Wiktionary:Votes/2006-05/WikiSaurus name and namespace
Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2006/May#Pushing for the definitive WikiSaurus name and namespace.
Purpose of this thread is to achieve both the following:
A final decision on whether to keep WikiSaurus as the definitive name for the Thesaurus part of Wiktionary.
The establishment of an independent namespace for it, instead of the current pseudo-namespace. This also for WikiSaurus talk of course.
Personally, I'm neutral to the first. I don't like it (it reminds me too much of prehistorical creatures), but I don't have a valid alternative right now. I didn't find any threads about it, but then, I didn't look very well. The second is an absolutely necessary beginning in the current developments that should bring the Thesaurus out of its pre-embryonic state. —Vildricianus | t | 12:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)....So, would thesaurus also remind you of prehistoric creatures?
Is the 'S' capitalized? Davilla 15:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Why not simply Thesaurus: ? There is no need for the Wiki part in the name (too much a dinosaur name...) and Thesaurus is more intellegible. - Dakdada 15:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Support: Thesaurus. It's a subproject of Wiktionary. Our appendix isn't a "Wikipendix" nor is my account called "[[WikiUser:Rodasmith]]". I feel no compulsion to prepend "Wiki" to subproject names. Rod (A. Smith) 02:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Support: Thesaurus. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Support Thesaurus: (the name does not limit the content). bd2412 T 18:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Support Thesaurus: —Vildricianus | t | 18:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Support Thesaurus: — Hippietrail 20:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Support Wikisaurus as the name of the thesaurus, as it extends naturally from Wikipedia and Wiktionary. However the dictionary namespace is not called "Wiktionary", so the thesaurus namespace could be called Thesaurus. Davilla 18:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
That's what I like. Voting without bothering to put forward arguments! :-) Before perhaps actually considering what a name is used for. Before all the arguments are put. Will you later read the additional arguments put, and reconsider your vote?--Richardb 01:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the thesaurus name should be preserved in some way. For uniformity, preferably in the same way "encyclopedia" is preserved in Wikipedia, and "dictionary" is preserved in Wiktionary.
It's part of "marketing". We need a name which both fairly obviously means thesaurus, but also is our unique name for it. There are already approximately 12,000 external links to "WikiSaurus". How are people going to refer to our Thesaurus ? Are they going to have to have links to the "Wiktionary Thesaurus". Bit of a mouthful. And currently, do they refer to the "Wikipedia Dictionary", or to Wiktionary? --Richardb 01:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Support Wikisaurus or WikiSaurus --Richardb 01:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Neutral:
There is a fair amount of infrastructure in place for the WikiSaurus name. I like the name "thesaurus" more, but leaving the infamous redirects behind for backward compatability might be just too much. --Connel MacKenzie T C 21:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Surely there will be a solution, right? —Vildricianus | t | 15:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
I believe the "WikiSaurus" can grow to be more than a "simple" thesaurus, as it is not bounded by the paper limitations of a Thesaurus. So I would not like to see us limit our thinking by adopting a limited thinking name of "Thesaurus" with all the baggage that carries. (A publication, usually in the form of a book, that provides synonyms (and sometimes antonyms) for the words of a given language.) --Richardb 17:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Calling a thesaurus a thesaurus can only help people visiting what the sub-project is all about. Calling it a Wikisaurus seems to only cause confusion. The topics that I've seen debated about it were all about criteria for inclusion/what line-in-the-sand to use, or about formatting/layout. I haven't heard any suggestions about it becoming anything more than a thesaurus, to date. It is still small and fairly easy to correct now - why wait? --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Hands up anyone else who is confused by the name WikiSaurus/Wikisaurus ? Are you also confused by the names Wikipedia and Wiktionary ? :-)Is that supposed to be a real argument Connel ?--Richardb 01:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
There have been a number of extension suggestions, certainly beyond synonyms and antonyms to all manner of other realtionships. Whether they are valid or not I am not sure. Possibly those relationships should be put in the main word entry. One suggestion was to have a "range" realtionship, eg: freezing, cold, tepid, warm, hot, blistering. This is a minor part of the argument for the name though.--Richardb 02:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm sure, Richard, that you know what thesaurus literally means: treasury, or storehouse. I certainly think that, whichever direction it is we decide to follow, this name is quite suitable. —Vildricianus | t | 18:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Jay Leno once did a joke that scientists had discovered a new dinosaur called the thesaurus, which defended itself from predators with flowery language. bd2412 T 18:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC). Is that an argument for or against anything??
This seems like a non-issue when we lack content to such an appalling degree. Don't spend time thinking about the name or debating it, spend time making up lists of semantically and thematically related words, then make WikiSaurus into something deserving of a name at all. - TheDaveRoss 19:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The name itself, indeed, is not very important. WikiSaurus being a real namespace is. But we need a settled name before applying it, right? —Vildricianus | t | 19:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Totally support Vildricianus that it is better to settle this as early as possible, before the thing gets much bigger. Already Connel is asking is it too big to rename now.--Richardb 01:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Good, that's at least 6 votes, which is remarkable! On a technical note, though: how are things with the namespace manager thingy? Is this available to us, and if so, who has access to it? Developers, bureaucrats? —Vildricianus 21:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Meta indicates that Bureaucrats should have it at the very bottom of their Specialpages. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I just checked, and it's not there. Eclecticology 08:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
True. Meta has documentation on how to do it here. —Vildricianus 13:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me for being thick! But then sometimes we do need the perspective of non-techies to keep things grounded. In theory, as a bureaucrat I should be able to do this, but it looks as though I'll need a step-by-step walk through. Let's begin with the namespace "Appendix", about which there was broad agreement a long time ago. I went to the Meta page indicated and was immediately stumped by "Goto /includes/DefaultSettings.php" Eclecticology 16:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, can bureaucrats change LocalSettings.php? I thought I read that somewhere, but I may be wrong and in that case, it's a developer thing. Whether it's the former or the latter, you may want to ask on the wikitech-l mailing list, unless anyone here knows the ins and outs of it. — Vildricianus 18:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The thing that let's B'crats mess with them is listed at meta:Help:Namespace manager and looks like it hasn't been opened up to all sister projects yet? At any rate, it is not present on en.wiktionary.org after all, so it looks like we need someone to pester Brion for it. The question is, do we tell him that we want to add one per week (or such) or do we rather want him to just presto-whamo make all of the pseudo namespaces? Also, should we order them any particular way? Alphabetical perhaps? --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
NS:100=Appendix:, NS:101=Appendix talk:, NS:102=Index:, NS:103=Index talk:, NS:104=Transwiki:, Transwiki talk:, WT:, WT talk:, Thesaurus, Thesaurus talk:, Shared:, Shared talk:, Concordances:, Concordances talk:, Quotations:, Quotations talk:, Rhymes:, Rhymes talk:, Requested articles:, Requested articles talk:, Webster 1913:, Webster 1913 talk:. (Even are "content pages" odd are "talk" pages.) --Connel MacKenzie T C 01:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Here are all the case varieties of the above:
Appendix:
Concordance:
Index:
Requested articles:
Rhymes:
Shared:
Talk:
Template:
Template talk:
Transwiki:
WT:
Webster 1913:
Wi:
WikiSaurus:
Wikisaurus:
Wiktionary Appendix:
Wiktionary Appendix Suffixes:
Wiktionary Index:
Wiktionary appendix:
Wiktionary-Appendix:
concordance:
rhymes:
transwiki:
wS:
wT:
webster 1913:
wikiSaurus:
wiktionary Appendix:
ws: