Wiktionary:Information desk

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Wiktionary > Discussion rooms > Information desk

You can search in the archives of Information desk:

Welcome to the Information desk of Wiktionary, a place where newcomers can ask questions about words and about Wiktionary, ask for help, or post miscellaneous ideas that don’t fit in any of the other rooms.

To start a new topic, clicking on the “+” tab, or click here: Start a new topic.

Sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~), code which produces your signature, followed by a UTC timestamp.

For past questions, see /Archives.


July 2015

ciboa[edit]

From what little I can dig up, this is a palm tree with very large leaves used as thatching and as umbrellas, and having sap used for a sort of palm wine. This sounds to me very much like w:Borassus aethiopica, but I can't find any mention of its botanical identity. Searching for this on Google Books is rather frustrating: the vast majority of passages onlne refer only to the fact that Mungo Park once used it as an umbrella.

Can anyone provide a botanical name, or at least a synonym I can look up? Chuck Entz (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Synonym: rhun. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks like it’s the Borassus aethiopum indeed. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

EU legislation meaning of "p.m."[edit]

See [1] and click document two. Now search for "p.m.". What do they refer to? --Ysangkok (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Templates for references[edit]

Where can I find templates used for referencing information e. g. from Etymology sections? It seems that template:cite-book is not suitable, because it requires fulfilling the parameter "passage". There is also template:reference-book, but the documentation says that the template should not be used in "References". Thank you. Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The "passage" parameter actually should not be required. I have just fixed this. --WikiTiki89 13:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid that there are many more problems with citation templates. For example I failed to find anything like cite journal. I found only template:cite with a parameter type=magazine, but it seems it is only for quotations but not for referencing information in the Etymology section (besides that it does not offer all necessary parametres: there is only year, but not date, there are not parameters volume, number, pages...). The same applies also to template:cite-magazine. Besides that there are many citation templates which lack documentation, such as the above mentioned cite-magazine or template:cite paper. Trying to understand the templates here is extremely timeconsuming for me, although I have some experience from English Wikipedia. It must be totally discouraging for all newbies :-(

May I ask for help once more? Could you suggest me, which template is most suitable for referencing information from an article published in a journal? Thank you very much. Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I recommend just writing out a citation manually. That's what I do when I run into problems. Our citation templates are horrible. --WikiTiki89 17:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, will do it that way, thanks. Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

New Word[edit]

Please create a page for "sporographic." Thanks —This unsigned comment was added by Bjnorthern (talkcontribs).

It seems to be very rare; it gets only 5 hits at google books:sporographic. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:English terms by language of origin ?[edit]

Is there a category that has English words categorized based on what language they derive from? If not, would it be easy enough to create such a thing, being that the etymology sections contain templates (although it might be complicated by the lists of cognates)? JodianWarrior (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

We have a pretty elaborate system of templates and modules to provide derivational categories from just about any language to just about any language. To start with, try Category:English terms derived from other languages. From there you can drill down through the category structure. For specific languages, the categories are always in the form "Category:" + language name + " terms derived from " + language name, as in Category:English terms derived from Sumerian. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that's more or less what I was looking for. I realized shortly after posting here that there were already numerous categories of "English terms derived from...", so putting them together wouldn't be much work if it hadn't already been done.
It would be nice to be able to see how many different entries were under a category, with the entries in all subcategories included in the total (that way one could compare the number of terms derived from Indo-European languages with those derived from Sino-Tibetan without having to go through all the subcategories). It's largely for curiosity's sake, however; I'm just voicing my desires without expecting any changes.... JodianWarrior (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
How silly of me...I forgot about the little arrows that expand the categories. Some addition is still required, but it's easier than I was thinking it was. JodianWarrior (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

New Username[edit]

I'm not sure where I really should be asking this, so I'm doing it here... Could my username be changed globally (across all Wiki projects, that is)? I used it when I made a few edits on Wikipedia back in 2011, but it is no longer relevant to me. JodianWarrior (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

m:Changing username. Keφr 06:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. JodianWarrior (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Wiktionary's place on Google search results pages[edit]

