Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Wiktionary/Display definitions from Wikisource dictionaries

Random proposal ►◄ Wiktionary  The survey has concluded. Here are the results!

Display definitions from Wikisource dictionaries

• Problem: Wiktionaries aims to offer for each meaning one definition but there are many ways to describe a meaning, many words - including local uses (i.e. and American adapted definition and an Indian one for the same word) and very technical terms sometimes. A synthetic one is a way, but more than one is better. Some other definition in other dictionaries may be mentioned as references in the articles but they are not accessible in Wiktionary despite being for some of them in Wikisource.
• Proposed solution: Many dictionaries are already in Wikisource and we can use them to offer more definitions. A dedicated transclusion or paragraphs from Wikisource in Wiktionaries could be a solution, by hand/bot or with an automatic harvesting of entries with a specific tagging in the dictionaries hosted in Wikisources. They could come from several Wikisources, to be display in several Wiktionaries. It could be a new tab next to "Article" and "Talk", named "Dictionaries" with definition for the same sequence of letters from dictionaries published in Wikisource. For French, I can imagine at least a dozen of definitions from as much dictionaries. For underdescribed languages with at least one source in Wikisource, it could be an interesting way to compare the source and how it evolve after its inclusion in Wiktionary.
• Who would benefit: Readers wanting more than one definition.
• More comments: Some dictionaries are already properly tagged; for the others, it could be a good opportunity to do it accordingly to TEI Lex0 guidelines, so that they can more easily be reused in open source projects. Also, to undermine a tendency when someone talk about Wiktionary: No, Wikidata Lexeme could not be of any help here. This issue is about content and not data or relation. Definitions are under CC BY-SA 3.0 in Wiktionary and in Wikisource dictionaries. This proposal is the same as this proposal last year (supported by 40 people) and this one posted two years ago by DaraDaraDara (32 supports).
• Phabricator tickets: T240191
• Proposer: Noé (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Voting

•  Support Quercus solaris (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Lectrician1 (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support EijiroSaito (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support — Omnilaika02 (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Agus Damanik (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support TheInternetGnome (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support We can dream… Otourly (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support — Bilorv (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Malexan (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --F0x1 (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Libcub (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Info-farmer (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose The wiktionaries themselves should contain the definitions; that is their purpose after all. Silver hr (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
•  Support With sources and reliable references, I agree. Thingofme (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•  Support - Darwin ^Ahoy! 14:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 02:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
•  Support —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 10:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
•  Support --Luan (discussão) 14:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
•  Support I don't even know what Wikitionary's link is, and I bet others don't know too. InterstateFive (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Ayumu Ozaki (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Umar-askira (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Tom Ja (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)