Talk:wikify

The format of this article is a bit at odds with how we do formatting now. The pronunciation sections are a bit weird too. &mdash; Hippietrail 04:57, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll have a go at sorting this out. The transliterations have to go - why would anyone want to transliterate an English word when they can translate it into a word in their own language? &mdash; Paul G 08:44, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Done. I've cut out a lot of superfluous material. &mdash; Paul G 08:49, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I tried doing it with the correct formatting, so can you tell me what I did wrong? I believe that the pronunciations were correct, you can check X-SAMPA, SAMPA chart for English sounds, and IPA in Unicode to verify. I tried doing a bit extra in the Etymology section because a) etymology "is the study of the origins of words," (and this word has interesting origins), and b) this word is important to the history of Wikipedia, and this is its first dictionary entry (ironically, though, this is Wikipedia, and within a few hours of submission this entry was mercilessly edited ;-)). Most dictionaries go in-depth with certain words, as you can see if you actually read the dictionary :-). But I can see how you would criticize some of that section, so I'm editing it. About the Transliteration section: I originally did want to do a Translation section, but I found out that since most Wikipedias transliterate instead of translate the word "Wikipedia", I decided to follow suit with "Wikify". About the actual definition: I meant for the definition to encompasses all aspects of converting a page to use in Wikipedia and its sister projects. For example: type wikify into Wikipedia, and it comes up with the "How to edit a page" page. If you read that page (but you probably know this from experience) you'll see that merely enclosing internal links in brackets is but a small part of all that goes into a Wikified page. Mike Storm 14:47, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

P.S.: I think that adding translations like that Swedish one is a great idea. Mike Storm 14:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think I've made a nice compromise with all of our material. I also made a change to the Etymology section to maintain NPOV, added Latin to the list of transliterations and "wikicize" the the derived terms list. Mike Storm 15:24, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to log in -- 67.175.91.111 was me.

I see no merit at all in the "transliterations" section. Are any of these actually used or were they coined for this article? I think we should delete them and add actual translations if and when other languages start using a term for the action of wikifying. &mdash; Hippietrail 10:25, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. The reasoning that "Wikipedia is also transliterated" doesn't carry over well: "wiki" is a new-borrowed word, and "pedia" a more-or-less international morpheme, so the translations end up looking like transliterations...  but -fy is a wholly English form. You'd expect real translations like wikifier, wikificar, vicificare, etc.  —Muke Tever 13:45, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For fun, I looked up the first usages of this word on Usenet using Google Groups:
 * wikified: 7 Feb 2001
 * wikify: 23 Apr 2001 &
 * wikifying: 21 May 2001 &
 * wikifier (French verb!): 11 Jun 2002
 * wikification: 30 Oct 2002

Fine. You guys win. No more transliterations. (No hard feelings, though.) Mike Storm 19:12, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How is wikify specific to Wikimedia wikis? Isn't it more general than that?


 * What do you mean? And please sign your posts by typing ~ (four tildes). Mike Storm 21:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikicize
wikicize currently redirects to wikify. Instead, shouldn't wikicize be its own article with a link to wikify? Theshibboleth 02:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. --Connel MacKenzie 20:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikification
A year or two ago, I coined (what I assumed to be) a new word, 'wikification'. I just now stumbled onto this entry for 'wikify', with the related word 'wikification' that I thought was original with me.

The sense I used the term in was the general notion of something developed by a possibly dispersed community of users, not necessarily using a wiki as we know it today. Specifically, I was thinking of the development of a corpus of bilingual parallel text (a text made up of pairs of sentence in language A + sentence in language B, a corpus type commonly used in computational linguistics). The development environment I had in mind was like a wiki in the sense of allowing anyone to edit it, but more structured; but one can imagine other structured or unstructured, but public environments for doing similar tasks.

Obviously if I'm the only person using 'wikification' in this extended sense, then it doesn't belong in a dictionary. So my question is whether I am indeed the only person in the world using the extended sense, where 'wikification' does not need to refer to the wiki tools as we know them today.

Mcswell 17:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking at this, I'd say yes, this is entering the English language now. --Connel MacKenzie 20:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting! FWIW, here's my first use of it: .  There's another use (similar to the one in The Wisdom Network book your google search finds) at  and at .  I'm not sure I understand what they're saying :-), nor do I know whether this is a passing fad or an idea that will last, but it does seem to be a different sense.


 * Another use at, but it seems to just a more generic sense of the original (rather like my use).


 * I saw print citations from 2004 and 2006 - so yes, it probably meets WT:CFI now. Be Bold!  --Connel MacKenzie 02:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

wiktionary jargon??
the word wikify is used in the 2nd meaning also outside Wiktionary – I think this limitation should be removed. -- Torzsmokus 86.101.89.205 10:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

wikify
As per CFI --Keene 08:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all, as properly tagged. --Connel MacKenzie 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as tagged. DAVilla 14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as tagged. JackLumber 21:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for verification
Jargon or real? DCDuring TALK 11:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The sense is not only inadmissible, but also redundant with the first sense, as far as I can tell.  I've added two more senses. -- Visviva 07:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Which senses are you rfving? Wikis are very popular, WikiMedia have the biggest ones, sure, but sense 1 at least meets and surpasses CFI. For the others, I admit, I'd never use the word in that way. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * From the history, I can see that senses 2 and 3 were added shortly after the rfv. I have converted the RfV to 2 RfV-senses for sense 1 and sense 4. Sense 1 seems to have been cited. Sense 4 has not in nearly nine months, so I would say that it has failed. Neither sense 2 not 3 are cited and probably should be, but as part of a new RfV once this one is closed. DCDuring TALK 00:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sense 1 RFV passed, sense 4 RFV failed and removed, per DCDuring. (Note: in my edit summary, I attributed that to Mglovesfun. Mea culpa.) —Ruakh TALK 19:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC discussion: December 2009–September 2012
The quotations don't all seem to correspond to the senses they're attached to. Note that I just closed an RFV discussion for this entry; depending on how the cleanup plays out, we may need to return this to RFV. (That is, the RFV-passed sense may turn out not to have three cites.) —Ruakh TALK 19:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, I think the key question to focus on, in distinguishing these senses and assigning quotations accordingly, is what the patient (~direct object) is. Information or text can be wikified by putting it in a wiki; content that's already on a wiki, or an entire wiki page, can be wikified by formatting it so it's consistent with the rest of the wiki; and so on. Sense 3 seems to be patientless. —Ruakh TALK 19:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I took a run at this without adding new cites. I disagreed with nothing you said above. These seem to be the main senses based on a quick look at google books. The intransitive sense seems uncommon, but might be attestable. DCDuring TALK 23:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)