This description might be uniquely referring but perhaps something should be added, for instance, "the main language of Bangladesh". Andres 13:12, 30 October 2006 (CET)
Is there an official policy how the Arabic (standard) expression should be written? Here they are without vocalisation (as I think it primarily should be) but I have met forms with vocalisation in WiktionaryZ. Andres 13:18, 30 October 2006 (CET)
- When there are multiple ways of writing the word correctly, then we want to have both forms. At a later stage we may indicate what the relations between the two are. Creating definitions is not an exact science. When these definitions become to big, it is better to indicate that more information can be found at Expression:Wikipedia. I am personally hesitant to associate a language with a country; I prefer to have these expressed by relations. :) GerardM 13:31, 30 October 2006 (CET)
- So you mean that we simply should add the lacking Arabic forms on an equal footing (as synonyms)?
- How big is too big? My only concern is that the definition of an expression referring to an individual object should pick out that object uniquely, that is, that object should be the only one corresponding to the description given in the definition. Composing such a definition takes knowledge on that individual object.
- So, the current definition might uniquely pick out Bengali language but I am not quite sure. On the other hand, being the main language of Bangladesh is beyond doubt (98% of people of Bangladesh are Bengali speakers). The states, of course, need not be stable. If you don't want to associate a the Bengali language with some country them you should change the current definition. For example, we could mention which peoples speak Bengali, but then again, how to define peoples? In any case, I think that the definitions should be thought through because they are the only source to learn the meaning.
- I think that we should not avoid redundancy between definitions and relations. Otherwise the WiktionaryZ becomes too robotic.
- Yes, the definitions are not meant to be encyclopedic, and there should be links to Wikipedia. Andres 14:26, 30 October 2006 (CET)
- But the definitions should be exhaustively distinctive and not rely on Wikipedias. And, they should be clear. Andres 15:04, 30 October 2006 (CET)