Hi everyone,
I started on a web based bilingual dictionary based on Wiktionary which can be found at http://www.wikdict.com . It's still very young, so expect to find problems. I'm interested in some early feedback, so please let me know what you think of it.
If you need a specific language pair to judge WikDict, let me know and I might be able to add it soon.
Karl
Thank you.
1. Does not let me edit. 2. Does not link to Wiktionary to let people edit. 3. Does not show word meanings. Different meanings have different translations. 4. Consider writing a "skin" for wiktionary.org itself. MediaWiki is quite extensible and I feel the potential is underused.
PS. wmflabs can host it for you and save you costs, so you have more time to write. You can also add co-maintainers there. https://tools.wmflabs.org/
- Does not let me edit.
- Does not link to Wiktionary to let people edit.
Editing should happen on Wiktionary and I will add a link to it. I just could not decide how to add the links in every case, yet. When you have a en->de translation, the translation entry could be in the en Wiktionary or the de Wiktionary or in both. The best solution I've found so far is to link to the en Wiktionary on the one side and the de Wiktionary on the other side. But that could lead to non-existent pages, which will probably confuse users who want to see all the details for that displayed translation. I'm not really happy with that.
- Does not show word meanings. Different meanings have different translations.
Yes, this should definitively be added. When first trying this, I had problems with the differences between different Wiktionaries, so I postponed to get the basics working first.
- Consider writing a "skin" for wiktionary.org itself. MediaWiki is quite extensible and I feel the potential is underused.
An interesting suggestion. I don't know much about MediaWiki, but I thought it would be impossible to show translations from many different pages with just a skin. Also, I could not find a way to search for translations well enough last time I looked. Generally, I had the impression that MediaWiki does not really understand the meaning of most of the page and treats it just as formatting, which limits what I can do in many ways.
Thanks for you feedback, Karl
Karl Bartel wrote:
- Consider writing a "skin" for wiktionary.org itself. MediaWiki is quite extensible and I feel the potential is underused.
An interesting suggestion. I don't know much about MediaWiki, but I thought it would be impossible to show translations from many different pages with just a skin. Also, I could not find a way to search for translations well enough last time I looked. Generally, I had the impression that MediaWiki does not really understand the meaning of most of the page and treats it just as formatting, which limits what I can do in many ways.
Thanks for you feedback, Karl
www.wiktionary.org (similarly to www.wikipedia.org and the like sisters) currently is just a stupid search box where the user needs to manually choose a language. Rewriting it to allow users to look up articles in different languages (and - for some projects - translations), using interwiki info from Wikidata, sounds like a worthwhile task to me.
On 2014-12-31 18:51, svetlana wrote:
www.wiktionary.org (similarly to www.wikipedia.org and the like sisters) currently is just a stupid search box where the user needs to manually choose a language. Rewriting it to allow users to look up articles in different languages (and - for some projects - translations), using interwiki info from Wikidata, sounds like a worthwhile task to me.
The www.wik*.org portals are nothing but static HTML pages plus a little JavaScript. Any resources loaded by these pages are small and static by design, to avoid sending resource usage through the roof. The portals are also kept as language-agnostic as possible, presenting a special challenge whenever any new functionality is introduced.
There is an effort underway to get (at least some) Wiktionary data into Wikidata. [1] It would be cleaner than relying on interwiki links, but it's also a ways off.
[1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary
Minh Nguyen, 10/02/2015 12:27:
The portals are also kept as language-agnostic as possible, presenting a special challenge whenever any new functionality is introduced.
Indeed. Multilingual search should not be implemented in the portals as such, but rather in Special:Search on any project. We already got the interwiki search back, it's not impossible. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T26767#283887
Nemo
How do you store the data? If you used DICT, that would be incredibly useful. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Content_translation/FAQ#What_dictionaries_wil...
Nemo
I currently provide downloadable versions of the data as tsv[1] and for the android quickdic app[2]. I'm willing to provide more formats, but I don't know which formats would be most useful, yet.
The freedict project does not look very active to me. The last mail to the announce list is from 2006 and there Apps are for WinCE/Palm/Zaurus, but none for OSX, Android or iOS. Could you tell me something about its current state? How could the data be used if I provide it in the DICT format?
[1] https://2535bb29a61a8fc07fc2e529a469f6a2c3284fc1.googledrive.com/host/0B6i4X... [2] https://2535bb29a61a8fc07fc2e529a469f6a2c3284fc1.googledrive.com/host/0B6i4X...
On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:
How do you store the data? If you used DICT, that would be incredibly useful. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Content_translation/FAQ#What_dictionaries_wil...
Nemo
Wiktionary-l mailing list Wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
Karl Bartel, 01/01/2015 17:02:
How could the data be used if I provide it in the DICT format?
You can ask Amir to confirm, but as expressed in the linked FAQ I think it would be used by the ContentTranslation extension, the tool soon available in all language editions of Wikipedia to translate articles from one to the other.
Nemo
wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org