Ray Saintonge wrote:
Wouter Steenbeek wrote:
Also, if you do it for Wiktionary, it would only be logical to merge all wikipedias into the Ultimate Wikipedia, Ultimate Wikiquote, Ultimate Wikibooks, etc. But that's simply for consistency's sake.
James
Logical, but ever so practical? A dictionary is per se about differences between two different languages (OK, except for describing unilingual dictionaries, but we're talking about translation dictionaries now, aren't we?). An encyclopedia is not. A Wikitionary consulter usually looks for a translation, and in Wiktionary several languages are merged already. Wikipedia always keeps one language.
The difference between two languages is only a secondary purpose for each Wiktionary. The Wiktionary for a particular language primarily describes the different ways in which the word in question is used within the language. You may very well usually look to Wiktionary for translations, but others can look for different things.
Ec
Hoi, What someone looks for in a Wiktionary is up to that someone. For someone interested in translations, etymology is of little intrest. For someone interested in spelling, a definition is of little interest. The reduction of the components of a Wiktionary is absurd. It is equally absurd to state that one function is more important than the next.
Relevant is the realisation that the current Wiktionaries are as closed as any proprietary content. This means that the only medium in which Wiktionary is relevant is within an Internet-browser. To improve this will make us closer to realising the objectives of the Wikimedia Foundation. This is why we should publish in XML specific to dictionary content or why we should publish in .dict format or RFC 2229. This will not happen with content in the current format and as such it is a dead end.
Thanks, GerardM