Category talk:Thesaurus

Copied in from original Category talk:WikiSaurus.
See Wiktionary:Thesaurus considerations for the discussions which led to WikiSaurus

Explicit

Why are almost all these entries explicit?

Maybe because you haven't added any implicit ones?

That's not a good reason. Why has this been started and mentioned on the main page if 90% of the thesaurus entries are explicit? Even if all the synonyms are accurate, it doesn't give a very good first impression of the project. -- 14 December 2005

I agree, this should be removed from the main page until further work has been accomplished. Plus many wikitionary entries contain synonyms, work should be done to move them from there to here and leave a note that that was done--Switch32763 05:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

What's a Wiki<Category>? Such as this "WikiSaurus"?

I was hoping to find a good thesaurus in the wiki-world, but obviously I'll have to go elsewhere.

Yes, I was hoping to find a useful online Thesaurus, this is just childish! ACV

We'll never be as comprehensive as Thesaurus.com in anything but lewd matters. --Dangherous 18:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Enough complaining people! All these entries are perfectly valid, but if we want to make this project something instead of nothing, we need to start working on it heavily and blur the explicit content that you can see here now. Black-Velvet 04:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hold on... obviously, these words will be "blurred" when more is added, and, obviously, these words do need to be covered, but what kind of person, given a whole language to choose from, with (no doubt) thousands of thesaurus entries to be written, will pick a scatological, sexual or in some other way potentially objectionable topic to write a page on? It's barmy, and no matter what you say, it is also very childish, and unhelpful. I found this page very dissapointing. RobbieG 17:21, 10 May 2006

Did you know, there's an edit button at the top of the pages. —Vildricianus | t | 21:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha. That's hilarious. Can you please write without being so ironic, as its very annoying? I'm perfectly aware that anyone, myself included, may edit this site, and I might well in future, but just look at the proposed guidelines for creating a WikiSaurus entry. Taboo words, vulgerities... that sort of thing encourages people to write lewd and childish entries! RobbieG 07:31, 11 May 2006

Searching WikiSaurus

If WikiSaurus will not have an index, and the word a user is looking for is not the lead word of an entry, they need to be able to search WikiSaurus specifically. Why not give it a real namespace to allow this, with a namespace-specific search box to go on the category page? Seahen 03:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Euphemisms

• Has anyone else noticed that half of the entries here deal with sex? Just a note..

71.252.241.50 10:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yes I have. Something should be done 59.101.56.98 02:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I was just about to say the same thing. J Alexander D Atkins 10:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a Wiki. What should be done about it is that everyone should write a lot more entries that are not dealing with sex. Until perhaps only 1% of entries are to do with sex. Get it!--Richardb 05:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This place is not a place to find synonyms for "sex," or related activities. Someone really needs to give it an overhaul. PRhyu 07:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh

I initially thought that the Wikisaurus was a newly-discovered fossil specimen.

Wikisaurus namespace

The article refers to the "Wikisaurus namespace". What is it, and where is it? 4.234.102.218 15:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Namespaces are described at Wiktionary:Namespaces. So, any entry starting with "Wikisaurus:" is "in" the Wikisaurus namespace. Wiktionary:Wikisaurus describes the nascent thesaurus project a little. --Connel MacKenzie 15:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Shouldn't be this pages out of Wiktionary:Wikisaurus category?

• Wikisaurus:annihilate
• Wikisaurus:homosexual
• Wikisaurus:mountain
• Wikisaurus:mouth

--213.60.64.252 23:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC) w:User:Sobreira

Quality

The quality is abysmal, with only 5 words. Who's going to actually ever call this a thesaurus? Who's going to use it? The answer is; no one. I personally feel that the thesaurus part should be included when we search for the words. PRhyu 07:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

RFM discussion: May 2019–October 2021

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Category:Thesaurus into various members of Category:Thesaurus entries by language

Right now, this contains a mess of various languages, mostly English but also some others. Thesaurus pages have distinct level 2 language sections just like regular entries do. Thus, we should treat thesaurus pages like we do regular entries and split them by language. The topical categories pose a problem, as they also need to be language-specific, but there is no naming scheme for them yet and no category tree. I propose moving their contents into our regular topical and set categories, to avoid creating a parallel tree of topical thesaurus categories. —Rua (mew) 17:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that lumping them into one category is messy, and leads users to take categorization into their own hands. See Category:Danish thesaurus entries, which contains pages with 3 distinct naming schemes! I support putting Thesaurus entries into the existing topical categories. Some Thesaurus categories already are, e.g. Category:Thesaurus:Mathematics. Ultimateria (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I would say to go into an entry for a Polish entry for example, to remove ”Category:Thesaurus” and only leave “Category:Polish thesaurus entries”, would that be ok? Ffffrr (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)