Jump to content

Talk:Word-sense disambiguation: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 53: Line 53:
***The policy is often broken then. For example, Wikipedia uses [[MOS:ENDASH|en dashes]] in article titles quite frequently, yet they are somewhat rare on the outside. Just do a Google search for "Michelson–Morley experiment" to see evidence of that. On the [http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=%22Michelson%E2%80%93Morley+experiment%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&cad=h first page of results], Wikipedia is the top hit and it uses the en dash as per the example in the MOS. Of the rest, one uses a space and the rest use a hyphen. –[[User:CWenger|CWenger]] ([[User talk:CWenger|talk]]) 07:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
***The policy is often broken then. For example, Wikipedia uses [[MOS:ENDASH|en dashes]] in article titles quite frequently, yet they are somewhat rare on the outside. Just do a Google search for "Michelson–Morley experiment" to see evidence of that. On the [http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=%22Michelson%E2%80%93Morley+experiment%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&cad=h first page of results], Wikipedia is the top hit and it uses the en dash as per the example in the MOS. Of the rest, one uses a space and the rest use a hyphen. –[[User:CWenger|CWenger]] ([[User talk:CWenger|talk]]) 07:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
****It's not so much that the naming policy is broken than that the MOS has been hijacked by typographical fetishists. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 12:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
****It's not so much that the naming policy is broken than that the MOS has been hijacked by typographical fetishists. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 12:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
****The policy is not broken. Using dashes where it is not common should only be done with a consensus discussion that allows it, per [[WP:IAR]]. If it is done without support, it can be reverted per common name policy. This is a consensus discussion, so can establish whether IAR or COMMONNAME applies. [[Special:Contributions/65.93.15.80|65.93.15.80]] ([[User talk:65.93.15.80|talk]]) 04:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:32, 31 January 2011

WikiProject iconComputer science C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

WikiProject iconComputing C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lecture?

'We shall deal with the deep approaches first'? Is this a transcription of a university professor's lecture, or what. Aardark 17:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homographs, vs. other WSD tasks

The "bass" example is a homograph, while sense disambiguation often deals with finer distinctions (like the people sitting at a table verses the actual table).

A song could be about fish, the first example isn't explicit enough to claim all people recognize it as the musical type of bass.

i really wish there was a disambiguation:disambiguation section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.70.93 (talk) 03:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad example

It's not that hard to disambiguate "The dog barks at the tree", if you are using a tagger in the disambiguation process. 'bark' is a verb and as such can only be of the sense 'dog noise'. The examples given in the article don't adequately describe the challenges of WSD. -- 72.200.78.210 (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mihalcea's algo's

There are other algos, and some of the most interesting and seemingly most successful, have been proposed by Radu Mihalcea. Article should mention, if not review these. I'm also thinking that the current algo description is over-long, wandering off into excess detail for what should be a more general article? linas (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 1[reply]

provenance/coinage

Is this an English word or a neologism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation ("remove uncertainty of meaning from (an ambiguous sentence, phrase, or other linguistic unit)." in Oxford American Dictionary) is a real word. DEddy (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could still be a neologism. I wonder if it existed before W'pedia. It is pretty crazy. What on earth does it mean? Is there an *ambiguation? May one *ambiguate? Sure, there's ambiguity but what is this? Above we have 'It's not that hard to disambiguate' but does anyone ever say "disambiguate" out loud? Have you ever heard anyone say it with a straight face?
If you travel in the "right" circles it is used out loud, with a straight face & correctly. It rather depends who you rub elbows with. Some folks gravitate to big words, while others don't. It most certainly existed looooong before Wikipedia. DEddy (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it were a neologism, dictionaries would say so. English is highly irregular. For example, someone can be 'inept'. Can they be 'ept'? Does the illness 'distemper' imply a medical meaning for 'temper'? 'Disadvantaged' is used far more often than 'advantaged' (although that may be because of the disparity between the rich and poor). I have heard others say 'disambiguation' and 'disambiguate' many times, particularly in computer science classes. I myself say 'disambiguate' whenever it is the best word to use; I believe my face is always straight when I say it. Our use of words depends on many factors, such as the extent of our education (including whether we paid attention in class and did our homework or not), the speech patterns of the people around us during childhood as well as adulthood (adultery?). David Spector 01:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha.

"Disambiguation" redirects here. For other uses, see Disambiguation (disambiguation). Dunnybrusher (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Word sense disambiguationWord-sense disambiguation — per WP:HYPHEN; it's a compound adjective. Yes, it's commonly used without the hyphen, but the hyphen is correct. It doesn't detract from recognizability, and there will be a redirect from the non-hyphenated version. This move was done BOLDly in February 2009 and reverted in May 2009 without discussion. And, please feed the animals, especially crackerjacks. --Pnm (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose WP:COMMONNAME google search shows that this is not the form use. Further, Wikipedia is not prescriptive, it uses the common form or descriptive titles, not prescribed titles. English does not have a central language diktat to dictate terms of use, unlike French (which has three such institutes) or German (which has two), or Spanish (in which each country has their own). 64.229.103.232 (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; as the editor from IP 64.229.103.232 notes, we are not prescriptivist, so "but it's correct" is not an argument for a move. Gavia immer (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEOFHYPHENSISCHANGING. – ukexpat (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect it is completely relevant. Usage of hyphens in such compounds is, like it or not, changing and the more common usage now, at least with respect to this expression, appears to be not to use the hyphen.  – ukexpat (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I partly agree. Wikipedia hyphen style conflicts with common usage. The question is whether, in this case, adopting common usage is more important than following the style guide. The name is set – we're not debating an alternative name, the subject of WP:COMMONNAME – we're debating punctuation, a style issue which is not discussed in WP:TITLE. --Pnm (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: My understanding is the Manual of Style has precedence over common usage. I would expect this would be particularly preferable when adhering to the MOS would not make it overly difficult for those familiar with the common usage to find the article they are looking for. –CWenger (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it doesn't. Since WP:AT is a policy, while WP:MOS is a guideline. WP:PG clearly shows that policy trumps guideline, hence WP:COMMONNAME trumps WP:HYPHEN. 65.93.15.80 (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The policy is often broken then. For example, Wikipedia uses en dashes in article titles quite frequently, yet they are somewhat rare on the outside. Just do a Google search for "Michelson–Morley experiment" to see evidence of that. On the first page of results, Wikipedia is the top hit and it uses the en dash as per the example in the MOS. Of the rest, one uses a space and the rest use a hyphen. –CWenger (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not so much that the naming policy is broken than that the MOS has been hijacked by typographical fetishists. olderwiser 12:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The policy is not broken. Using dashes where it is not common should only be done with a consensus discussion that allows it, per WP:IAR. If it is done without support, it can be reverted per common name policy. This is a consensus discussion, so can establish whether IAR or COMMONNAME applies. 65.93.15.80 (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]