Why is it that Wikipedia is pretty much the first thing that comes up for many Google searches, but Wiktionary often doesn't even show up at all on the first page? Do other dictionaries pay to show up first? Dictionary.com seems to be at the top most of the time, with Merriam-Webster, The Free Dictionary, and Vocabulary.com not far behind. I suspect that is the biggest reason Wiktionary doesn't have more visitors and editors than it does. JodianWarrior (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@JodianWarrior I think it's more cause of the algorythm and the exotic "Wikt-" part which mean and refer absolutely to nothing. At least, i think it's the name of Wiktionary which may penalize us, if it would be Wikidictionary I'm quite sure the project would be more visible. When I look for "dictionnaire" (french word for dictionary) on google, the "Wiktionnaire" (= fr.wikt) appear in the second page of the result page and it wasn't the home page of the project but only the entry page for "dictionnaire" word. V!v£ l@ Rosière /Whisper…/ 17:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Your logic fails to explain Wikipedia's being first. With your logic it should be Wikiencyclopedia in order to get into the first page.
I think time will come when they will (manually?) give us more credits with the forms of high PageRank coefficients xD. --Dixtosa (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Still, it would probably help if our pagetitles were "x - Wiktionary, the free dictionary", instead of just "x - Wiktionary". Compare how Wikipedia is "X - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". - -sche (discuss) 20:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Automatically Generate Adjective Forms?[edit]

I recently took to adding besynnerlig and all of its forms, and it occurred to me that there might already be an automatic process for generating all of the pages for the adjective forms for regular adjectives. Is there such a thing? Rekov (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Definition order[edit]

What method is generally accepted for ordering definitions? Are they just added on a first-come-first-serve basis?

I see very strange orders sometimes, take rhombus for example:

  1. (zoology, now rare) Any of several flatfishes once considered part of the genus Rhombus. [from 16th c.]
  2. (geometry) A parallelogram having all sides of equal length. [from 16th c.]

I would think the second definition listed there would be listed first.

So is there a guideline somewhere? Bruto (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

No, there's not. Some people prefer to list senses in chronological order of first attestation, others like to list them in order of commonness in current usage, but most of us realize that researching what either of those orders is will turn out to be way more work than we're willing to do and so we tend to add new senses to the bottom, in the "first-come-first serve basis" you mention. 10:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

178.222.124.18[edit]

Not sure if this is the right place. IP editor (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/178.222.124.18) is consistently adding fake etymologies that cannot be corroborated by any of the relevant etymology sources for Serbo-Croatian (HJP, Skok). 93.139.57.95 19:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Surprising word - "deadname"[edit]

So I came across this term: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deadname#English

noun: "The birth name of a person who has since changed their name." verb: "To refer to someone who has changed their name by their previous name." ("to deadname", "deadnaming")

There's zero hits for this word on all of dictionary.com, JSTOR, Google Books or Google Scholar. There's a single Urban Dictionary entry less than a year old. There's a couple of links to online articles, all less than a year old.

What are the requirements for inclusion? Does this fill the 'attestation' requirement? Word asker (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  • The term deadname has associated citations (see its Citation page). SemperBlotto (talk) 10:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    And there are other citations (of the gender sense which Wordasker asks about) in the entry itself — to my surprise, since I had looked for citations just a month earlier and only been able to find the "kill by naming" citations I put on the citations page. Nice work finding the gender citations, Visviva! - -sche (discuss) 18:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

How to refer properly on en.wikt ?[edit]

Hi, I just created non-résistance and filled it but I'm really stuck for one thing : to refer properly the etymology like the fr.wikt article (you know that little [1] in exposant, how to do that here ? Which template or meanings to use ?). Thanks by advance. V!v£ l@ Rosière /Whisper…/ 17:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You can use <ref> tags, just like on Wikipedia. We don't have a special {{R}} template. --WikiTiki89 17:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok thanks, I'll try to find an example over there. V!v£ l@ Rosière /Whisper…/ 21:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

google ngram[edit]

