Please help ! What do i do if the same word is used in several languages?
- I tried to illustrate by example. I hope this helps. I only put the translations into many languages under English. No need to unnecessarily duplicate information.Polyglot 19:56, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thank you! Are you from nl ? i am french living in germany...
- I'm Belgian living in the Dutch speaking part of Germany. By the way you can sign your comments with 3 or 4 ~ signs. That makes it easier to know where the comments come from. Welcome to the Wiktionary!Polyglot 20:22, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
j'ai compris Sergio1956 20:52, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
information (countable and uncountable; plural informations)
Most people I know say that informations is wrong, information is uncountable and so it is the plural form of itself. And now wiktionary says informations does exists. --18.104.22.168 23:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- User:DCDuring added that bit of information. In my American English, it does not exist. Or rather, it does exist, but in French: s’il vous plaît donnez-moi les informations. —Stephen 00:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Since I added the demonstrably valid plural, which applies to the legal sense, we have a better way of indicating plurals of usually uncountable nouns, to which I have altered the inflection line.
- I know that information is one of the most commonly used examples of uncountability. The facts of the case should suggest that uncountability is rarely a property of all senses of a noun, though many grammar books and some dictionaries say or imply that it is. Our own Glossary uses "information" and badly chosen wording in line with the prevailing erroneous tendencies. The prevailing practice may be appropriate for a not-too-advanced ESL or grammar book, but does not belong in what aspires to be a more complete reference work. DCDuring TALK 02:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Part of the problem is that it's hard to find good references for it. But in this case, in·for·ma·tion seems good for both UK and US. Ƿidsiþ 11:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that just copying definitions from printed or e-dictionaries is a wrong way. Wiktionary should contain real world lemmas. There are many typos, either by mistake or intentionally (in order to "catch" copiers), in the dictionaries which makes them untrusted sources. Even if there are 3 dictionaries having the same definition! The purpose of wiktionary should not be the copying of such errors. Having that in mind I think that a dictionary definition which is not accepted by the people (at least 3 independent usage examples) is just an information for an encyclopedia, not for a dictionary. If that "erratic" data comes from a very old printed material, such as ancient scrolls, we can add it in case it was cited in scientific works. That saying, the last definition, which is clearly noted that is modern and not in use, must be removed. --Xoristzatziki (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)