Requests for new languages/Wiktionary multilingual

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Multilingual Wiktionary[edit]

main page Requests for new languages (Wiktionary multilingual)
submitted verification final decision
Process-stop.svg This proposal has been rejected.
This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy based on the discussion on this page. (See an unofficial analysis of this request.)

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

According to the Language proposal policy, Language committee may approve just a project which intends to be written in one language. Thus, this proposal is invalid. If you want to create multilingual Wiktionary, please create a page Multilingual Wiktionary and start discussion about the idea at wiktionary-l. Note, also, that there is a free content project OmegaWiki, which is in fact multilingual Wiktionary. --Millosh 06:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal summary
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.

First, I had a proposal for a new project, TranslateWiki, but I thought that it could be better to have a multilingual version of Wiktionary.

Instead of "wasting time" to make many versions in many languages of Wiktionary, it would be much better if there is a multilingual version of Wiktionary.

OmegaWiki (site) is already a multilingual dictionary, but this is not the one this would be:

  • OmegaWiki is not a Wikimedia project.
  • OmegaWiki uses Wikidata (if you look at a random page at OmegaWiki, you will see what it is)
  • Wikidata is read only except for a group of users.
  • And much more details...

Multilingual?[edit]

Maybe you are thinking "How would a multilingual wiki be? English?" I've already made a system on the old demo site: I've made a random example, see the version using English as your preference language and e.g. using Dutch as preference language. There is not much which is not translated. See also the main page using English as preference language and the main page using Dutch as preference language. This is the same page, not a translated page per language like here or Commons.

The system is very simple, see e.g. this page. But when the multilingual wiki has its own wiki, the sytem will be like on Betawiki: own system messages which you can translate.

The problem with this system is: anonymous users can't select their preference language. I found an extensions, mw:Extension:LanguageSelector, which is exactly what we need. I hope it is possible to install this, if this would be approved?

Arguments in Favour[edit]

  • To be honest, I've been thinking about this a long time ago: Limburgish Wikipedia it's a small conversation where is: wikivertale, just like this idea. I think everybody can edit this and not only the people of one language. --Ooswesthoesbes 08:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Good idea, you don't need to go to 50 different wiktionaries if one big wiktionary doesn't have a translation you're looking for, and you don't need 3487 dictionaries too! -Markvondeegel 10:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support is going to be a great project i think! --Konghier 07:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks like a pretty good idea. Wiktionary already has translations of many languages on a single page (including interwikis), it would be more effectove to combine them al onto one wiki like this. :) Another pro to this is that the content we'll need is eadily available on other wikis as long as we do a little digging. This should also be more user friendly. Cbrown1023 talk 15:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Any extension found on the MediaWiki site is allowed to be used on the Wikimedia wikis. However, they will only be added if you have community support. THat is not a problem for us, because the wiki will be created with the extension. The only possible problem with installing the extension now is that it is currently 'unstable', a dev may wish for it to become stable before (s)he installs it. Cbrown1023 talk 15:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment on your comment: mw:Extension:SpamBlacklist is also experimental, though it is used on every Wikimedia site. And with LanguageSelector on betawiki, I haven't seen any problem. SPQRobin 15:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "language is a service !" : success means story telling, coreading and misinterpreating translations. Wikipedia project must use all its resources and show its power in the Wiktionary multilingual ! --EUROBAS 02:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Already 16 pages on incubator. JeroenKon 09:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Good idea, healthy testproject, good future, fits perfectly in the goal of Wikimedia Foundation. SF-Language 10:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Good idea --Shizhao 08:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Very good idea. I support it! Manoel-Rio 01:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • This is what Wiktionary should have been all along. Strong support. --Xania 00:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Arguments Against[edit]