How reliable is google ngram ([books.google.com/ngrams/])?
A google book search often has incorrect OCRs - especially regarding fraktur scripts, umlauts and the distinction of s/ſ/ß (e.g. ſs might become "ss" at google, while its actually used for "ß"). -eXplodit (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, if we look at a string like "das beſte", it's misread as "das befte" only about 1/1500th of the time (version with no smoothing). And if we look at an ngram of "dass" vs "daß", we see what we'd expect — daß has been more common during the times it's been standard, dass has been more common during the times it's been standard. - -sche (discuss) 18:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
beste is another kind of example. beſte might be misread as befte, but daſs (= daß) might be misread as dafs and might also be misread as dass. My impression is that in ca. 1871-1902 (cf. Template:U:de:dass) Latin script became more common, in which daſs was used, which than was misread as dass (or even dafs) by google instead of the correct form daß (or daſs). And there might be a simple reason why ß became more popular after 1902 again even though Latin script wasn't banished: ß (instead of ſs) became more widely available and more popular in Latin script. In a rule book after 1902 (Berlin, 1908) it is: "In lateinischer Schrift steht [...] ß (besser als ſs) für ß [...]" (it uses fraktur and Latin script, so the two versions of ß look different).
(There might also be reasons why Latin script became more common in the time after 1871: Latin got widely replaced by national languages and Germany became more European (-> nationalism, imperialism, WWI; also cf. Hitlerists' arguments for banishing fraktur).)
-eXplodit (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

(German) Participial Adjectives[edit]

At "Requested entries" there was: "bestellter - inflection of bestellen?".

So, how are (German) participles called here resp. how should (German) participles be called here? How about simply calling them "Participle" (that is resp. in some cases was a part of speech)?
PS: Category:German participle forms and Category:German participles do exist, but are almost empty. Should these categories be used for unterdrückter & bestellter and bestellt & unterdrückt?
-eXplodit (talk) 20:11 & 20:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I've been making a habit of labelling participles with the POS header "Participle" to underscore the fact that they're not simply verb forms but have adjectival properties as well. —CodeCat 20:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd support that for the given reason, and as it makes things easier (no discussions whether a word like unterdrückt is an adjective or a verb form). Is there something like {{de-form-adj|s|m|n|bestellt}} for participles, like {{de-form-ptc|s|m|n|bestellt}}? -eXplodit (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Why not use {{de-form-adj}}? —CodeCat 21:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Amount of hypernyms and hyponyms in compared to german wiktionary and a practice to get them.[edit]

Hey everyone, I'm a computer science student from Düsseldorf, Germany and actually write my bachelor thesis. In this I compare different dictionaries and semantic nets to each other. My main focus is on the relationship of hyper- and hyponyms and in which way they are connected. I parsed the german and also the english wiktionary and recognize that the english version has a significant less number of hypernym and hypnym connections. Now I question myself why it is like that and if I maybe have missed out a important practice to read them out. I hope you can give some information about this. --Mo0812 (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this is relevant or helpful:
  • In German compounds are usually new words (like: Kind + (Geburt + Tag) = Kindergeburtstag), while in English many compounds are spelled like "birthday party" or "child's birthday" which then should often be what's here called "SoP" (sum of parts).
  • de.wt is German and thus it's easier for them to add German compounds. en.wt is English and thus it's not unlikely that here are less German words.
    (Well, actually it's easier to add words here, as one doesn't have to add quotes or references, at least not if they are not requested (see requests for verification).)
  • Maybe German terms like "Unterbegriff[e]" and "Oberbegriff[e]" are easier to understand for normal people than terms like "Hyperonym[e]" or "hyper[o]nym[s]". So maybe that's why more terms are added in de.wt.
    Or maybe in de.wt more terms are added as they use (more/better) templatised pages where one doesn't have to add a hyperonym section, but just hyperonyms.
-eXplodit (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

The citation of ふいんき[edit]

