Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-16/Sister projects
Discuss this story
- Great interview! Thanks, OhanaUnited and Dominic. I'm excited to spend some more time contributing to Wiktionary when I get a chance.--ragesoss (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Great interview, but there is some points that I want to clarify:
- Wiktionary is the only project in which a non-English edition (French Wiktionary) has the highest article count. False, please have a look on n:Special:Statistics#Interlingual
- And, in terms of total content pages, both the French and English Wiktionaries are larger than all other projects besides the English Wikipedia. Half-right, [1] in term of media commons should be the first. Medias are the aim of this project, so...
- Now there is an interesting tool announced on the Wikizine [2] section: [Wiktionary lookup gadget], it's a gadget (in addition of a javascript which extract definition from Wiktionaries) in order to give the definition of a double-clicked word. This gagdet is multilingual, and self-adapted to the user interface and site language's. Regards, Otourly (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for those points. I was not aware of that about Wikinews; m:List of Wikimedia Projects by Size seems to be out of date. It's not a very important point, so I'll just remove it. I was aware of the size of Commons, but I think it is in a category by itself. I wasn't about to try to figure out how you compare media with main namespace content. To be fair, that would also require changing the totals for all of the projects with locally uploaded media. I have heard of the lookup tool, but I don't know much about it yet. Feel free to add a note somewhere if you can. Thanks for the help. :-) Dominic·t 19:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, please use http://toolserver.org/~vvv/wikis.php in reference. JackPotte (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for those points. I was not aware of that about Wikinews; m:List of Wikimedia Projects by Size seems to be out of date. It's not a very important point, so I'll just remove it. I was aware of the size of Commons, but I think it is in a category by itself. I wasn't about to try to figure out how you compare media with main namespace content. To be fair, that would also require changing the totals for all of the projects with locally uploaded media. I have heard of the lookup tool, but I don't know much about it yet. Feel free to add a note somewhere if you can. Thanks for the help. :-) Dominic·t 19:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- I just created wikt:killer green bud (my first) there. The experience was completely unlike what happens to a new user here (see article last week).[3] Very welcoming. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Why isn't the It girl page considered a derived term on the it page?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that "It girl" is not considered a derived term of "it". I think that it is just that it is still a work in progress. For such a common word, the derived terms section for "it" is rather undeveloped. If you want to add it, or any others you can think of, it would be appreciated. Dominic·t 21:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think I have ever edited WKT. Despite my experience on WP, I may leave that for the experts. I made my first WKT contribution on the it talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- After seeing the stern caution notice on Peregrine Fisher's Wiktionary talk page, I now have 2nd thoughts about contributing. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think I have ever edited WKT. Despite my experience on WP, I may leave that for the experts. I made my first WKT contribution on the it talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that "It girl" is not considered a derived term of "it". I think that it is just that it is still a work in progress. For such a common word, the derived terms section for "it" is rather undeveloped. If you want to add it, or any others you can think of, it would be appreciated. Dominic·t 21:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Is there a Wiktionary equivalent to Wikipedia is not for things made up one day? — Athaenara ✉ 01:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- There is actually a passage on the page you linked that reads "Wiktionary requires evidence that a word or phrase has been attested before it will accept it. A new word that one person or a small group of people have made up and are trying to make catch on is a neologism and is not acceptable at Wiktionary." Is this what you are looking for? — Pretzels Hii! 01:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- In addition, while Wiktionary has no analogous essay, the criteria for inclusion ensure that only words that are verifiably used (or were used at some point) merit entries. This means citations of the word in question being used by speakers. Any editor can challenge the veracity of a word by bringing it to requests for verification, which is similar to AFD, except that generally words are improved enough to meet the criteria for inclusion by the time the listing expires or they are removed. Dominic·t 07:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- There is actually a passage on the page you linked that reads "Wiktionary requires evidence that a word or phrase has been attested before it will accept it. A new word that one person or a small group of people have made up and are trying to make catch on is a neologism and is not acceptable at Wiktionary." Is this what you are looking for? — Pretzels Hii! 01:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)