Wiktionary talk:Thesaurus/Archive 1

Various
Should there be separate entries for different parts of speech since some synonyms are only synonyms for a particular part of speech, eg. to bed = to screw, but a bed != a screw (guess which word I looked up first)
 * I guess in such instances there would have to be. WordNet associates its synonyms with different meanings of the word. --Eean 07:11, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, was there any discussion about importing WordNet? Nemo 19:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, as per Princeton WordNet and its talk page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Within the one Wiktionary entry you can have separate lists of words, with differnt meanings spearated into different groups. see WikiSaurus:body as a bit of an idea around this.

I would model a WikiSaurus as a Roget's thesaurus, this seems to be the most useful design for a thesaurus. &mdash; Hippietrail 11:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should have Roget's Thesaurus index as our base, and when we get to a "Key Word", such as "Corpse" (if I read the Wiktionary:Roget_Thesaurus_Classification correcty, then the Article/Entry for corpse could have a link to WikiSaurus:corpse, where we list all the synonyms and antonyms we can think of.
 * Equally, if you used an alternative Thesaurus classification ( I have the Macquarie Concise Thesaurus), you could have its list of Key Words, where BODY is the key word rather than CORPSE. And under corpse you would also find a link to WikiSaurus:body. I'll try doing these up as an example.--Richardb 05:17, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * See WikiSaurus:corpse for an example, with a link in Wiktionary:Roget_Thesaurus_Classification--Richardb 01:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * By the way, perhaps Roget_Thesaurus_Classification should be an Appendix, not a Wiktionary Internal item--Richardb 01:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Want WikiSaurus namespace to be included in the search
A number of words are now appearing in the WikiSaurus namepsace (OK, nearly all mine) But these words do not get picked up in Search. For example, if you search for the word ride you will get no indication of the sexual meaning of this word. You would, if the WikiSaurus entries showed up. I know this is a big ask, but can someone please make this happen. Anyone know how to >--Richardb 01:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

re:WikiSaurus:cougar
You've got the wrong idea of WikiSaurus. When you create a WikiSaurus entry for cougar. then you put the code into that entry, and it will then automatically list in category:WikiSaurus:cougar

So, Im eagerly waiting for your WikiSaurus entry for cougar.--Richardb 23:35, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

seperate site?
I suggest that wikisaurus be a different site from wikitinary, or should at least be split when it becomes popular. - Jedi of redwall

Does this page really need to be marked a "protologism"? It's not in the main namespace, and it 's not a definition page.

Dirty Wikisaurus
I know Wikimedia projects are not censored, but is there a particular reason why so many of the Wikisaurus entries listed are sexual in nature? --Ginkgo100 16:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Because it has been used as a place to put the seemingly endless lists of slang terminology for various body parts and practices. It would be good if we had some ordinary entries, but no-one has ever added more than one or two. Robert Ullmann 16:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Dan' view
In my view, Wikisaurus is basically in a good shape. It can serve the role of one place for synonym sets of sorts, so that the synonym set does not need to be reentered into Wiktionary at every member of the set, and also updated accross all the member entries. In the mentioned role, it is a project complementary to Wiktionary, not a stand-alone project; in this role, it is already useful. If it grows, it can become useful even as a stand-alone project, but that is a far future. Wikisaurus can be formatted using templates, so that the ultimate appearance can be finetuned based on the changing community preference. Its structure can be kept simple, closely following the one of Wiktionary. External links to public domain thesauri present added value of the project; they decrease the click-distance from Wiktionary to those thesauri. The original interest of Wikisaurus contributors in human anatomy is understandable and can be simply ignored, with the attention going to creation of useful entries. --Dan Polansky 20:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of "thesaurus"

 * See also Thesaurus considerations

It seems to me some confusion arises from confounding several different meanings of the word "thesaurus".

One is the common lexicographical one, related to Roget's thesaurus; and, say, The Penguin Thesaurus, which associates plain ordered lists of words to each entry without imposing any hierarchy on the entries.

From what I understand, the other meaning is from information science, computer science and semantic networks, where thesaurus maybe means (CMIIW) something similar to ontology: a network of formal refined semantic relationships, including subclass, superclass, part-whole, and the like, usable in machine reasoning.

Wikisaurus, as a companion to a dictionary, should IMHO be an instance of the lexicographical sense. That is, refined semantic relationships should be per default out of scope; they are present in Wiktionary anyway. Refined semantic relationships can be added as a bonus, but should be out of focus in the early creation phase. FWIU, this is the view championed by Amina.

Structure:


 * Thesaurus
 * Lexicography
 * Purpose: Find the words with close and mildy remote meanings
 * Example: Roget's (hierarchy, meaning clusters)
 * Example: The Penguin Thesaurus (no hierarchy, each word has an entry, order of words matters)
 * Example: Moby Thesaurus II (no hierarchy, each word has an entry, order of words does not matter - alphabetical)
 * Information science
 * Purpose: Enable clear, highly accurate thought; support automated reasoning
 * Rich formal semantic information

This presentation is most probably inaccurate; I am not an expert. Thesaurus in information science also serves the choice of search terms and the structuring of information products, AFAIK.

--Dan Polansky 07:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Title of the project
The current title of the project is "Wikisaurus". Alternatives considered include "Wikithesaurus". I can also imagine "Wikitreasure" or "Wikinyms" of only 3 syllables (or "Wikinym", following "Wikiquote" instead of "Wikiquotes"); both allow for a future extension of the project into the semantic network direction. At some page that I have forgotten, someone mentioned that the title "Wikisaurus" reminds more of an extinct dinosaur than of a thesaurus, which impression I have too.