 I think that we should avoid using even a part of a copyrighted material published in Japan as quotation because it is disputed whether we can apply fair use doctrine to such materials or not. There is even a judicial precedent that negated fair use protest against accusation of copyright infringement (18 Dec. 1995 by Supreme Court of Japan; see article 'Fair use' in jawp). To my concern the editor answered that it would be okay because it was a transcription of a very short spoken line ([2]). Then I'd like to ask here what you think about it. --エリック・キィ (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that en.Wiktionary is governed by United States law, where fair use is protected (and hence that the legality or illegality of fair use in Japan has no effect upon en.Wiktionary), but I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice — we could ping one of the WMF's lawyers. - -sche (discuss) 16:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for advice. Unfortunately, I don't know well what to do, so could you introduce to me or call directly anyone of them? --エリック・キィ (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Wiktionary:Contact us points to this which lists an email address. —suzukaze (tc) 09:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, thank you very much for notification. --エリック・キィ (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Apologies, I meant to ping User:Philippe (WMF) to this discussion yesterday, but I got distracted.
En.Wikt's practice of quoting works (both copyrighted and uncopyrighted) to show and verify the usage of terms is described and rationalized in the last paragraph of the intro of WT:COPY ("Frequently, Wiktionary entries..."), and mentioned in the intro to WT:NFCC ("The English Wiktionary often..."), though explicitly not governed by the rest of latter policy.
- -sche (discuss) 20:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
No problem. I have waited cautiously and have not made any contact yet. And I didn't know the existence of the latter criteria, thanks. --エリック・キィ (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi エリック・キィ. User:Philippe (WMF) forwarded this on to me to take a look. First, let me clarify that I can't give legal advice to individual users per our disclaimer. What I can do is share the Wikimedia Foundation's perspective on the issue. The Foundation, located in San Francisco, is subject to U.S. law, which generally does not allow copyright in short phrases and also has an exception called "de minimis" that makes copying very small amounts of something okay even if it is copyrighted. Stanford has put out a great page about copyright in short phrases if you want to read more. I also want to remind you that, per the Terms of Use, even if U.S. law allows for something, individual users may need to obey the laws of the place where they live in order to avoid liability. The only way to know what law might apply to you as an individual would be to ask a local lawyer. I hope that helps clear up this issue a little.--Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for precious advice, I'm convinced mostly. --エリック・キィ (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for unprotection of Word of the Day pages[edit]

Hi, I am updating some of the Word of the Day pages, but am unable to change the following ones as they have been protected. Could an administrator please unprotect them?

Thanks. Smuconlaw (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Smuconlaw Yes check.svg Done. Face-smile.svg - -sche (discuss) 16:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Smuconlaw (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, I added the following template to the tops of the more recent WOTD archive pages for easier navigation:
← 2011 2013 →
I can't do so for "Wiktionary:Word of the day/Nominations/Archive 2006" to "Wiktionary:Word of the day/Nominations/Archive 2011" as these pages are also protected, but if you like you can add the template (suitably modified for each page) and then reprotect the pages. Smuconlaw (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. - -sche (discuss) 18:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Smuconlaw (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Proper Nouns[edit]

Can proper nouns be added as Wiktionary entries? -MrdaChi (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we already have many of them. See Category:Proper nouns by language. —CodeCat 20:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

English conjugation[edit]

What is our procedure for English verb inflection? Whenever I see an entry for an English verb, it displays the five main forms, but some entries (such as there be) have a request for a specific inflection-table template. I did respond to the English verb go request, using the en-conj template, but is it ever normally used? ~Eloquio (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Be has a conjugation section. The tables are encoded manually. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
For simple verbs, there is {{en-conj-simple}}, as seen on talk. - -sche (discuss) 14:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. But do we ever use these templates in entries? ~Eloquio (talk) 10:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
English conjugation is so simple that adding tables hasn't been high on anyone's list of priorities, but Template:en-conj-simple is used on some pages and you can feel free to add it to more. You can look at look and like to see how it works on those kinds of verbs. It does not work on other kinds of verbs; that will have to be addressed in the future. - -sche (discuss) 16:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I just thought it might be useful to display the conjugations in a table, to show how future/conditional forms work, that aren't in the header. ~Eloquio (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Numbering of Meanings Translations[edit]

What is the policy on numbering of meanings translations, as defined by Entry layout? Are they permitted to change over time and for what reasons, how certain can I be about the consistency of the meaning numbers translation over time? —This unsigned comment was added by JonathanDring (talkcontribs) at 09:39, 18 August 2015‎.

