Wiktionary:Collaboration of the week/Talk archive

Suggested batches

Suggestions may be added below. Candidates include the roots of short, missing, wanted, and requested pages.

1. stone User:Davilla
2. gem User:Davilla
3. gemstone User:Davilla
4. jewel User:Davilla
5. name, naming, given name, etc. EncycloPetey 11:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC) name will be WOTD 6 May

   Not enough time to complete production cycle. Davilla

6. cut EncycloPetey 19:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
7. shadow 59.112.33.102 01:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

User:EncycloPetey has suggested putting through a batch of related words rather than one with all inflections and such:

1. lion, tiger, panther, puma
2. second, minute, hour, day, week, month, year
3. father, mother, parent, son, daughter, child (for a broader range, see: Category:Family)
4. back, backward, forward, front, left, right

I would like us to concentrate on the Basic English words first. There are still Basic words that are not properly defined. eg: head is very short of definitions compared with my dictionaries.--Richardb 11:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Rock

User:Andrew massyn would like to add roc, as in the bird. Davilla 11:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Rough draft

• Could you please set specific time limits on each phase, with the caveat that terms are allowed to return to the list as many times as needed?

  I'm going to leave myself a little flexibility for now. How does either one week or two weeks sound? I'll try to cycle them regularly. Words returning to the list... what a downer! Davilla

• Could you seed this list from Special:Shortpages please? Also from Requested entries? Also from Richardb's BE lists?

  Yeah, that's the idea, except I wanted to include all the inflections and such too. Hence batches. Davilla

• Could you expand the /Citations sub-page concept to also include all the nice things you talk about here? Word-histories, Mega-pronunciation sections, Quotations, Citations, etc.?

  Subpages, isn't that's a political issue? Anyways it's certainly within the scope of what's acceptable. I've tried to incorporate it. Davilla

• Could this be toned down to be a little less agressive in its goals? Perhaps a call for once-a-week sortof contributors, who get a half an hour to take a shot at two to five words once every Saturday afternoon sortof thing?

  Okay, I've tried to make the goals into a motivating factor rather than sounding like a workload.

• This is a neat concept. Is there an army of volunteers, or does that need to be enouraged, coddled, prodded, bribed, etc. into formation? I'm sure there aren't many Semper's floating around, actively looking for sections to work on. Most of us have the opposite problem; so many terms, sections, todo-lists and concepts do need more immediate help.

  Tricked maybe? If links from to-do lists don't do the trick, I'll be forced to redirect the Main Page. Davilla

• Will these automatically feed into the WOTD future lists?

  I would consider them to be automatic candidates, as much as anything here is automatic. Davilla 17:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

--Connel MacKenzie T C 06:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, can this be more accessible and be renamed to something like "Collaboration of the week"? Apart from that, well, I must have proposed something like this before I guess. Good idea. Feasible? We'll see. — Vildricianus 19:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Project Beacon no more. If it's a weekly collaboration though, I should probably only have one batch. I'm leaning towards stone or rock. What do you think? Davilla 20:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Either way. I can see two ways that this can be done each week; each seems as legitimate to me as the other. One way is (as done with the current batch) to choose a group of words that are morphologically related in English -- that is, they obviously share a common structural root. The second way (which might be done from time to time) is to choose a group of words with similar but slightly different meanings -- as in: lion, tiger, panther, puma, etc. Otherwise, I have no opinion right now. --EncycloPetey 08:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This was the first intention, as is clear from the similarity between suggested batches. However the slightly different meanings only apply to a single sense of each word, and all the other senses will probably vary greatly anyways. It would be nice to have several batches pushed through at once, related thematically. However, that's way too ambitious. Having to choose between the two, grouping them as I've done is a stronger perference. The circle for each root word seems tight enough to be considered without too much of a slippery slope. Because of the similarities, there is good reason to work on them at the same time. Where there are differences, as with sex and sexy, completing the entries is even more important. In my opinion derived words like adverbs get second-class treatment by most dictionaries anyways, and certainly all thesauruses I've seen. I hope that explains my reasoning.

That said, I'm willing to try different ideas after a first run or two. I'm adding your idea to the suggested batches. Davilla 17:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I've picked rock after noticing deficiencies at rocky. Davilla 21:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Could you find a way to merge this good idea with Wiktionary:Project - Cleanup of Basic English Words (perhaps discuss with Richardb)? These things have quite some overlap, and I'd like to see this one superseding the other. Perhaps you can create a subpage with a list of basic subjects like the current "rock" that need considerable expansion? This list you can derive then from Richard's BE list. Please keep this going, it's a very nice thing! — Vildricianus 10:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like us to concentrate on the Basic English words first. There are still Basic words that are not properly defined. eg: head is very short of definitions compared with my dictionaries.--Richardb 11:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Basic words are a good pool since they can more often have multiple meanings. In fact stone is in the list. I would like to draw from your table, but the listing of your example, head, says no one has even checked its status yet. Also it would be somewhat duplicative to have one person beef up the entry before it goes live here. Maybe you could tag words on the list as especially deficient and therefore candidates for this project? Davilla 14:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It would also be nice to involve the TOW. — Vildricianus 14:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It's up to that group to choose which words they want to translate. Words from here shouldn't be added though until phase two, after all the definitions are hammered out. Davilla 11:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that basic words are a good idea because often they have many meanings, are easy for people to translate and have the added advantage of perhaps throwing up some basic words we don't have. They don't necessarily have to be the in the same group, but just be linked in some vague way e.g. bacon and eggs or dog, ball and throw. I also think that the project is a good one, because the more we collaborate, the less we fight. Andrew massyn 18:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

Permanent link for completed collaborations

What do you all think about implementing a poor man's version of w:Wikipedia:Stable versions by recording the "permanant link" of completed collaborations here? Or is there maybe a better place for such records? Rod (A. Smith) 01:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the remaining TTBC, comparing the "completed" Spanish with, say, English, and other deficiencies here and there make me hesitant to do that. Davilla 06:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

feelings

I suggest feelings (love, hate, envy...) as batches, they will be interesting specially in translations!

template mechanism

Shouldn't this use the same {{CURRENTWEEK}} clever mechanism as WT:TOW? Or did I just simply miss it? --Connel MacKenzie 18:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Do what you like. I got frustrated with the level of participation and haven't updated anything since a busy July in my real life. DAVilla 15:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Color batch

Out of curiosity, why wasn't purple included along with the other basic colors?

Why purple? Why not indigo and violet? 59.112.33.102 01:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)