Talk:Wiktionary/Archive 1

REDIRECTing to Wikitionary?

Some one create an article on Metanoia, I moved the content to Wikitionary, tried to do a redirect with "wikitionary:" as the language, it didn't work... is there anyway to redirect to other Wikimedia projects? -- user:zanimum

Two issues there - firstly its Wiktionary, second you missed the #redirect. I have sorted it out. Morwen 15:37, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

... which raises the question: if I were to want to write a Wikipedia article on Metanoia (which I don't BTW), what is the quickest way I could get to the article to edit it? Bearing in mind that it is a REDIRECT to outside Wikipedia, there is no back-link from Wiktionary as there would be on an intra-Wikipedia REDIRECT. So other than troll through Morwen's contributions list, what's the quickest way? Enquiring minds want to know :-) Oh, and directly munging the URL is cheating: I'm looking for a mechanism within Wikipedia. --Phil 16:06, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

There is none, that's why interwiki redirects are BAD BAD BAD. Gentgeen 16:17, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To continue on that line, the page should have been Transwikied over to wiktionary and then listed on VfD, otherwise someone will raise the point that the content was inappropiatly deleted from wikipedia. Gentgeen

Transwikied content is a Candidate for speedy deletion. Anthony DiPierro 16:34, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's what's on the policy page, but that category is disputed on the talk page, so I feel kinda underhanded if I list a transwikied article there. Gentgeen

In fact I don't think even looking at Morwen's contribs would help... unless you are a sysop and so can see the rollback button. Direct URL handling (i.e. writing &redirect=0 at the end) is the only way. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:34, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

... which gets the result:

Some people may spell Wiktionary wrongly as Wikitionary or Wikionary. The predecessor has become a redirection page, but the successor has not. I want to make the successor become a redirection page, but I think some people will oppose this. Therefore, I would like to seek advice from somebody about making such the redirection. QQ (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is always a good idea to have a redirect if the word is a common misspelling. I don't have any data on whether Wikionary is a common misspelling, but if it is, it would make a useful redirect to have. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad title

Bad title
From Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
The requested page title was invalid, empty, or an incorrectly linked inter-language or inter-wiki title.

So is there a way to do this? I'm assuming the case where someone wanted to write a proper article on Metanoia, with presumably a link to the Wiktionary definition at some point. --Phil 17:05, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

you want http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Metanoia&redirect=no

FWIW, I really really dislike interwiki redirects, and get rid of them whenever I have the chance. First of all, I dislike the idea of Wikipedia articles redirecting anywhere other than other Wikipedia articles, and secondly they're a pain because you can only edit them with manual URL editing. --Delirium 06:45, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, I think we should avoid redirecting between namespaces, too. Granted, it's unlikely that anyone will try to link the word welcome in an encyclopedia article, but I'm not so sure about edit conflict - which could end up rather confusing. Until I changed it the other day, user account redirected to Special:Userlogin - but somebody had happily linked to it from root (disambiguation). Special: pages are particularly confusing, because you don't get a Redirected from: message - for example New pages isn't a piped link, it's a redirect in the main namespace here.

What's more, even if people understand what's happened, it's not a very good idea, because it makes it look like meta-information has been shoved in with the main content, which is what we're avoiding by having namespaces in the first place. Useful though they are if you can't be bothered to type "Wikipedia:" or "Special:" each time, they're just a hostage to fortune. [And don't forget you can do [[Special:Newpages|]] to stop the namespace showing up.] Imagine if you were flicking through a paper encyclopedia and under E it said Errata, and listed all the errata in that edition... - IMSoP 20:03, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There are two templates available; {{wikt|name of article}} on Wikipedia, and {{-info-}} on Wiktionary. Keep in mind that some wiktionaries already do not capitalise their articles, so the spelling should be correct. GerardM 05:36, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are two templates supporting a pretty reference into Wiktionary.

details of their use can be found at Wikipedia:How to link to Wikimedia projects#Wiktionary. Josh Parris ✉ 02:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

True or false??

