The following discussion is closed: wa.wikt is active and has content now, and growing. --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 00:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Walloon Wiktionary is now active
The Walon Wiktionary has absolutely no activity and content. -- Prince Kassad 07:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- I do not see any notice about this proposal in the main page of the Walon Wiktionary. That should be enough to invalidate this proposal until it is. Was perchance the Walon Wikipedia warned about it? If so, could you add some links please. 0 º 19:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Notices have never been a requirement for closure proposals. -- Prince Kassad 22:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- I can see that, Proposals for closing projects is full of such lack of basic deference to projects and users. Quite a revealing answer, anyway. So everybody in Wikimedia, wherever they are, has to be magically updated about everything happening in Meta that may affect them. Good. No wonder certain things have happened. I wish they will not happen again but that kind of things partially depends on certain common sense procedures like this. Even if they had never happened, it is not reason to fail to inform in the better possible fashion. To my view failing to do certain things like this invalidates a lot of things things that have been "agreed" through votes in Proposals for closing projects. If some admins keep on avoiding to fullfil properly this king of things when they are pointed out, that means that things will move from sloppy to stroppy. Bureaucracy has to be ruled by common sense first. --0 º 11:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I have left messages in the main page of wa.wikt and in wa.wikipedia. It took few minutes doing it. Even if nobody reads it or turns up to vote here after reading them, this is the least one should do to try to reach a certain basic minimum of fairness and accountability before starting a votation. The same is true for the rest of proposals in Proposals for closing projects-0 º 12:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Wictionnary and Wikipedia
The fact is they are few participants in Walloon Wikipedia, and a similar project already exists inside Wikipedia (http://wa.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pordjet_Mot%C3%AE). It is more detailed than a Wictionnary.
- The contents in a Wiktionary can be minimal or thoroughly comprenhensive depending on the contributors. Lexicographic information can and should be added to an encyclopedia but just as examples. An encyclopedia aims to multi-disciplinary knowledge, not to be totally exhaustive in every branch of knowledge. Having that same info in a wiktionary allows to structure it and distribute it under many, more flexible, lexicographic criteria. A Wiktionary can be a very complex environment, so embedding it in another very complex environment like a Wikipedia can eventually become confusing. A Wiktionary keeps multilingual lemmata explained or translated into the language of the site, not only lemmata of that language. In practice, Wiktionaries and Wikipedias are and can be easily interlinked. Anyway if wa.wiki keeps a dictionary inside and the Wallon-speaking community is happy with it I will drop my plan of developing a basic structure for wa.wikt and adding some content to it. If you change of idea I will be happy to help in developing wa.wikt (but not incubator/Wt/wa). Just leave me a message here. Regards. -- 0 º 11:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Of course it is not for others to criticise the choices of the Walloon wiki, and given the small number of participants I can understand their choice but there is an other side to the story: wiktionaries are strongly interlinked with each other. It is not unusual for Gaelic words to pop up on say the Russian wikti. By staying out of the wikti business, Walloon will remain an isolated tongue. The choice to keep linguistic info inside wikipedia makes it so. Is that really what you want? To give one example: apparently there are more Frankian words in Walloon than in French proper. That is of interest for us at the nl.wikti too. We are trying to put some odt words in, e.g. Information is scarce because there is not much Old Dutch material. Relationships to French and Walloon words are an interesting peice of the puzzle.
Jcwf 18:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
First trials of transfer
I tried to create some pages with the classic structure of the dear old Wikipedia 's "esplicant motî" last structure. It seems OK, except the links towards the old wiki (authors of exemple sentences, references dictionaries, references to prefixes ans suffixes, and ethimological patterns...)
Is it better to make some short pages on wiktionary (like http://wa.wiktionary.org/wiki/Djiv%C3%AAye_des_mot%C3%AEs)
or have some automatic redirection ?
I am stupid ! it was already done (w:...).
Lucyin 11:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)