Talk:Wiktionary

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: 'Competition' section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: How about a criticism section?

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Prominent editors 

message: I would ask for the request as above. 2001:EE0:4BC4:C1D0:8C60:E4FE:CDA3:8239 (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Above. 2001:EE0:4BC2:16B0:2923:8EBD:8993:C44A (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The last of the caption should not include the dot.