True or false: Wikipedia and Wiktionary need to be merged into a single project. 66.245.100.146 01:43, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am on the side of true. Coincidentaly, it would be nice to have some discussion of merger within wikipedia community in the article. -- Taku 05:44, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

So do I: Perhaps we should merge them? On a second thought I see however also some reasons to keep them separate. I presume this discussion has been helt before? Donar Reiskoffer 19:50, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Strongly in favour. The distinction appears to be artificial and damaging to both projects. In dead-tree land it makes a pragmatic kind of sense; books, even multi-volume books, have a size limit, so you trade off depth for coverage. In wikiland there's no such size constraint; there's therefore no need to compromise on either depth or coverage, and any such compromises harm their projects unnecessarily. The split reduces the network-effect benefits of wiki, makes it harder to find information (since you won't necessarily know whether an unfamiliar word is a "dictionary" term or an "encyclopaedia" term), and leads to substantial duplication of effort for nouns and noun phrases. Mike Capp 19:19, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This was also my first thought, on a second thought I discovered one problem: on the Wikipedia article Boot the German interlanguage link is de:Stiefel. On the Wiktionary article Boot the German interlanguage link to de:Boot. But perhaps there may be other approaches to link the wikipedia and wiktionar more closely: for each wiktionary article a stub with a direct link to the wiktionary article could be created in Wikipedia? Donar Reiskoffer 08:00, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

False, most emphatically. Read about the Ultimate wiktionary on Meta. Because of the structure inherent in a dictionary, all Wiktionaries should be merged into one (relational) database. This will benefit the quality of the project as work done will impact related occurences in other languages. Wikipedia does not have a similar structure.

Besides, there are over currently over 40 translations for many names of languages. This would mean that these articles would drown out the wikipedia content. GerardM 05:28, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)</nowiki>

I vote true. I think they should be combined (for some of the same reasons already mentioned). I don't see any good reason for keeping them separate, but perhaps someone can enlighten me? SpectrumDT 15:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I vote true too. I reference wikipedia and wikitionary in my blog (wrote my own php code to support this). I use "<def>" and "</def>" in my blog and find myself wanting to use similar tags in my wikipedian contributions. It should be there already. I don't think that wikipedia and wikitionary should be one, as it may confuse the distinction between the two.. In fact I find myself and others puting wikitionary entries in wikipedia to augment an article in wikipedia. It would be okay to have a tag that allows references to wikitionary and verifies the existence of the term in wikitionary.. The idea is to make it easy for people to add wikitionary and wikipedia references in the course of defining something that does not already exist, quickly and easily. There may be problems with adding terms quickly and easily, but I find myself amazed when certain references do not already exist in wikipedia/wikitionary. The problem is not bloating wikipedia/wikitionary, the problem frustrating contributors. Wikipedia/wikitionary are evolving as a result of people's care for detail and correctness of topics. But at the very least there should be a reference to every part of speech, every thought, every word that people should expect to find wikipedia/wikitionary,

otherwise these references could lose relevance in the future. --Rofthorax 18:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote FALSE Most Wikipedia system operators act responsibly in their relationship with contributors whereas Wiktionary system operators more often than not behave as spoiled adolescents at the age (usually between 5 and 8) when learning word definitions becomes the focal point of intellectual stimulation. They lack the maturity that is expected of a Wikipedia system operator. Besides in the real word dictionaries and encyclopedias are distinguished from each other and that distinction should be maintained here as well. PCE 10:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

PCE has been trolling Wiktionary lately. /ignore. Jon Harald Søby 15:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote False a link would be perfectly Ok (an animal article could link to wikispecies) but I disagree that they should be the same, a short thing about other uses of the word at the top (or bottom)would be a good idea though; another thing: if someone had a acount on wikitionary AND wikipedia, which one would he keep? - jedi of redwall

This is not the place for this discussion. That place is Meta. I also encourage editors to read encyclopaedia, dictionary, encyclopedic dictionary, and use-mention distinction. Uncle G 16:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced?

