Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella(a)yahoo.it> wrote:
Yes, and this
is why en.wiktionary is now being pushed into adding a
see-also line to every such page, like the one at the top of
Why don't you just insert the word in the "Related words"??? It is
related word - so a "see also" doesn't make any sense.
(or maybe "variants")
Because they are not at all related. [[nadir]] is from an Arabic word
naẓīr meaning 'counterpart', and [[Nadir]] is either from nazīr "rare"
or naḍīr "auspicious". Outside of having a common source language they
have nothing in common.
* In a paper dictionary you only find words in the
Yes, and you will find them whether you are searching with the proper
capitalization or not.
So what you are talking about is the search function, but not the
article - this means that whenever you insert a word into the search
field it should give back both results, with capital letter and without
(it is sufficient thought to use google search).
Actually here I am talking about paper dictionaries, which don't have
search functions. The Wiktionary search hasn't come up at all.
I don't think people are so stupid to search for
an Englishword with a capital letter if it isn't normally capitalised -
It's rather the contrary really. People are used to case-insensitive
search, and generally don't bother to capitalize anything when typing
in search boxes, if my webserver's logs are any indication.
when studying English the first things you learn is
that English usescapital letters only for months, days, countries, languages etc. andin
titles and in some exceptional cases - so why should native speakerspretend capitalised
entries in a dictionary?
Wiktionary page titles have no direct counterpart to anything in a paper
This is especially noticeable in languages which use optional pointing,
such as Hebrew and Arabic, in which case the pointed form you would find
in a paper dictionary is the in-page headword, and the page title is a
normalized form *without* points--exactly the form the user normally
which also uses normalized page titles. It is inconsistent to only
normalize certain languages.
Yes, as I said
earlier, it needn't be mediawiki #redirects, but there
will have to be a reference of some kind. I am not talking about machine
spell-check, but *human* use of the dictionary. There will be notes
saying that people who have found [[its]] may be looking for [[it's]].
Such in fact already exist, e.g. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/its#Usage
Also this has to do with the search function - if I remember well, using
google for the search it already works like this.
Not everyone uses Google for searching Wiktionary. In any case, Google
suggests spellings when you give it a word that it doesnt recognize...
both "its" and "it's" are English words; it won't suggest
"it's" if you've
searched for "its".
Consequently, as far as I am concerned redirects are
of no use
whatsoever in any Wiktionary.
Yes, IMHO #redirects are much less useful than most of en: thinks, though
I do find them to have their use occasionally. On la: where words are
to be disambiguated, it makes sense to redirect [[sulfur (en)]] and
[[sulphur (en)]] together, because they are the same word.
No, they should be two single words, connected on the relative page
under "Related words" or "Variants". Redirects do not have any sense
even if there are some printed dictionaries that use this in order to
save space - we don't have the space problem so why use it and not just
create two separate pages connecting them under relations?
Because you will have duplicated information (viz., etymological information,
pronunciations, derived and related terms, translation tables, definitions,
etc.) that have to be synchronized--that, or you deal with the POV issue
of labelling one spelling as "more correct" and worthy of hosting the
information alone. This problem has been run across in several places on
en.wikt, such as gray/grey, armor/armour... and in the source of several
yet remains the injunction:
<!--If you edit this entry, please also edit the following entry to
ensure these two entries remain in synchrony: grey-->
<!--If you edit this page, please also edit "armour" to ensure these
pages remain in synch.-->
This is ridiculous, especially when the variation is not due to
regional issues, as is the case with gray/grey--'gray' is, as the
pages say, an American spelling, though this is slightly misleading,
as it is not a color/colour-type pair: both 'gray' and 'grey' are
common acceptable forms within this country (cf. gray vs lightgrey
FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki: