Help talk:Creating a Wikisaurus entry

See Thesaurus considerations for the debate about how a Thesaurus should be implemented in Wiktionary.

Should the synonym etc. entries be wikified, I assumed they were until I hit a page where they weren't? 20.133.0.14 09:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC) Yes, synonyms should be wikified. You might like to correct the page that you found. SemperBlotto 09:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

What should we be *Saurus-ing?
It says on this page that if the particular word is listed as a synonyms in another WikiSaurus article it shouldn't be added, I think it should be for a few reasons: 1) Not everyone knows what every headword we chose means, they may know another. If I am looking for a new word for pants but am not familiar with trousers I am plain out of luck.
 * You search for pants in the Wiksaurus namespace, and you'll find the trouser entry.--Richardb 05:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

2) If strange is used as a synonym for odd, that doesn't reveal its meaning as unfamiliar/exotic. This is critical, because many words have different synonyms for different senses, and those may be lost using this criterion.
 * You search for strange in the Wiksaurus namespace, and you'll perhaps find more than one entry.--Richardb 05:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

3) Completeness. A good thesaurus will have an entry for every word with synonyms it possibly can, even if it is a simple "See Xxx" for words with no distinct synonyms.  Why not aim high? - TheDaveRoss 07:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Because we are not a printed publication. By using search you will find what you want very quickly. What you are asking for is, in practice, a cross-reference from every word to every other word that is a synonym, near-synonym, anotnym, related etc. Very, very hard to maintain, impossibly hard, and gives us nothing that the simple search doesn't already give us.--Richardb 05:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Every word should have its own entry, but we should also provide the lists for all other entries that include that word, like thesaurus.com.  Unfortunately, I don't think MediaWiki is set up to do this without substantial modification for Wikisaurus.  I think that is what needs to happen before this project can take off. -kslays 15:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

capitalisation
Should the headword be capitalised in the template as prescribed in the help page? The template creates a link based on the entry which will normally be red or a redirect presuming that the entry for the headword is created correctly uncapitalised. I suspect that this is a hangover from before the sesmic shift of capitalisation & will change soon unless someone tells me otherwise. --MGSpiller 23:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I suspect you're right with your suspicion. Ncik 23:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Necessary tidying up of Wikisaurus templates.
Ages ago, when someone decided we should change WikiSaurus to Wikisaurus, Vildricianus did a bit of changing, but didn't really follow through with it properly, leaving something of a mess. I'm about to try to tidy up the mess, so please bear with me.--Richardb 12:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Vildricianus == change of Template:WikiSaurus-link to Wikisaurus ==
 * When you felt it necessary to make the change from template WikSaurus-link to Wikisaurus, why did you not also do the necessary clean up of removing all references to WikiSaurus-link.


 * It's counter-productive to make changes but only go half-way and leave a completely ambiguous mess behind.


 * what was so wrong with WikiSaurus-link that the mess that is there now is better ?--Richardb 05:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've discovered an even bigger stuff up you created by what was frankly unnecessary meddling. We now have a template:WikiSaurus and a template:wikisaurus (spot the difference ?) which correspond to two different templates that I created, which were Template:wikisaurus-header, and Template:wikisaurus-link. Those names had clear meanings. Why you renamed them to two very confusingly similarly named templates, which even I can't remember which is which, is beyond me. So I guess I'll do the necessary tidying up to put it all back to being understandable. Thanks!

Sorry guys, I'm not hanging around for a vote to do this cleanup. --Richardb 13:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

RFD discussion: December 2019–February 2020
No longer needed. The stuff in the page history is not very useful. --ReloadtheMatrix (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * RFDO-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)