I think the {{unsourced}} tag is absolute nonsense. The Wiktionary home page is already linked to twice in this article. Okay, you can have a separate "Reference" section and link to it a third time. But why would anyone want to do that? Are we now about to see that tag attached to thousands of articles where the source is obvious? Or does anyone think all the information on Wiktionary has been gathered from the Encyclopaedia Britannica? <K F> 17:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiktionary main page is not a source. Uncle G 18:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Your answer is not very illuminating. Do tell us what the sources are please. <K F> 18:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - What what sources are? Uncle G 19:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Come on. Under "References" it currently says that "This article does not cite its references or sources. You can help Wikipedia by including appropriate citations." So again: What should be put there instead? What would be your avuncular advice? <K F> 19:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Source citations, as the notice says. Uncle G 23:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not playing games with monosyllabic uncles. Have a nice day. <K F> 23:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there is a source for the description of, or purpose of, Wiktionary? Is there a Wiktionary "About" page, or an archived message proposing Wiktionary? (SEWilco 05:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Lexicon

Wiktionary is a sister project to Wikipedia intended to be a free wiki dictionary (including thesaurus and lexicon) in every language.

Lexicon says: A lexicon is usually a list of words together with additional word-specific information, i.e., a dictionary. So what's the difference between "a dictionary (including thesaurus and lexicon)" and "a dictionary (including thesaurus)"? Mark ¹ 10:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See the very next paragraph in that article. Or see lexicon. ☺ Uncle G 21:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiSaurus

Any plans by anyone as of this moment to make WikiSaurus a separate Wikimedia project?? Feel free to include any appropriate links. Georgia guy 00:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that it Sould be seperate, but I have no authoritie to make it that way - jedi of redwall

Interwiki link weirdness

An example of a well-formatted entry would be the "wiktionary: WikiSaurus: insane" page.

But it links to nothing... Adam Marx Squared 04:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Vildricianus 07:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stats need explanation

The stats for wiktionaries need some explanation. Most columns in the table are self-explanatory but columns like "good" are not. Please explain how the difference between total and good arises. Would be great if somebody could write a little figure caption. Jasu 17:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Table adjusted

Some things have been adjusted. Now, the table listing the top ten Wiktionaries is more legible, and not so srunched up. --Blurrzuki 01:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Frankie's mama[reply]

How about a link at the top of the page in bold

Usually I go to wikipedia for definitions if that doesn't help I go to this page to link to wiktionary.

How do I add a term to Wiktionary??

I'm new to wikipedia and would like to add a new word, but I don't understand this interface at all. How do I enter a term???

Thanks,

John

Go to wiktionary http://en.wiktionary.org and enter the term in the search box. If it doesn't exist you'll be given the opportunity to create it. Rich Farmbrough, 14:55 23 October 2006 (GMT).

Why did the French and Vietnamese wiktionaries grow so quickly? nm

Rich Farmbrough, 15:01 23 October 2006 (GMT).

It was mainly through the use of bots, software that automatically generates articles using a database. The French and Vietnamese Wiktionaries both imported large sections of the Free Vietnamese Dictionary Project (FVDP), which provides free content bilingual dictionaries to and from Vietnamese. The French Wiktionary has used other sources, such as the Unihan database of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean characters. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 01:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French Wiktionary has slightly more explanation about how they grew so much. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 01:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culture

I know this sounds out of the context, but does Wikipedia seem to have more life than Wiktionary? iM nOT S0Ber !!!!!!! 19:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per user? :-) I doubt that. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 20:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should this really have an article?

