headers
Ray Saintonge | 1 Jul 2005 01:07

Re: Re: [Wikitech-l] en.wiktionary.org temporarily broken

Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> The difference can be found in things like the English
> wiktionary seems to cherish the redirect pages while all redirect pages
> on the Dutch and Italian .. and others are always deleted. The reason
> for this is that like in a paper dictionaray we only want correct
> spellings and an incorrect spelling should result in a "not found" 
> message.

I don't think that feelings are unanimous on this in the English 
Wiktionary.  I frequently delete redirect pages, and see no point in 
keeping Transwiki pages once the contents have been assimilated.

> One thing you have to consider with regard to the implementation of case
> sensitivity is, that the longer you wait the more work there is to make
> the necessary changes.

=-O ;-)

Ec
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Muke Tever | 1 Jul 2005 03:20
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Re: [Wikitech-l] en.wiktionary.org temporarily broken

Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@...> wrote:
> The reason for this is that like in a paper dictionaray we only want correct
> spellings and an incorrect spelling should result in a "not found" message.

In the US, and probably in other places where spelling is not phonetic,
one of the most common uses for a dictionary (if not the most common)
is to find what the correct spelling of a word is.  If there is not
"spell check" in the form of redirects or see-unders, then the Wiktionary
is useless for this.

	*Muke!
--

-- 
website:     http://frath.net/
LiveJournal: http://kohath.livejournal.com/
deviantArt:  http://kohath.deviantart.com/

FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki:
http://wiki.frath.net/
Permalink | Reply | 14 comments |
headers
Gerard Meijssen | 1 Jul 2005 09:28
Picon

Re: Re: [Wikitech-l] en.wiktionary.org temporarily broken

Muke Tever wrote:

> Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@...> wrote:
>
>> The reason for this is that like in a paper dictionaray we only want 
>> correct
>> spellings and an incorrect spelling should result in a "not found" 
>> message.
>
>
> In the US, and probably in other places where spelling is not phonetic,
> one of the most common uses for a dictionary (if not the most common)
> is to find what the correct spelling of a word is.  If there is not
> "spell check" in the form of redirects or see-unders, then the Wiktionary
> is useless for this.
>
>     *Muke!

Hoi,
When a word is correctly spelled in several ways, every alternative is 
as good as the other and deserve its own article. It should therefore be 
abundantly clear that they are correct. As a consequence of the massive 
rename action many thousands of redirects have been created words like 
"Lightbulb" are now correct because there is a redirect ?? So the 
spelling of a sentence like: "A Lightbulb Is Typically Found In A 
Lamp."  is apparantly correct?? I think not.

Redirects are not an appropriate tool for spell checks.

Thanks,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 10 comments |
headers
Klaus-Eduard Runnel | 1 Jul 2005 13:52
Picon

Re: Re: [Wikitech-l] en.wiktionary.org temporarily broken

On 6/30/05, Klaus-Eduard Runnel <klaus.eduard@...> wrote:
> 
> Maybe someone can think of a way to create automatic links to pages with 
> titles differing just by the case of the first letter? E.g. it would be 
> helpful to have link to "aa" from the article titled "Aa". I have had no 
> success trying to accomplish something like that using the available means 
> of mediawiki. That's by the way one of the reasons why not-yet-so-big 
> Estonian wiktionary has not switched over to case-sensitivite first letters 
> yet.
> 
> There could be use for a magic word similar to PAGENAMEE which would 
> return the page title with spaces substituted by '+' characters.

Ok, no need for that. Special:Search is the answer to my question. Somehow I 
had no idea it existed. The code I was looking for is that simple:

[[{{ns:special}}:Search/{{PAGENAME}}|Search for {{PAGENAME}}]] 

Klaus
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Muke Tever | 1 Jul 2005 19:39
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Re: [Wikitech-l] en.wiktionary.org temporarily broken

Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@...> wrote:
> Muke Tever wrote:
>> In the US, and probably in other places where spelling is not phonetic,
>> one of the most common uses for a dictionary (if not the most common)
>> is to find what the correct spelling of a word is.  If there is not
>> "spell check" in the form of redirects or see-unders, then the Wiktionary
>> is useless for this.
>
> When a word is correctly spelled in several ways, every alternative is
> as good as the other and deserve its own article. It should therefore be
> abundantly clear that they are correct. As a consequence of the massive
> rename action many thousands of redirects have been created words like
> "Lightbulb" are now correct because there is a redirect ?? So the
> spelling of a sentence like: "A Lightbulb Is Typically Found In A
> Lamp."  is apparantly correct?? I think not.

Capitalization is separate from spelling (though both are parts of
orthography). Your sentence is spelled correctly, though capitalized
unusually.

In any case, free capitalization of words is quite common--it occur in
titles of works ("Antique Lightbulbs of the Early 19th Century"), in
advertising ("Save Today on Great Unbeatable Prices"), in any case
where a word is given a special kind of emphasis ("it wasn't just a
smell, it was a Smell"), is used as a title of address ("you're not
listening to me, Mother"), is made into a proper noun ("he was a
Zealot"), etc., and formerly also optionally of nouns in general.

