktionary is multi-lingual. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

While i still feel that it deserves some sort of notation as an alternative english language dictionary, I stand TOTALLY corrected about the actual scope of it. I had not truly looked at the site, and i now see how amazingly complex it is. I get not categorizing it by individual languages. assigning all the possible categories (english language dictionaries of chinese, croatian dictionaries of spanish, etc) is a mathematical nightmare comparable to the whole "relations between country x and country y" debate we have here at times, where its correctly argued that we simply cant have an article for each 2 nation combination (204 nations means 41,616 articles). Sorry for my ignorance, i had no idea, due to not having used it much. I will NOT recategorize this article as I initially did, and will not add categories along those lines without proposing them here first. I will remove Wiktionary from the template,since its not policy to have links in a template to articles which dont use the template.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Total entry count

As I write this, m:Wiktionary is reporting 12,781,710 total entries across 170 languages. Of course, many of these are "duplicates", in the sense that the same word or phrase will be defined on many different Wiktionaries. Since the ultimate goal of each of these wikis is to give definitions and translations of each term in "all" languages (assuming they all have the same goal as the English Wiktionary, anyway), that means, roughly speaking, that if every existing Wiktionary were as "complete" as it could be, there would be 170 copies of essentially the same information. Anyway, here's my question: has anyone counted the number of unique entries (i.e., "content-page" titles) across all Wiktionaries? (So, for example, the entry "be" would only be counted once, regardless of how many wikis it appears on, as would "انجيل" and "眼".) If this has not been done (recently), which existing bot could most easily do it? - dcljr (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Does it really matter? You wouldn't count words (whose sense and pronunciation can vary within a single entry for different languages - and sometimes even within a single language), just entries. You'll know there are as many entries like, say, dub, with its English, Czech, Serbo-Croatian, Slovak and Volapük section in en-wikt, only Czech and Slovak in cs-wikt, only Volapük in vo-wikt, only Czech in no-wikt, only Indonesian in id-wikt &c&c - so what? --Thrissel (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

So... I'm interested? - dcljr (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem with that, but why should a bot try to get some number with zero informative value (*shrug*)? --Thrissel (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Some information about number of meanings and number of different parts of speech is here: wikt:User:AKA MBG/Statistics:POS, see also semantic relations and translations. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The "Critical Reception" section

I have never seen anything more biased on Wikipedia. It is a POV fork, and I shall rewrite the entire section in a neutral behalf.

W (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't read it in context very well, and I reverted my own edits.

W (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait...but it isn't true! I looked it up, and it is untrue, and therefore shall be removed.

Walex03 02:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

--Done.I also finished reverting some of those mistaken edits I made earlier.

Walex03 02:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary for every language?

It seems strange to me that no one has criticized the fact that the wiktionary has to be rewritten for every language, when this work could be done by bots using proper templating systems... 188.10.136.248 (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

No, this work can be done by editors only with some help of bots. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've seen there a link to a Omega Wiki project, which allows direct editing of a database, instead of writing wiki-styled articles. It is a more intelligent idea for a wiki-dictionary. 188.10.136.248 (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This page is for discussion the Wikipedia article concerning Wiktionary; it is not for discussing the Wiktionary project itself. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest to add a reference to Wikipedia:OmegaWiki. 79.50.221.115 (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a page discussing the introduction of OmegaWiki as a replacement/addition to the wiktionary on Wikimedia Meta: proposal about OmegaWiki. I think that eventually in the future there will be a transition from an article-editable encyclopedia to a database-editable one. I propose to add a reference to OmegaWiki on the Critical reaction section. Orbayaapjycja (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It consists of a series of SQL tables, e.g. the tables containing the written form, the meanings and the languages. They are completed by junction tables, for example by associating both the words cure and treatment to the meaning means to heal a person, or by mapping treatment to the English language and Entwurf to the German language. Articles are automatically generated from this database. Orbayaapjycja (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary has no entry for "Wiktionarian"

"Wiktionarian" is mentioned in the opening paragraph of this Wikipedia article and it is not defined on Wiktionary.

I can't help but feel that this should not be the case. --Jshflynn (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

We have en entry now (although the citations supporting it are not as high-quality as could be hoped): wikt:Wiktionarian. :) -sche (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

URL

Okay so i was unable to find a feedback page so i figured i would post here and hope that my voice gets heard.

