Proposal talk:Visual dictionary

Why can't we create special namespaces on Wiktionary, which however has the great andvantage over traditional dictionaries to have quality images on entries? In your example, you could add an image to wikt:telephone, with a detailed description linking to each part's entry. Much simpler. Nemo 07:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I second Nemo’s comment. --93.81.211.162 11:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

A namespace would do. Cantons-de-l'Est 23:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A related, but different (simple images, each with a single word) and currently English-centered project: commons:Commons:WikiVoc. --93.81.211.162 11:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but why such images are not included in Wiktionary's entries? However, isn't much simpler to take a photograph of an axe or a brush, if you want only to give a generale idea of what the item is? Nemo 14:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see why this could not be incorporated into Wiktionary. - Brya 16:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

For example see this entry. - Brya 08:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a photograph, while I am speaking of plates and drawings. Cantons-de-l'Est 23:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

For a global view, a photograph will surely do. I want to go further away.

In my opinion, the Wiktionary people have interests that are different from a 'visual dictionary' people. Mixing both worlds may work, or not. Cantons-de-l'Est 23:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If this 'visual dictionary' comes to existence, we need to make sure that it will not interfere with what is already built. A namespace within Wiktionary or a new domain name should 'fix' this problem. Cantons-de-l'Est 23:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed that the intermediate forms Wiki proposal has been merged here, which i guess makes sense since you could think of it as a type of dictionary... although it would not be a symple lookup from a list. However the Intermediate forms idea is much more than visual, its more conceptual with the inspiration for the idea coming from nature.

Imagine every object, subject or idea as points in space connected by strands (could be called links or whatever you like) to make a type of web that you could travel through. Now each strand represents a characteristic that an object could have. You don't have to connect everything up with all available characteristics. The way this web can be used and searched would be very useful and insightful. My suggested way to add new objects would be to fix them on strands between existing objects like in the game sprouts. For example, an object 'Pentagon' would fit between 'quadrilateral' and 'hexagon' on a strand that represents the characteristic 'number of sides'. If in the previous case the object 'hexagon' did not exist it could be crated as an end point or even 'nonagon'. More than one characteristic may link objects in the web. Remember that its not just visual, for example are there intermediate forms between German and English and what is the characteristic that connects them? I hope it makes sense and you can see how it would be useful for the user. Thanks.--Jump 23:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea. You should make a proposal only for that one, since it does not pursue the same goal of the 'visual dictionary'. Cantons-de-l'Est 11:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)