Talk:Wiktionary future

Wikidata - OmegaWiki

Note that if Wikidata starts to take care of linguistic data (as far as I know this has not yet been decided, but there are some talks about it), the OmegaWiki data, and its community, will be merged with Wikidata, so that there is not really a danger about overlap, as far as Wikidata/OmegaWiki is concerned. I am myself (me = the OmegaWiki guy) in relation with the Wikidata programmers to discuss the possibility for such a merge in the future. --Kip (talk) 10:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I forgot: Great idea

(note, this section is a copy of a conversation which began in a user talk page)

Trash disposal

I think it was a great idea of you to install the Wiktionary future page. I still see the danger of getting something like a trash disposal. But aren’t similar pages the very same? And don’t these trash disposals sometimes contain valuable content that only needs to be mined?

The most difficult things at the beginning will be:

• To be able to evaluate what the real benefit of a proposal is in WT Project dimension (already mentioned).
• How to structure the proposals (already mentioned)?
• Do we succeed to explain basics, what we are discussing about, what the proposition is good for, even in terms understandable by users, not in depth experienced in all the buzzword bingo language or project details?

NoX (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I'll see what I can do to avoid such a path to trash disposal, if you have some concrete suggestions, I'll be happy and grateful to hear them. --Psychoslave (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You recently added on title level 2 (===) "Thinking out of the classical online Wiktionary format and reading usage". In my opinion this is a structuring title for proposals. Your proposals start on title level 3 (====). I think we should lift all your titles by one level.

At the beginning we should add a structuring title like preliminaries or so. There we should add things common to all proposals. E.g. a model for proposals.

Proposal title level 2 (===)

Title Abstract level 3 (====) Very short meaning of the proposal.

Title Current Situation level 3 (====) Describing the shortcomings of the current situation.

Title Recommended improvement level 3 (====) Describing them, perhaps using subtitles on level 4 (=====).

Title Comments on proposal level 3 (====). Initially empty, filled by others.

We should ask Denny to remove his questions (I’ll add a link to this on his talk page).

The title “Targets, business-model of the proposals presented here?” should be left at the preliminaries but it needs improvement in the sense of imagined business model for proposals (I couldn’t find a real one). I think to do that.

Which other structuring titles should be proposed (this is merely a brain storming)?

• Proposals concerning the user surface (everything the user sees or hears (on his screen, tablet, or phone)).
• Proposals concerning the data storage (how data should be better stored)
• Proposals concerning the data content (mark-up, mark-up models, language paragraph sequences etc.)
• Proposals concerning linguistic details or specialties (things only language specialists can contriubute)

Perhaps we should put this on the discussion page and restructure the current content afterwards. NoX (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, your ideas are great, I totally agree that we should move all this to the discussion page so it has a better visibility, and I'm ok with your restructuring propose. I probably won't have time for it tomorrow, and now it's time to sleep for me. But fell free to begin/do it. :) -Psychoslave (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"Avoid duplicates"

A partial quotation, for reference, of "Wiktionary future":

In my opinion, it’s an incredible waste of time and effort that the same word with the same language code exists in each Wiktionary (WT).

All words of a foreign language (other than the host language of the WT (e.g. non-French words in French WT)) should be eliminated. In image 1 I address all words in pink. In my opinion they are abused as best word representation in this language. They are redundant and in some respect their production is an unnecessary waste of time for contributing users. This effort could be used for better purposes: to improve bilingual translation examples.

In the 3-Wiktionary view of image 1 this means:

Haus in the English [1] and French Wiktionary [2] should be eliminated.

Maison in the German and English Wiktionary should be eliminated.

house in the German and French Wiktionary should be eliminated

and substited by another ENTITY as described in the next chapter (see the TransEx-Entity).

To explain this, let me first take the perspective of a (reading (opposite to contributing)) user, mother language English, strongly interested in French (cross WT view). If he looks for a French word representing house, not knowing maison, he could use English WT house, take the translation reference type 2 (see image 3), cross over to the French WT by clicking on that link and get full and best information concerning maison. I’m sure, the language information concerning maison he finds there is the best one he can find in ANY other WT of WT project. After having enriched his knowledge concerning maison, why should he add this word to English WT (if he is a contributing user)? The other way round (user mother language English interested in French) it works same way.

I don't know what the status of that page is or how vociferously I need to disagree with it, but, for the record, I disagree with above completely. If an anglophone wants to know about the French word for "house", or about maison, but doesn't know French well, fr.wikt won't help him much, as it's written in French. Some of the data there will be useful to him, but all the metadata (headers, etc.) and some of the data (usage notes, etc.) will be useless to him. Enwikt presents the ~same data in English for anglophones.—msh210@enwikt 05:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It is unlikely I can appropriately express how much I agree with you. Further, there are in each language extensive shades of meaning, and possibly entirely additional definitions and senses, for a word which can possibly be tranlated. For example, the verb senses of house are completely unrelated in French from maison, and the sub-family of noun senses indicating a place of discussion are instead accrued to chambre.

The classic example in English are the many words for the colour "black", which are used to subtlely enhance the meaning of a phrase: atramental, black, blueblack, charcoal, chiaroscuro, coal, crow, ebon, ebony, fuliginous, India, infuscate, ink, inky, jet, kohl, midnight, niger, nigrescent, pitch, raven, sloe, smut, sombre, soot, sooty, swart, tinker's pot black, &c. Each can mean 'black', yet each has more meaning in use than merely the colour. These additional meanings are unlikely to be readily available if only one language defines the term for its singular context.

Ultimately, to host all information for all words in all languages requires that each language attempt to translate all these shades and implications in their locale, to explain why a word or phrase in foreign tongue may not mean exclusively what it ostensibly may say. - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 06:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

If someone works on the integration of Wiktionary into Wikidata he might find a solution for disambiguation pages. Right now they are a sort of foreign entity and imho more part of a dictionary than an encyclopedia. --Kolja21 (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)