Has this gotten any substantial media coverage? Voretus/talk 21:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia's inclusion standards, but many websites less notable than Wiktionary have articles here. I don't think the standard is whether the website has received "substantial media coverage", but I suppose Wiktionary has received a trickle of press mentions because of its relation to Wikipedia. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 06:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voretus, if you feel very strongly about this and you have good reasons based on policy to feel that way, take the article to WP:AFD ... however, I guarantee you that the result will be 'speedy keep' and the nomination will be seen as either against common sense, in bad faith, or an attempt to make a point. I'm just relating what I see as the most likely outcome. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian (UK) seems to like to pick on Wiktionary (en especially.) An OED editor here and there have also mentioned it a few times, likewise m-w.com (I think Erin was even at Wikimania!) I suppose you could trawl through the Wikinews archives to see which major publishers have articles, but that is not where my interest lies. As Ceyockey pointed out, an AfD would certainly be laughed out of existence rather quickly. Compared to Wikipedia, our piddly little 17,000 to 30,000 anonymous visitors per day must seem quite small. But when compared to many website articles here on Wikipedia that don't get that many hits per month I think it is reasonable to assume that it is now notable, in and of itself. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 09:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean that it's a real dictionary, though. Most of the entries are impossible-to-read, irrelevant, robot-generated entries. Take those away and you have about 150,000 entries. Then, take away phrases that are given seperate entries, e.g., "Decline and Fall," which 100% of other dictionaries don't define. Then, take away foreign words. Then, you have some number lower than 150,000, which is about the same as the Pocket Oxford English Dictionary. The Pocket OED doesn't have an entry of its own on Wikipedia, so Wiktionary probably would have been speedied if it weren't created by us. Humans overestimate the importance of their own actions, which is why it has an entry here.--Quintius Quintius 09:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean impossible-to-read? Examples? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 18:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary doesn't just compete with monolingual dictionaries; it also tries, as you noted, to define words in other languages. But I'm sure you've heard of a paper dictionary that translates from one language to another. Instead of simply tossing those entries out of Wiktionary's count, it would make more sense to compare Wiktionary to the OED + CEDICT + Merriam-Webster's Spanish-English Dictionary + EDICT + Larousse Pocket Dictionary + Le Ba Khanh / Le Ba Kong + a slew of Hippocrene Standard dictionaries. Obviously, Wiktionary would not fare very well in such a comparison. But you can't just summarily discount a large chunk of the project because you wouldn't find it in, say, a pocket dictionary.

By the way, the dictionary on my desk, the Random House College Dictionary, doesn't have an entry on Decline and Fall, but it does have one on the book's author, Edward Gibbon (1737–94, English historian), who doesn't have his own Wiktionary entry yet. So maybe that makes up for your example, since many dictionaries define proper nouns to some degree.

– Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 02:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That graph

...Really needs an update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterus (talk • contribs)

The caption is out of date; clicking through to the graphic, it is in synch with the source @ http://stats.wikimedia.org/wiktionary/EN/PlotsPngArticlesTotal.html; from the footer of that page "Generated on Tuesday December 12, 2006 from recent database dump files. Data processed up to Thursday November 30, 2006." --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 [1] and there are edits that date to 22nd March [2]. --Derbeth ^talk 02:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Broken link

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Edit request from Delocalizer, 19 September 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

W alex 03 02:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

W alex 03 02:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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/Archive_1 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)[reply]

Bad link

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)[reply]

WikiProject for Wikimedia Foundation

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

help

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

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2018

This edit request to Wiktionary has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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. Kpg jhp jm 11:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2019

This edit request to Wiktionary has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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)[reply]

Biased Christian declension template nouns in the Greek Wiktionary

Some Christians not only delete the comments, but also the history, claiming that a vandalism occurred.

http://archive.fo/zkbjW

We shouldn't select the declension templates with religious and political criteria. "Cardinal" is not even based on a Greek etymon to be set as a template! Avoid political and religious conflict on dictionaries. Some Greeks want to establish the criteria of Conservapedia on Wikipedia.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2019

This edit request to Wiktionary has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Wiktionary is not working right please help make it work please fix it now thank you 2601:240:E480:6F66:698C:3137:50AE:85A3 (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is for making changes to the article, not fixing the site. The site seems to be working fine anyway. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 19:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly interesting paper to include in the main text

Here: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020.lrec-1.521.pdf - about WikiPron, a pronunciation mining tool aimed at en.wikt. Might be interesting to include a discussion in the entry here. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

a word replacement

In article introduction, better replace

the word 'written' by 'prepared', i.e.

