Wiktionary:Simple talk/Restructure of Simple Wiktionary

Hello there all. I'm making this a subpage because this needs to be a long discussion because there are a lot of things that need fixing here to make it better, in my opinion. These include the categorization of entries, implementing new features in entries, adding lists of words that can have entries created off of, and more. I will split this discussion into several parts that can be discussed separately. I implore you to join in the discussion because this is a major change to the way things are done here. Let us begin:

New implementations

There are several new things that I want to implement into our entries here on the Simple English Wiktionary. They include adding hyphenations to the pronunciation sections, changing the way alternate (Other) spellings are done and implementing a new way of doing alternate spellings. When there is an opportunity to discuss something, discuss it underneath the Discussion subheader of the implementation you want to discuss.

Adding hyphenations to entries

The English Wiktionary has a template that they use called {{hyphenation}} that is added to the bottom of the pronunciation section to add the hyphenation of the word to the pronunciation of said word. The reason why I think we should add it is because I think that hyphenations would better help our community of English language learners to help them sound out the word so that they can learn it more easily. Hyphenations are used to show the syllablage of the word so that people can sound it out.

Implementing this new features will be fairly easy. First, we'd need to import {{hyphenation}} and any other templates it depends upon over here. That should implement the new feature. Making full use of the new feature would take a while, but it is easily done (it'll take a bit of time), but painstakingly tedious. A bot cannot do this task as it would not be able to tell the syllablage of the word. It would have to be done manually, which would take quite a while. If we work at it, though, we could get it done fairly quickly.

Please discuss the implementation of adding hyphenations to entries below.

Hyphenation discussion

Well, I think this is a good idea. This is also used on the German WT. There, we just use the hyphenation point without a template. How we do this doesn't matter for me, but I think we should do it. --Barras (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The hyphenation template will make it fairly easy to add them. All you have to do is this: {{hyphenation|rock|ing}} for the word rocking. Pretty easy, right? Razor flame 19:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is alright with everyone, I'd like to start adding hyphenations to the entries that have already been created. Is that alright with everyone? Razor flame 19:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. This makes the wiki more qualitative. --Barras (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The layout guidline should be changed by the way. --Barras (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And should we also add this to words like fly, where it's only "Hyphenation: fly"? --Barras (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, as it seems kind of pointless. I would only add hyphenation to multi-syllable words. Razor flame 21:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Were my thoughts too. --Barras (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing alternative spellings

The current way that alternative spellings (other spellings) is set up is kind of a pain, in my honest opinion. It is overkill and can easily be trimmed down to make it much easier to deal with alternate spellings.

In my opinion, there are much easier ways of dealing with alternate spellings. First, we should only list alternative spellings on the entry that is the main spelling of the word. For example, if the alternate spelling is lava-like instead of lavalike, then the entry at lavalike is the main entry, and the entry at lava-like would be as such:

==Noun== {{noun}} # {{other spelling of|<regular spelling of the word>}}

This layout is incredibly simple and the {{other spelling of}} would result in it being like this as the definition: Other spelling of <regular spelling of the word>. This way, it is cleaner and much easier to read. Only the main spelling of the word would have the other spelling template. All other spellings of the word, including plurals, don't have the alternate spellings listed.

Implementing this feature is fairly easy as well. First, we'd need to import {{alternate spelling of}} from the English Wiktionary and then, and this part is also pain-stakingly time consuming, we would need to go through every entry that has an alternate spelling to make the changes as needed.

Please discussion the implementation of this feature below:

Other spelling discussion

How would you define which word the alternative spelling is? --Barras (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would define whichever word is used the most in books and over the internet should be the original spelling with the complete definition and all other forms of the word be the alternative spellings. Good? Razor flame 19:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source to see which on it will be? I think it would be easier to just say "British English or American English is the main spelling and the other one the other". --Barras (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General fixes

There are many general things that need fixing here because they are either broken and are used very sloppily. They include fixing the templates so that only the headword gets the actual part of speech categories, completely reworking the categorization here on the Simple English Wiktionary, adding lists of words that need creating here on the Simple English Wiktionary, and getting more people to participate in the project.

Complete categorization fix

Currently, our categorical system is a mess. It needs to be fixed and made crystal clear and concise to make it helpful. Every noun that is not a plural needs to be in Category:Nouns, every plural of a noun needs to be in Category:Plurals, every adjective that is not comparative or superlative forms of it needs to be in Category:Adjectives, while the comparative and superlative forms need to be in either Category:Comparatives for comparatives and Category:Superlatives for superlatives, or Category:Adjective forms for both. What I mean is that dusty, which is an adjective, would have Category:Adjectives on it, but the words dustier and dustiest get Category:Adjective forms or Category:Comparatives and Category:Superlatives, because they are forms of adjectives. I would prefer it both the superlative and comparative forms to be in the Category:Adjective forms because it would be easier.

This, of course, would mean changing quite a few things around here:

First, we would need to completely redesign our parts of speech category tree, which would take a lot of time and effort, but would be well worth it.
Second, we would need to change all affected templates to make the correct changes when they are used.
Third, we would need to alter cirwin's Acceleration script with said changes.
Fourth, we would need to recategorize every entry that we have, which, while it could take a while to do so, again, it would be well worth it. We could use a bot to add the categories or AWB for this part.

I know that this sounds like it will take a lot of time and effort to fix, but it really needs to be fixed to make the Simple English Wiktionary much more helpful.

Please discuss your thoughts about this below:

Recategorization discussion

"it really needs to be fixed to make the Simple English Wiktionary much more helpful." How so? I don't think this has any real benefits, but its only drawback is wasting time, so go ahead if you like. The categories you use should, however, be carefully considered. Comparatives is a poor choice because both adjectives and adverbs have comparative forms. Instead, Comparative Adjectives would be a better choice.--Brett (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)--Brett (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you on this. I am actually leaning more towards Adjective forms and Adverb forms instead of what you suggested. Cheers, Razor flame 19:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding new lists of words for creation

While this point isn't the biggest deal that needs to be talked about, I might as well also list it here because it still does need to be discussed.

While we already have the first four BNC1000 lists, I am proposing to add quite a few more lists, including all (or just the common words) that start or end with the most common suffixes or prefixes, word frequency lists, and derived term lists. There would be a good amount of new lists added.

The ones that I have already thought about adding are:

List of words ending in -able
List of words ending in -ing
List of words ending in -er
List of words ending in -less
List of words ending in -ly
List of words ending in -ness
List of words ending in -ment
List of words starting with anti-
List of words starting with re-
List of words starting with de-
List of words starting with un-
List of words starting with in-
List of words starting with dis-
List of words starting with non-
List of words starting with con-
List of words starting with super-
List of words starting with multi-
List of words starting with pre-
Guten's lists of words
List of entries made on the English Wiktionary that are not made here

Before I can add these lists, though, I'd like to get the communitys' opinion about adding these lists, though. You can do so below:

Lists discussion

Thank you for reading this, and please discuss! Thanks, Razor flame 21:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The project should have priorities rather than simply trying to add anything and everything willy-nilly. The existing lists are far from exhausted and should remain the focus of anyone writing definitions. There is, of course, no harm in adding other lists though.

I don't know what Guten's Lists are.--Brett (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we should have priorities rather than simply trying to add anything and everything willy-nilly. We should focus on the most common words, which most of these lists focus on. Words that end in -ing, ment, able, and ly are common words, so I believe that these lists will help quite a bit. Razor flame 19:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]