To do: find the discussions about title and link to them from here.

--Dan Polansky 10:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikisaurus bots
Out of interest, are there any bots that comb Wiktionary for words listed under the 'synonym' subheading, and then return the words and the title of the page that they're on? If not, I would think that would be a user-simple way of generating more quickly raw lists to edit into Wikisaurus entries. Reporting the number of hits per page may also help to automatically determine which is the main usage (subject to human check, of course, but similar to the tools suggested for finding the Primary Topic when creating disambiguation pages on Wikipedia).

— Sasuke Sarutobi 16:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The User:Connel MacKenzie/thesaurus is populated using a fully automatic script. --Dan Polansky 20:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Logo
I think Wikisaurus does well without logo, being a part of Wiktionary rather than a stand-alone project. I have removed the logo from several months ago. --Dan Polansky 15:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The logo was there as a means of publcising the existence of Wiksaurus, in te hope of atracting more use and more contrbutions. So remving it seems a retrogade step, by someone who does not understand that publicity and marketing are as necessary to the success of these projects as the actual content contribution.--Richardb 00:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Addition Proposed
Additional Notes on Usage Wikisaurus also has been used as a means of accommodating many words, typically local slang, that are not properly verified. Thus a local slang word that may not be found in the main body of Wiktionary, may possibly be found by searching Wikisaurus, and its meaning deduced from its association with other words.

In some cases, the list of all unverified local slang words are so enormous that they swamp the more commonly known and used words. This is tackled in a number of ways:-

the page is structured to separate the more accepted, verified forms from other lesser known forms. A page may also be structured to separate the acceptable and vulgar terms, to avoid unfortunate errors of inappropriate use by people looking for a synonym. a /more page(eg: Wikisaurus:breasts/more) is used to hold the huge number of local slang "synonyms" a /translations page (eg:Wikisaurus:penis/translations) is used to hold the huge number of foreign language slang "synonyms" This type of usage of Wikisaurus has to some small extent defused the arguments and wheel wars over neologisms, usefully allowing unverified words in without conceding full Wiktionary status. A user may find the unverified neologism through a Wikisaurus search, and choose a more accepted or acceptable word from the "accepted", verified synonyms. --unsigned comment by Richardb
 * The main Wikisaurus pages should abide by the same CFI as the mainspace, while the "/more" subpages can remain unregulated. See the discussion at Beer Parlour under the title "Wikisaurus - inclusion criteria", started on 15 November 2009, and see this edit in which I explicitly state that "/more" subpages are unregulated. --Dan Polansky 12:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria
I support and ask that the main Wikisaurus pages abide by the same CFI as the mainspace, while the "/more" subpages can remain unregulated.

In the past, there existed the page "Wiktionary:Wikisaurus/criteria", created by Richardb, which stated inclusion criteria for Wikisaurus that were different from those for the mainspace. The page "Wiktionary:Wikisaurus/criteria" was deleted on 18 April 2008 after it failed RFDO—requests for deletion/other. The failed RFDO item can be found in this revision of RFDO. The deleted page still has a talk page: Wiktionary talk:Wikisaurus/criteria.

On the talk page Wiktionary talk:Wikisaurus/criteria, TheDaveRoss and Vildricianus support that CFI should be the same in Wikisaurus as in the mainspace. In RFDO, this is supported by Connel MacKenzie, and in part by DAVilla who also allows the option of rewriting the page instead of deleting it.

Whether Wikisaurus should have the same inclusion criteria as the mainspace has been recently discussed at Beer Parlour: Wikisaurus - inclusion criteria, Nov 2009, in which the same CFI for Wikisaurus as for the mainspace is supported by Bequw, and also by Lmaltier who however deems current CFI too restrictive.

--Dan Polansky 11:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The subpages "/more" such as "Wikisaurus:penis/more" have been discontinued and deleted per Votes/2010-10/Deleting Wikisaurus slash-more pages. --Dan Polansky 20:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The requirement that items in Wikisaurus have to be attested using WT:CFI criteria has been confirmed via a vote: Votes/pl-2013-09/Wikisaurus and attestation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Troponyms
Troponymy is a specialization of hyponymy for verbs. Given that "to guttle" is more specific than "to eat", "to guttle" is a troponym of "to eat". The opposite of "troponym" is called "hypernym" by WordNet, a project that uses the term "troponym". I recommend to dispense with the term "troponym" altogether, using the term "hyponym" instead. Each verb has a corresponding noun that denotes the verb's action, and the relation between the nouns is called hyponymy anyway: "guttling" is a hyponym of "eating". There is no dedicated term for hyponymy for adjectives as opposed to nouns, so there does not need to be a dedicated term for verbs either, especially given the dedicated term has no dedicated antonym but uses the generic "hypernym". --Dan Polansky 09:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @AdamBMorgan: What do you think of the proposal above, that is, abandon "troponym" and only use "hyponym"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * : I am OK with using "hyponym" for all parts of speech. I've used "troponym" as it seemed to be the standard but even then there are a lot of cases where I've forgotten that verbs use a different term and I've had to correct "hyponyms" to "troponyms" later.  Just using "hyponym" in general would be easier. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * : I went ahead and changed all 34 occurrences of Troponyms in headings to Hyponyms, via DPMaid user account. Thesaurus/Format does not list Troponyms as one of the headings, so no update is required there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)