> >The Wiktionary communities tend to strongly disagree that splitting

> >per language would be easier for either editors or readers. How many languages are currently used? How will this scale to ~300

I would disagree with requiring the Wiktionary communities to change their ways. Instead we should adapt our plans to fit into the way they are set up. Even if the English Wiktionary community would change to have per-language pages instead of the current system, it would be rather unlikely that all other language editions of Wiktionary would follow in a timely manner. I would prefer to leave this decision to the autonomy of the projects, and instead adapt to them (which is, by the way, what the proposal does). Yair, as Daniel said, the current Wiktionary pages would not be mapped to Q-Items. Since this was unclear, I tried to update the text to make it clearer. Let me know if it is still confusing. I do not think a separate Wikibase instance would be needed to provide the data for Wiktionary. I think this can and should be done on Wikidata. But as said by Milos and pointed out by Gerard, lexical knowledge does indeed require a different data schema. This is why the proposal introduces new entity types for lexemes, forms, and senses. The data model is mostly based on lexical ontologies that we surveyed, like LEMON and others. On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 2:26 PM Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Andy Mabbett, 07/05/2015 22:53: > >> >The Wiktionary communities tend to strongly disagree that > splitting entries > >> >per language would be easier for either editors or readers. > > How many languages are currently used? How will this scale to ~300 > languages? > > Hm? Last time I counted, the English Wiktionary alone used way more > than > 300 languages. > > Nemo > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Andy Mabbett, 07/05/2015 22:53: >> >The Wiktionary communities tend to strongly disagree that splitting entries >> >per language would be easier for either editors or readers. > How many languages are currently used? How will this scale to ~300 languages? Hm? Last time I counted, the English Wiktionary alone used way more than 300 languages. Nemo _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

2015-05-08 15:33 GMT+02:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>om>: > +1. The Wikimedia community has been long able to think of all the Wikimedia > projects as an organic whole. Software, on the other hand, too often forced > innatural divisions. > > Wiktionary, Wikipedia, Commons and Wikiquote (to name the main cases) link > to each other all the time in a constructive division of labour. It makes no > sense to make connections between them harder. I start from here, since Nemo got the point IMHO: the fact that every project has its own scope doesn't imply that the whole of the community works on different scopes - we just decided to split up our duties among ourselves. But it's not just that. TL;DR: Wikidata and Wiktionary deal with the same things (concepts), therefore are best-suited for each other, given some needed adaptations. Structured Data and Structured Wikiquote deal with different things (objects), therefore are not to be considered good examples. Long version here: In theory, one might just agree that a separate instance of Wikibase might be the best solution for Wiktionary, but Structured Data and Structured Wikiquote are different from a theoretical "Structured Wiktionary", because they respectively deal with images, quotes and words. Images and quotes are describable *objects*, as the Wiki* articles/pages are, and there are billions and billions of those objects out there. This is the main, if not just the only, reason why we *have* to put up a separate instance of Wikibase to deal with them: thinking that Wikidata might deal with such an infinite task is just nuts. Words, on the other hands, are describable *concepts*, not objects. They can be linked one another by relation, they have synonyms and opposites, they can be regrouped or separated, etcetera, which is exactly what we're currently doing with Wikidata items. I know, words are even more than images and quotes, so it would be even more nuts to think to deal with this just with Wikidata - but Wikidata is *already* structured for dealing with concepts, making it the best choice for integrating data from Wiktionary. In other words, Wikidata and Wiktionary both work with *concepts*, while all the other projects work with *objects*. From a more practical point of view, why should I have a Wikidata item about, say, present tense[1] *AND* a completely similar item on "Structured Wiktionary"? It's the same concept, why should I have it in two different-yet-linked databases, belonging to and maintained by the very same community? Why can't we work something out to keep all informations just in one database? This is why I think that setting up a separate Wikibase for Wiktionary might end up in doubling our efforts and splitting our communities, which is exactly the opposite of what we need to do (halving the efforts and doubling the community).[2] Sorry for the long post. :) [1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q192613 [2] Not sure if I have to remark this, but please, PLEASE, note this is just an exaggeration for argument's sake, I have of course no data that might confirm factually that the WD community will surge by 100%. I just want to make clear my concept (heh). -- Luca "Sannita" Martinelli http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Sannita _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l