'written' collaboratively-> by

'prepared' collaboratively

Helppublic (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History and development

Replace the word 'was' with 'had been' as follows:

Wiktionary 'was' hosted-->

Wiktionary 'had been' hosted

Helppublic (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History and development

Please remove the words 'exist to'

Detailed statistics exist to show-->

Detailed statistics show

Helppublic (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Text issue

There seems to be a problem with the text after "The top ten Wiktionary projects by mainspace article count" I get

!{{{1}}} repeated many times then more like it

on an LG51S phone 1.144.108.9 (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

criticism, spelling features extra diacritic

criticism, Spelling features extra diacritic Automatically change o to ó or a to ȁ, for languages that do not have those letters in the alphabet, very bizzare 2600:1700:CDA0:1060:98D5:EA87:89E0:608B (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Kurdish Wiktionary" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Kurdish Wiktionary has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 10 § Kurdish Wiktionary until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 14:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Irish Wiktionary" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Irish Wiktionary has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 10 § Irish Wiktionary until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 14:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to link to Wiktionary?

How to link to Wiktionary from a Wikipedia article? I used to do it but I have forgotten. Of course I can always use an external link, but it is not an elegant solution. I can spend several hours to find it somewhere in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents, but is this what you meant while creating that editor's guide? 85.193.211.12 (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The basic format is [[:wikt:TERM#LANGUAGE]]. So to link to the Hawaiian term mele:

[[:wikt:mele#Hawaiian]] →

wikt:mele#Hawaiian

You can use pipes and other wikicode formatting in links as usual. Example:

[[:wikt:mele#Hawaiian|''mele'', the Hawaiian word for "song" or "chant"]] →

mele, the Hawaiian word for "song" or "chant"

The :wikt: prefix indicates that this link should go to Wiktionary. It defaults to the same language as this Wikipedia, so English. If you want to link to a Wiktionary written in a different language, use the appropriate language code in the prefix.

[[:wikt:LC:TERM#LANGUAGE]]

Note that the language code (LC above) is the two-letter code defined by ISO 639-1 (for those languages that have them) or the three-letter code defined by ISO 639-2 for others. The language of the entry you want to target (LANGUAGE above) is the name of that language, in the language of the targeted Wiktionary.

[[:wikt:zh:考#日語]] →

wikt:zh:考#日語 -- the Chinese Wiktionary's Japanese entry for 考

[[:wikt:ja:考#中国語]] →

wikt:ja:考#中国語 -- the Japanese Wiktionary's Chinese entry for 考

[[:wikt:fr:考#Coréen]] →

wikt:fr:考#Coréen -- the French Wiktionary's Korean entry for 考

One proviso -- cross-wiki links don't always display correctly in red, and not all language codes are supported, even if there is a corresponding Wiktionary.

The Ainu Wiktionary exists as a tiny stub over at the Incubator (https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wt/ain), but cross-wiki links to it using the format above display in blue and do not work, depositing you at a non-existent page on the English Wiktionary ([[:wikt:ain:アィヌ]] → wikt:ain:アィヌ).
Meanwhile, the Hawaiian Wiktionary is also an Incubator stub (https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wt/haw), but cross-wiki links to it display in blue and do work, at least getting you to the Hawaiian Wiktionary if the term doesn't exist, and showing you the correct page if the term does exist ([[:wikt:haw:mele]] → wikt:haw:mele which doesn't exist, [[:wikt:haw:mahalo]] → wikt:haw:mahalo which does exist).
And the Goguryeo Wiktionary itself does not exist at all (and probably never will, as this is an extinct language with no extant texts yet found), and links still display in blue and also do not work, likewise depositing you at a non-existent page on the English Wiktionary ([[:wikt:zkg:買]] → wikt:zkg:買)

At any rate, caveat usuarius. 😄 ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Tamil Wiktionary" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Tamil Wiktionary has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 10 § Tamil Wiktionary until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 14:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a table, preceded by: "The top ten Wiktionary language projects by mainspace article count:" The table headers are:

№ Language Wiki Good Total Edits Admins Users Active users Files

It would be nice if these headers were explained. Good what? Total what? Is 'Users' the total number of people that have ever used it, or what? And what files? 2A00:23C4:9183:4901:ADE5:C632:6985:E5F5 (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]