One of the most venerated documents in our country begins:
      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Gerard Meijssen | 1 Jul 2005 20:34
Picon

Re: Re: [Wikitech-l] en.wiktionary.org temporarily broken

Muke Tever wrote:

>> Redirects are not an appropriate tool for spell checks.
>
>
> Then what do you suggest would replace it, so the dictionary
> can be useful? 

There are several reasons why redirects will not work.
* At this moment in time, there are some 76.000 words. When you have 
some 760.000 words, you will have a need to add a redirect for every 
added word. I do not think that this is reasonable to ask from the 
contributors to Wiktionary.
* When a word exists both as a capitalised word and as a noncapitalised 
word, you will not be directed from one to the other word. This works 
both ways.
* In a paper dictionary you only find words in the proper capitalisation.
* When the content of the Ultimate Wiktionary is to be used for spell 
checking, there will be software that will perform this functionality. 
The functionality that will allow for uppercase that is typically not 
correct will be in the software not in the content of the UW. Even so, 
certain words are only correct in a certain context, otherwise words 
like their and there can be used without it being recoginised. This is 
to say that there is more to spellchecking than what can be indicated by 
redirects in any Wiktionary.

Consequently, as far as I am concerned redirects are of no use 
whatsoever in any Wiktionary. Your arguments against having words in the 
proper case do not convince me, but you already knew that.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Muke Tever | 2 Jul 2005 06:59
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Re: [Wikitech-l] en.wiktionary.org temporarily broken

Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@...> wrote:
> Muke Tever wrote:
>>> Redirects are not an appropriate tool for spell checks.
>>
>> Then what do you suggest would replace it, so the dictionary
>> can be useful?
>
> There are several reasons why redirects will not work.
> * At this moment in time, there are some 76.000 words. When you have
> some 760.000 words, you will have a need to add a redirect for every
> added word. I do not think that this is reasonable to ask from the
> contributors to Wiktionary.

Yes, that was why I thought breaking case-folding was silly.

> * When a word exists both as a capitalised word and as a noncapitalised
> word, you will not be directed from one to the other word. This works
> both ways.

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
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nadir

> * In a paper dictionary you only find words in the proper capitalisation.

Yes, and you will find them whether you are searching with the proper
capitalization or not.

> * When the content of the Ultimate Wiktionary is to be used for spell
> checking, there will be software that will perform this functionality.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Ray Saintonge | 2 Jul 2005 07:21

Re: Re: [Wikitech-l] en.wiktionary.org temporarily broken

Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> Muke Tever wrote:
>
>> Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@...> wrote:
>>
>>> The reason for this is that like in a paper dictionaray we only want 
>>> correct
>>> spellings and an incorrect spelling should result in a "not found" 
>>> message.
>>
>> In the US, and probably in other places where spelling is not phonetic,
>> one of the most common uses for a dictionary (if not the most common)
>> is to find what the correct spelling of a word is.  If there is not
>> "spell check" in the form of redirects or see-unders, then the 
>> Wiktionary
>> is useless for this.
>
> Hoi,
> When a word is correctly spelled in several ways, every alternative is 
> as good as the other and deserve its own article. It should therefore 
> be abundantly clear that they are correct. As a consequence of the 
> massive rename action many thousands of redirects have been created 
> words like "Lightbulb" are now correct because there is a redirect ?? 
> So the spelling of a sentence like: "A Lightbulb Is Typically Found In 
> A Lamp."  is apparantly correct?? I think not.
>
> Redirects are not an appropriate tool for spell checks.

I agree.  Although some very common misspellings probably should be
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Sabine Cretella | 2 Jul 2005 07:28
Picon
Favicon

Re: Re: [Wikitech-l] en.wiktionary.org temporarily broken


>
> 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
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nadir
>
Why don't you just insert the word in the "Related words"??? It is a 
related word - so a "see also" doesn't make any sense.
(or maybe "variants")

>> * In a paper dictionary you only find words in the proper 
>> capitalisation.
>
>
> 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). German has loads of 
words with capital and non capital letters - Deutsch, deutsch for 
German, Weiß, weiß for white etc. depending on how words are used and 
people who study German know this as well as Germans know this. I don't 
think people are so stupid to search for an English word with a capital 
letter if it isn't normally capitalised - when studying English the 
first things you learn is that English uses capital letters only for 
months, days, countries, languages etc. and in titles and in some 
exceptional cases - so why should native speakers pretend capitalised 
entries in a dictionary? I don't think that English and/or American
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Muke Tever | 2 Jul 2005 09:07
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Re: [Wikitech-l] en.wiktionary.org temporarily broken

Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella@...> 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
>> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nadir
>>
> Why don't you just insert the word in the "Related words"??? It is a
> 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 proper
>>> capitalisation.
>>
>> 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 -
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane