Category talk:Wikisaurus:Book

Initial notes:

• Using the category method, entries cannot be listed as, synonyms, antonyms, other. For antonyms, the main category could link to its antonym, probably. But that is inelegant.

• Initial example followed the incorrect capitalization of WikiSaurus:. That is, this entry is "Book" but should be at "book".

• book should probably link here using the |* syntax.

• WikiSaurus has the advantage of listing one-line per entry, offering a sentence of explanatory text to clearly delineate the terms. In this initial scenario, that is lost. The category page itself can offer some breakdown, but one line per entry is not likely.

• For tagging entries, a template such as template:saurus could be created and used as {{saurus|book}} to add the category and category link formatted consistently.
  • Template:saurus contents would be something simple like:

    *[[Category:Wikisaurus:{{{1}}}]][[:Category:Wikisaurus:{{{1}}}|See the Wikisaurus entry for '''{{{1}}}''']]

--Connel MacKenzie T C 17:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Categories themselves would usually need to contain only a category link to [[:Category:Wikisaurus]] (or sub-category based on the Roget's Thesaurus breakdowns) to preserve vertical pixel space. Alternately, a large banner similar to the current Wikisaurus header could be used.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 17:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Further ramblings

Since it is unlikely that the MediaWiki software will ever change the way it handles the current category pipe-syntax, it may be fair to rule out a magic third parameter that would allow a descriptive label to be added.

To address the problems of antonyms, the category entry itself will need to list any.

Also on the category entry, there should be a brief description of the synonyms. These should be one-line meanings copied (exactly?) from the entries, listing only the primary meaning that is synonymous.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 23:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

---

The biggest problem I see with this approach, is that there are no logs of what entries were added or removed (nor when.) Edits to the actual category page can be viewed in history. But edits to the category members (additions and removals) cannot...at least not without traversing the entire full XML history pages. --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Loss of possibilities?

I think the most promising aspect of WikiSaurus is the ability to add more explanation as to how two nigh synonyms differ in meaning. This is eliminated by your proposed system. The problem of antonyms bears difficulties as well. Moreover, there could be more to add in a Saurus entry than synonyms and antonyms (e.g. verbs being semantically related to the headword, which can't all go under the Related terms header of an entry). — Vildricianus 16:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My two bob's worth

Whilst I appreciate that some people have done some good work in automating templates etc, to strive for consistency, I always remember how daunting it was at the beginning to try to work out how the heck these automatic things worked (It's even difficult coming back to it after a break). I have the feeling that this approach may be too complicated, and lose some of the possibilities that WikiSaurus carries by being somewhat unstructured. Plus, I find that the use of large numbers of categories for things that can be achieved other ways is a bit of a problem. This method would use thousands of categories, and thus make categories so much less manageable and useful overall.--Richardb 02:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I don't have any answer at all, as far as clogging the categories goes. This cannot be its own namespace, as namespace Category: has such special meaning. Unless someone has a technical solution to that problem, I think this is this experiment's show-stopper. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Another florin's worth

I have been working on a method of organising categories of synonyms and hyponyms based on a numbering system, slightly based on Roget, but with more emphasis on the assigned number telling you attributes of the word e.g. "water" might be 337 (as in the old Roget numbering) but "water in motion" might be 3372 and river, stream, torrent and trickle would be subcodes of that (i.e. start with the same digits), assigned with "greater" examples (like torrent) getting larger numbers than "lesser" examples (like creak, trickle, etc). That still means a large number of categories, but now the structure to them makes them less of a handful, and (importantly for what I am trying to do) there is a way to convey "shades of meaning" - rather than lump too many in one category. I have no idea how this idea may be used in Wiktionary/Wikisaurus, but I mention it here just in case it spurs some thought. Also: what I would really like to do, but am a long way from at the moment is a two-dimensional parameterisation within categories, with near-synonyms (perhaps even going as far as antonyms) spread out on one axis with well-known/simple words at one end and rare/specialised at the other, and in the other dimension arranged with poetic/"quality" words at the top and slang/vulgar at the bottom.

So the appropriateness of words for particular situations can easily be seen, instead of a jumble of all sorts found in traditional lists of synonyms. But... none of this solves the problem at hand, but maybe somebody can take part of this and adapt it? I'd welcome feedback! When/if I get a more concrete suggestion I'll air it is a more visitd forum, I guess, but I hope my half-baked thoughts might stir someone's grey cells before then. Maitchy (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)