Talk:Wiktionary

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wiktionary article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 90 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Wiktionary. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Wiktionary at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion on April 21, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books: Reference works

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article is supported by the Reference works task force.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Wikipedia High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Wiktionary pronounced with three syllables?

The IPA transcription on the logo surprised me. Is this three syllable pronunciation of 'dictionary' and 'Wiktionary' the most common in North America? Glennh70 15:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that people use three syllables in Europe, but four in America. I don't know how true that is. --Baryonic Being 16:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I've heard a few people use three syllables in England but it would be very informal. I'm suprised to see it written in IPA as a suggested pronunciation.Glennh70 07:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you surprised to see it use the most common pronunciation guide in the whole world except a few American dictionaries?? (I agree on the pronunciation itself though – it sounds very quaint.) Jon Harald Søby 19:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it seems like 4 to me - Jedi Of Redwall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.112.106 (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! There needs to be a thesaurus next that wiki does. -A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.254.54.66 (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it rhymes with "dictionary", I'd probably pronounce it in two: dik-shnree. British (London).

Really? is this a difference in cultures or definitions of syllable? I thought that dictionary had four dik-shawn-air-ee, and had been pronouncing wiktionary with five until i read this wik-i-shawn-air-ee. Tom in Ohio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trkritzer (talk • contribs) 00:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DictionBreezey? what? -Ruggles the Editor 19:26, 03 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The number of syllables in both words (dictionary and Wiktionary) vary depending on the particular English pronunciation used. The standard pronunciation for the UK (especially the Received Pronunciation) gives dictionary three syllables and is the basis for the UK pronunciation of Wiktionary as well as the IPA transcription used on the Wiktionary logo. The typical US pronunciation gives dictionary four syllables because of an aditional secondary stress on the final a, which is not pronounced in the standard British dialects. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, dictionary is pronounced /ˈdɪkʃənərɪ/. It does not give an alternative pronunciation. Cambridge Advanced Learner's dictionary gives /ˈdɪk.ʃən.ər.i/ _US_ /-er.i/. The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English gives /ˈdɪkʃən ri $ -neri/. [1] Merriam-Webster gives \ˈdik-shə-ˌner-ē, -ˌne-rē\. [2] Thus, the argument that dictionary, and hence, Wiktionary is pronounced with three syllables in RP does not appear to be supported by the dictionaries themselves. Also see the discussion at wiktionary:Talk:Wiktionary. --Dforest (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, but the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary gives /ˈdɪkʃənri/. The Cambridge University Press English Pronouncing Dictionary makes the case more clearly. The primary UK pronunciation given there is /ˈdɪk.ʃ^ən.^ər.i/; the superscript schwas indicate that the sound may be omitted in casual speech. Thus, the three-syllable pronunciation in RP is in fact supported by both major dictionary publishers in the UK. Why are you recommending we look at an old anonymous comment on Wiktionary for guidance on this issue? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I referenced the discussion on Talk:Wiktionary because there is some legitimate discussion there about an issue that has not yet been resolved, and it is an issue that affects Wiktionary more so than Wikipedia. A number of Wiktionary editors have pointed out the inaccuracy of the /ˈdɪkʃənri/ transcription, and there appears to be interest in changing it to something more accurate. The transcriptions in OED, Cambridge ALD, and Longman DCE contradict your assertion that a three-syllable pronunciation is standard for the UK. Indicating that the schwa sound may be omitted in casual speech does not make it the standard to omit it. Rather, it indicates that there is some flexibility in the way the word is pronounced. Notwithstanding the issue of what is correct in RP, we should be using a pronunciation that reflects a global view of English, and if that cannot be done broadly enough to cover the differing pronunciations in one transcription, there should be two. Also note Oxford Advanced Learner's actually transcribes the word /ˈdɪkʃənri; NAmE neri/; you omitted the latter part. Dforest (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Competition' section

I think the competition section should mention other user-compiled on-line dictionaries in addition to looking at the general class of on-line dictionaries. Are there any other user-compiled on-line dictionaries that are topic-comprehensive? There are a number that are topic-specific. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the point of this section. Besides the fact that no websites are listed in this section, I can think of no other online or offline dictionary that is attempting to do what Wiktionary is attempting. Wiktionary is a collection of online dictionaries. Each dictionary seeks to define every word from every language into the language of that dictionary. For example, the English Wiktionary seeks to define every word from every language into English. There are plenty of other online dictionaries, but nearly all of them are either monolingual or bilingual. Comparing Wiktionary to such dictionaries is like comparing apples and oranges. Another thing that makes Wiktionary unique is that, as part of the Wikimedia family, Wiktionary can take full advantage of all of its sister projects. Please take a look at the following definition of a Mandarin Chinese idiom from English Wiktionary as an example of Wiktionary's potential: wikt:井底之蛙. Note how the quote's author (ex. Luo Guanzhong) is linked to his biography on Wikipedia. Moreover, a link to the Wikipedia article about the source text (ex. Romance of the Three Kingdoms) is included. Finally, the quote's source text on Wikisource (ex. s:zh:三國演義/第113回) is hyperlinked. Simply put, no other dictionary makes this sort of thing possible, period! Wiktionary still faces a number of challenges, but I've never seen anything more revolutionary than Wiktionary as far as dictionaries are concerned. -- A-cai 12:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about a criticism section?

I cannot imagine that people and academics have not been criticising the Wiktionary project. I know I have. Isn't there anything to mention in that area? Tomsintown 12:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Constructive criticism is great to improve anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.73.151.118 (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Kurdish Wiktionary

Please merge any relevant content from Kurdish Wiktionary per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurdish Wiktionary. Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 03:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent editors

I'm wondering whether prominent editors of Wiktionary should be mentioned in this article and/or have standalone articles on WP. The most notable example (to me) is Equinox. Consider that for a famous print dictionary the editors would be mentioned as a matter of course in any WP article.

Support good-faith IP editors: insist that Wikipedia's administrators adhere to Wikipedia's own policies on keeping range-blocks as a last resort, with minimal breadth and duration, in order to reduce adverse collateral effects; support more precisely targeted restrictions such as protecting only articles themselves, not associated Talk pages, or presenting pages as semi-protected, or blocking only mobile edits when accessed from designated IP ranges.—DIV (49.180.211.51 (talk) 06:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Probably not, for several reasons. Firstly, there's no established way to determine who are the "prominent" editors of Wiktionary. Secondly, even if we somehow gained consensus on such a list of editors, we still need to establish the notability of these editors if we were to write articles or major sections about them. Finally, even if we just try to make a passing mention of them, I doubt that there are any reliable, secondary sources that we can cite. If you look at articles on major dictionaries like the Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's Dictionary, you'll find that wherever the editors are mentioned, they have already satisfied these three criteria. Liu1126 (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last of the caption should not include the dot.

I would ask for the request as above. 2001:EE0:4BC4:C1D0:8C60:E4FE:CDA3:8239 (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Above. 2001:EE0:4BC2:16B0:2923:8EBD:8993:C44A (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2024 (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. Liu1126 (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]