I would like to voice concerns with the verification of the Wikimedia websites. Take for example: when using "Google Chrome" on the left of the URL is a drop-down that allows you to view security credentials and examine the addresses you are currently connected to. If you go to the "Twitter" main page this area will provide identifying information about the website. I couldn't help but notice that although Wikimedia is one of the most well known internet based organisations, they provide no connection encryption and no certificate information.

I only bring this up because i was looking for information and the thought occurred that Wiktionary was a good option, now I personally know that this website is legitimate due to the fact that Wikipedia provides links to this website. however i felt some concern due to the fact that it was registered under a different URL than Wikipedia. on top of the fact that it provides no verification, I decided not to use it. obviously this would be a concern for the admins because if i felt uncomfortable, others do as well.

so here is my recommendation.

attach Wikipedia, Wiktionary, etc as sub-domains to wikimedia.org (wikipedia.wikimedia.org). I understand that it is possible to have all of the original domains redirect to the appropriate sub-domain. This would allow you to keep the administration aspect more organised and centralized. It would also allow you to provide security and certification for all these websites via a single domain. Furthermore it would redirect a great deal of the "hits" for these domains to a single index page. Now bear with me here, i know Wikimedia is completely anti-advertisment but i think that it would be a good idea to place a SINGLE ad on ONLY the main page. being the 6th (i think that's right) most visited website around, the value of this advertising space would be unbelievable. i would recommend that you personally review the code of these ads and ensure that they only redirect to reputable domains (Microsoft for example) that are completely safe to visit, and that they do not run any code other than to display a picture (hosted on the Wikimedia server) and a simple URL link.

all of these things would do SOOOO much to improve the quality of Wikipedia. This would bring funding for many things. as far as that goes i have a recommendation that would be rather costly. Many places commonly acknowledged that Wikimedia is not a reliable source of information due to the "wiki" style that allows anyone to edit the pages. With proper funding Wikipedia could pay professionals who could verify the accuracy of the information provided, thus locking the verified text (NOT THE ENTIRE ARTICLE). verified text could be given a light green background and unverified could be given a light red background. you could pay for grammar specialists to find a correct language errors. Again the biggest hurdle that Wikimedia faces from becoming the most renowned source of information on the internet is that the information cannot be verified and if you could fix that, i personally believe that Wikimedia could receive federal funding in the billions as a "civilian intelligence agency".

I love Wikipedia and i want to see it thrive, but it cannot do that without making business oriented decisions. without the proper funding and security i don't think Wikipedia is able to be everything it has the potential to be. just some thoughts that i hope do not fall on deaf ears.

PS: Wikipedia needs a face lift, the bland layout and color scheme is old and tired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konnerjr (talk • contribs) 16:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

All Wikimedia websites, including Wikipedia and Wiktionary, are available encrypted via HTTPS: simply change "http://" to "https://" in the URL, thus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wiktionary for this page and https://en.wiktionary.org/ for the English Wiktionary's home page. Unlike some websites that often deal with personal information and the like, Wikipedia doesn't require you to use HTTPS, but it is an option. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 06:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Bad link

1. Webster.27s_Third_New_International_Dictionary should be #Webster.27s_Third_New_International_Dictionary_.281961.29. 86.164.65.188 (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject for Wikimedia Foundation

FYI, see a proposal at WT:WikiProject Wikipedia -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wiktionary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121111081433/http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=LXbot&dbname=ruwiktionary_p to http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=LXbot&dbname=ruwiktionary_p

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

help

Hi guys. I have a question. Does wikipedia have particular dictionary for particular language? Ishanbull (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Wiktionary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011064312/http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=TheDaveBot&dbname=enwiktionary_p to http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=TheDaveBot&dbname=enwiktionary_p
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011064411/http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=TheCheatBot&dbname=enwiktionary_p to http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=TheCheatBot&dbname=enwiktionary_p
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011064313/http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Websterbot&dbname=enwiktionary_p to http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Websterbot&dbname=enwiktionary_p
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011064300/http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=PastBot&dbname=enwiktionary_p to http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=PastBot&dbname=enwiktionary_p
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011064233/http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=NanshuBot&dbname=enwiktionary_p to http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=NanshuBot&dbname=enwiktionary_p

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wiktionary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130504235547/http://dbpedia.org/Wiktionary to http://dbpedia.org/Wiktionary

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2018

Nctzen1111 (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kpgjhpjm 11:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Comparison

It would be very nice if someone could write something about the differences, similarities and stats of the Wiktionary and the other biggest dictionaries. Greetings, 91.38.160.233 (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2019

2601:240:E480:6F66:45D4:4600:3780:4DE7 (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Try exact match full text search is not working please make it work please fix it

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 00:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)