What numbering are you referring to? I don't think our translations are numbered. --WikiTiki89 10:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The original question is not clear, it should be what is the policy on numbing of meanings Wiktionary:Entry_layout_explained, I've corrected the question. (JonathanDring (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC))
There isn't any such policy because it would be simply impossible to enforce. People add, remove, merge, split and rearrange senses all the time, and there's no way to keep track of it all with millions of entries and only a few dozen active admins. The only way to reliably link to a sense is to add a link target to the sense line with a template such as {{senseid}}. Even then, there's always the possibility that someone will delete or completely change the line with the template. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Sense IDs sound great, are there any policies at all about how changes to these links should occur, or is there a way to subscribe to changes to the link? (161.202.78.180 23:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC))

Is there any way to filter the content to one specific language?[edit]

There are several Latin-to-English dictionary sites, but I happened to use Wiktionary most often because unlike other sites, (1)it gives results for any form of a word (e.g., other sites give no result for "laudabat" but Wiktionary does) and, (2)It has a table of all possible declensions of each noun, verb, or adjective (this is very helpful for learning).

The only problem is it shows an entry for all other languages I do not care in the same page. This often makes a page very long. I am using Android, and all web browsers I have tested on Android are slow and poor at scrolling. So, it is time-consuming and annoying to move to the Latin section each time.

Is there any way to filter on the data permanantly to see Latin vocabularies only all the time? I searched Google for "Wiktionary Latin" but a possible sub-site, but there was no such thing. —This unsigned comment was added by 222.112.222.142 (talk) at 10:31, 18 August 2015‎.

  • There is a Latin Wiktionary, but it is fairly useless. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I am sorry, but that is not what I meant. I do not want an all-Latin version, I want an English version that has only Latin entires.
  • It used to be that the mobile version automatically collapsed all the languages and you just had to scroll through the list and expand the one you wanted. But then they changed it and everything is expanded by default. Maybe there should be a setting. --WikiTiki89 10:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Collapsing/expanding is not the biggest problem. I am using Android devices (2013 Nexus 7, Galaxy Note Pro 12.2, etc). Loading is slow (probably because the page contains too much text from other Languages I am not interested in), and for some reason, when clicking a Latin link, the top location suddenly jumps up and down when page loading finishes. Since loading is slow, if I try to scroll down to see declensions when loading is not completed, it jumps to a weird location. Also when page is long, I have to scroll up many many times to search for a new word because the search field is at the top of the page.
  • If you add #Latin to the page address, it will go directly to the Latin section. For instance, the address for face is https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/face (I believe it's slightly different in the mobile version, but you get the idea). Add #Latin and you get https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/face#Latin, which will take you to the Latin section. Typing the extra letters may be a nuisance, but it may be possible to use Javascript to add them automatically (I'm not sure what Javascript capabilities there are in the mobile version). Chuck Entz (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't know about the anonymous OP, but I just tried that on my phone and it doesn't work, at least not via the Wiktionary app (as opposed to using Wiktionary directly via Chrome or another browser). With the app, you can't enter URLs directly, you can just search for a term like face, and if you want the Latin section you literally have to scroll all the way through the English entry to get to it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
      • We have an app? --WikiTiki89 14:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Someone should file a bug report, because it's kind of silly to have a Wiktionary-specific app that can't deal with a very basic feature of most Wiktionaries' architecture. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
        • (Assuming that what other people have said about the apps in true,) the bug report should also request that people be able to log in through the app like they can through Wikipedia's. - -sche (discuss) 02:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
        • I have tried the official Wiktionary App, which was marked "unsupported" and last updated in 2013. Well, the app was poor and the top table of contents were not shown, but at least it showed the result a lot faster than the web browsers did. If I cannot find any better solution, I will probably use this app instead of the web version from now. There also was another app named Vertes Latin dictionary, whose description was exactly what I was looking for: "pulling only Latin data from Wiktionary", but unfortunately the app also seemed to be abandoned and crashed on my Nexus 7 which is running Android 5.1.1.
      • Could you search for (i.e. type into the search box) face#Latin? - -sche (discuss) 02:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
        • I tried that, it didn't work. Also, I've discovered it is possible to log in, but only by attempting to edit. If you click Edit or a red link, you're taken to a page where you can choose to log in. Editing is pretty complicated, though. I just did this, but I'm probably never going to try that again. Way too much work. And still no tabbed languages! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Do TabbedLanguages work on mobile? - -sche (discuss) 14:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Not on mine at any rate. Tabbed languages are not active if you're not logged on, and I don't see any way to log on via the app. Wikipedia's app allows users to log on, but AFAICT Wiktionary's doesn't. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Wasn't there once a consensus to make it the default for users that are not logged in? What happened to it? —CodeCat 23:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Was there a consensus? I only remember utter chaos in those debates. --WikiTiki89 09:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