  • Oppose. First, there is OmegaWiki already. We needn't duplication of other non-profit organization project. Seconde, Cbrown1203 said "Wiktionary already has translations of many languages on a single page", but they are not "translations". Each language version is different, since each language version aims the readers in their langauge. Also we would like to mind why the original Wiktionary as well as Wikiquote, Wikibooks and finally Wikisource were devided into langauges. There were complaints in English overrepresentation in those projects' governance. Please note, half of the Wikimedia project participants are not English speakers and it is annoyance to force to live in a foreign language completely. Even I was accused when I wrote my opinion in Japanese, on meta, I didn't write in the language "everyone can understand". So-called multilingual project cannot attract the people from all corners, but only who can speak English to some extent, and again I say, it should be annoyance to some extent for everyone, because of language incompetence and arrogance of English speakers who play with those unskillfulness, for example, bad grammar, or misplaced with some consonants .... why we need to be involved into such shame and inconveniece unnecessarily again? I foresee such language centricism will easily be brought into the governance of the proposed project, which the divided version, claimed "waste of time" tried to flee. ----Aphaia 15:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
    • First, I wish to than you for commenting, you brought up very good points. When I said "translations," I meant translations. The wiktionary pages I've seen have had translations of the word into other languages in addition to transwikis. Second, I do not expext this to and would oppose any plan to have this replace all the other wiktionaries. I really hope the atrocities that you speak of about the English language do not occur on this project. The nominator herself, is only en-2. Her native tongue is Dutch. I understand your concerns and find them entirely valid, but how about we give this project a chance, and think of it as a little "experimental." I, myself, would like to see if this would work after all turn into the horrid project that you fear. Cbrown1023 talk 17:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Off-topic: The nominator herself is wrong, it is The nominator himself :-)
        Aphaia said "First, there is OmegaWiki already. We needn't duplication of other non-profit organization project." I know. But if someone is looking for a multilingual dictionnary to contribute, they will probably find OmegaWiki. They will see that 1) It is completely not a normal wiki, since it has Wikidata and 2) it has only definitions, translations and synonyms. Wiktionary has much more and is much easier to edit or contribute. I hope I can convince you. SPQRobin 19:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks for your feedback guys. But I am afraid I lack still information to withdraw my opposition. I need more informatin about 1) the scheme of its governance, 2) its relation to the other Wiktionary projects either existing or not yet and 3) its competence to the other existing external projects, e.g. Omegawiki (while SPQRobin provides his idea to some extent). --Aphaia 11:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
          • About governance and other things, on OmegaWiki I haven't seen major problems, so I think it would be feasible. As Cbrown1023 already said, give this project a chance. I know it is not a normal Wiktionary, but just give it a chance like all other wiktionaries, and it would be a good project, which very good fits in the goal of the Wikimedia Foundation. SPQRobin 19:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you please explain how this is different from http://www.omegawiki.org/Main_Page (AKA UltimateWiktionary, AKA WiktionaryZ.) What advantage do you see by further fragmenting the user base of Wiktionary contributors to a fourth "new" project? I see none. --Connel MacKenzie 16:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • OmegaWiki has only translations and definitions, the multilingual Wiktionary has also etymology, pronunciation, etc. OmegaWiki has more disadvantages e.g. you can't see a user contributions, normal users can't edit (you need a permission), much English interface, etc. SPQRobin 19:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
      • So this would duplicate OmegaWiki and all the language Wiktionaries, with a more confusing interface? (OW uses betawiki for localization, just as you propose doing here; if there is "much English interface" on OW, you will have the identical "much English interface" problem.) OmegaWiki has been adding features as it grows, e.g. relationships. While it may not have everything (etymologies, pronunciation, images) desired yet, it will eventually. This seems like it would be pointlessly redundant. The only benefit I see, is the more restrictive license. --Connel MacKenzie 20:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
        • It wouldn't duplicate OmegaWiki as I said in my previous comment. More confusing interface? You see exactly the same as on the English Wiktionary, with one difference: it is on your language. I said "much English interface", I mean if you go to a random expression while you are using an other language then English as your preference language, you still see much English: "Your user interface language", "Set your preferences", "language", etc. SPQRobin 21:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
          • But you should be on you language Wiktionary, not English, if you want to see it in your language...why substitute poor machine translations? Or do you mean the UI only? Add "&uselang=es" to the end of the URI, or set your Special:Preferences. I'm sorry, but I don't get it. --Connel MacKenzie 06:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I don't see any advantage in having another multilingual Wiktionary. On the one hand there is OmegaWiki, where You can see definitions in more than one language. On the other hand there are Wiktionaries in different languages, but all are and are meant, or claim, to be multilingual. Please don't split the communities of Wiktionary again. --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 15:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • P.S. OmegaWiki-developers and founders claimed that OmegaWiki is planned to allow etymology, pronunciation, declension etc. in the future. --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 15:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Although it will be nice to have an all in one multilingual dictionary for translation purposes, I have two reasons why this should not be. 1) This would completely eliminate the use of other Wiktionaries in other languages. 2) The interface: how can we exactly put an interface for that? --Felipe Aira
  • Keine reale Sprache und keine Lokalizatione sind getahn. Deutschlehrer 14:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Translation: "No real language and no localisations are done." (bad German, though) --MF-Warburg 17:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Aphaia (English centraliced, language-domain division became necessary), per ConnelMacKenzie (machine translations? I don't get it), per birdy (another one?). I'd really much like a multilingual dictionary, don't mind to break present comunities: fuse them:. I think the big todo is how this could be achieved? I mean full multilingualism support (not machine translations, so how? That's why projects splitted). -Aleator (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose A multilingual Wikitionary would eliminate all current Wikitionaries there are. Also such a project would be English-centric, like Commons and here at meta. Other small, minor languages would have a disadvantage in an oversized project. In short, each Wikitionary project should have its own language. —§ stay (sic)! 12:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

General Discussion[edit]

  • Am I native multilingual or not? I speak more languages native.. So i'm native multilingual, wè? --Konghier 07:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, you are native multilingual I think :-) SPQRobin 19:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You can help working at the Incubator. See incubator:Wt/mul. Thank you, SPQRobin 15:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

Many people opposing are asking what's the difference between this project and omegawiki. Well, I hadn't heard of the latter, but it sounded great! I got really jazzed, and immediately signed up. Today I decided to try contributing. Lo and behold, I found a huge list of words that needed translation from English to West Frisian! (Well, I assume. It actually says Frisian. But that's a rant for another time. ;-) ) I pulled up an easy entry (one where I could have entered both West Frisian and Saterlandic ;-) ), and ....

I couldn't edit it? Wuddup with that?

That seems like a big difference to me. Or maybe I'm just being stupid and doing something obviously wrong over there?

Thanks; I'll be very grateful for any info. Hope somebody's watching this ancient thread. :-) Snakesteuben 20:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've started trying to answer my own question. I have read, or tried to read and understand a few things now. I was probably a bit lazy, and asked too soon. I may be just a model/lawyer and not a computer type, but I'm really not stupid. And I still don't understand how I personally could actually do anything productive on that site. Except for having fixed broken links in help files last edited over a year ago, files that don't seem to get much use. ;-)

Snakesteuben 17:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)