3 etymologies, 2 pronunciations[edit]

What should be done in entries where there are three separate etymologies (with POS subsections), but two of those have the same pronunciation while the third etymology/POS has another pronunciation? There seems to be no way to nest the sections properly in this case, but duplicating the pronunciation is probably not desirable either. —CodeCat 18:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Add {{sense}} labels or the like to pronunciations. We already do that in some places. --WikiTiki89 18:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
That seems kind of haphazard though, at least considering we don't usually do it this way. Should we standardise on a method that will work in all cases? —CodeCat 18:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
We've been doing it this way for a while. It's just not very common. --WikiTiki89 18:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I've also seen entries that nest Pronunciation under numbered Etymology sections, or entries that have numbered Pronunciation sections with POS sections nested under them. There doesn't seem to be an agreed standard format that other entries can/should be converted to. —CodeCat 18:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Mole shows one possible format. Another possible format would be to have e.g. the nautical section and the physics section say (perhaps using a template) "the same as mole 'burrowing rodent', see above" rather than duplicating all the pron info. - -sche (discuss) 23:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Just give each one its own pronunciation section. They're different words, who cares if it's "duplicated". DTLHS (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
That's how I've done it in the past. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

cộng đồng mạng việt nam[edit]

Wikimedia vietnamese

International characters[edit]

How can I insert international characters such as â or š by standard English keyboard in Windows and Ubuntu while transliterating Persian words, of course using User talk:Conrad.Irwin/editor.js? 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Select "Arabic" in the drop-down menu under the edit box. It has buttons both for Arabic-script characters and for transliteration characters. Everything needed for Persian is there as well. --WikiTiki89 15:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your quick reply but as I said before, I'm using editor.js for editing. Look at this image to understand what I mean. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Copy and paste. --WikiTiki89 15:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Time-consuming! 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Or you can make your own custom keyboard with the Microsoft Keyboard Layout Creator (if you use Windows). --WikiTiki89 15:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Modern Greek & PoS[edit]

Is Modern Greek just a proper noun?
In case of Greek it's an adjective in "the Greek word", right? So isn't Modern Greek in "the Modern Greek word" an adjective too? Or do English linguists claim that it is a combining form used in a compound word (or pseudo-compound word as it isn't spelled compouned like *"Moderngreekword" or *"Moderngreek-Word")? -84.161.47.115 20:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I would say Modern Greek word is using the noun attributively. That's how it works for language names like Sanskrit that aren't also adjectives. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Why isn't Sanskrit also an adjective? It is still used in phrases like "the Sanskrit language". You can say "this word is Sanskrit", but you cannot say "this word is the Sanskrit language", showing that the former is (or can be) an adjective, while the latter can only be a noun phrase. Likewise with "Modern Greek". --WikiTiki89 00:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The other option is that these are uncountable common nouns, which explains their use with determiners like "some": "I understand some Sanskrit, but very little Modern Greek". --WikiTiki89 01:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand, that doesn't happen with religions/philosophies: "I know some Hinduism", but you have to say "this deity is Hindu" rather than "this deity is Hinduism". --WikiTiki89 01:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I might be convinced by that argument if I could think of "the" in any kind of attributive construction- but I can't. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Well you drop the "the" in attributive constructions "this Sanskrit language word". But can you say "this word is Sanskrit language"? --WikiTiki89 01:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Is Wiktionary:Sandbox for playing?[edit]

--Romanophile (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. --WikiTiki89 17:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

"biases" pronunciation error[edit]

(with a "long i" sound in the final syllable)

That's what the discussion of Wiktionary's entry for BIASES says. Surely it means "short i"? It clearly and correctly shows that the second syllable of BIASES is pronounced with either a schwa or a short i, but the discussion says long i. The discussion seems to be going in the direction that I was in when I went to the page in the first place - that many educated people are mispronouncing it BY-UH-SEEZ instead of BY-UH-SIZZ, but it says that the error stems from confusion over Latin 3rd declension. If that were the case, then the LONG E mispronunciation should be what is discussed, not LONG I. At any rate, please don't fix it to imply that the long e version is OK - long e is nothing other than educated people wanting to sound more educated than they are, since they know that bases (pl. of basis), prognoses, and other Latin -is to -es spellings are indeed long e, but they don't know enough to know that dictionaries specifically list irregular pronunciations, and the absence of those means just use regular. Biases, processes, and other similar plurals spoken in educated settings are more and more often being ridiculously mispronounced -SEEZ instead of -SIZZ. —This unsigned comment was added by Qc1okay (talkcontribs).

autopatroller[edit]

Where is the request page for autopatroller rights?--Charidri (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You don't request it, someone else finds you and nominates you. But it is WT:Whitelist. --WikiTiki89 19:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Definitions of (Vulgar) Foreign Language Terms[edit]

In foreign language entries, is it better to give simple definitions or translations? To illustrate what I mean, I'll use the example that provoked the question (since vulgarities are the words to which this question applies the most):

One of the definitions of conejo is currently "cunt" (I've seen the word in another Spanish entry too). Many people consider this an offensive word and might be shocked to see it when they simply wanted to know the regular meaning of "conejo" (which is "rabbit"). However, defining it as "vulva" or something similar would be a poor translation of the word, since it doesn't take register into account. On the other hand, that's what the context tags are for. What's the regular way to define such FL words? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

For the entry conejo, I believe that this is the best way to describe it. Yes, people could be offended, but in Wiktionary we do not censor vulgarities - we make a point of it at Wiktionary:What Wiktionary is not. In general, however, ideally, a foreign language entry should consist of as many of the following as possible: A translation, some labels, a quote, a translation, usage notes, derived terms, pronunciation, synonyms, related terms, etymology, example sentences and, if necessary, a gloss definition. For example, I added a "gloss" tag to conejo, because the word cunt has many meanings in English. An example of a good Spanish entry is amistad. Feel free to ask me if you have any more questions, I'm glad to help. --A230rjfowe (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, thank you. The question arose in part because another entry that used "cunt" had context tags that didn't indicate an equal degree of offensiveness or vulgarity, and it made me question what the value was in having offensive words in FL definitions in the first place. I oppose censoring in a dictionary, however. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

word addition to the dictionary[edit]

Hi there

        Could you please let me know how or if I can add a word or request a word to be added to the dictionary.

I would like to add a word which does not exist yet. I hope to hear from you soon. Philip Toft

Adding: read WT:RFE and/or read and understand the wikicode of existing pages (click edit to access the wikicode), type the word you want to create in the search box and click the red link that appears (i.e. “You may create the page "kjhkj" on a blank page”);
Requesting: go to the page WT:Requested entries (English) (or another language), add a link to the word and some information about it, if possible. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
It depends what you mean by "doesn't exist yet". If you mean we don't have an entry for it yet, but it's in use, by all means follow the suggestions above. If you mean you just thought up a new word, we don't want it. We're a descriptive dictionary, so we only describe how terms have been used, and new words haven't been used. Please see our Criteria for inclusion. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

accessing existing templates[edit]

How does one access existing templates to copy and modify for new articles? For example, I would like to model a conjugation table for the Czech verb "nosit" after the existing template for the Czech verb "nest". Likewise, I would like to model new conjugation tables for Slovenian verbs that lack them after existing templates.