Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Information desk. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Information desk, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Information desk in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Information desk you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Information desk will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Information desk, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Welcome to the Information desk of Wiktionary, a place where users 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.
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi all,
New to Wiktionary - I've been learning some Woiwurring (language of my mob). I made an update to the Woiwurrung etymology, but I'm not confident I've referenced correctly/followed the correct formatting etc. I was hoping someone could take a look and let me know how to fix it up/make any required edits so I can learn from there before I make any further edits. TIA all. JakeEwings (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 28 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Have been searching in vain for the grammatical term for "a word used as a name for itself", such as "cheese" in "Cheese is derived from the Old English ċēse". Should be simple to track down, but I'm flummoxed.
So, to Google, of course. It immediately suggested autology, which is an interesting phenomenon but definitely not what I'm looking for (it refers to a word or phrase that describes itself, not one that names itself).
A second search recommended autonymous, one of whose senses is "(of a symbol, word, term, etc) Exhibiting autonymy; used as a name for itself", which sounds exactly like the correct definition. Unfortunately, however, I could not easily find attestation of that particular sense elsewhere on Wiktionary or on another site, and the meanings that I could find on Wiktionary for that family of words are still not what I'm after.
One of those entries links to a Wikipedia article on use–mention distinction, which definitely does address my question, and employs the term signifier (3rd paragraph of the article). Signifier, though, appears to be too broad: Lots of different entities can serve as signifiers, and they don't have to signify themselves.
From the Wiki article on italics, we get an excellent description ("entioning a word as an example of a word rather than for its semantic content"). Conspicuously absent, however, is an actual single term for this.
Same with the article on quotation marks: An "instance of a word refers to the word itself rather than its associated concept". Another good description, but still no official name for such a thing.
So it seems not even Wikipedia provides the answer. Normally, if some arcane word has ever been used for a particular concept, it can readily be found there, even if not on any other quickly accessible source. Thus I wonder whether the term I want exists at all. — HelpMyUnbelief (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Of course such an occurrence is a mention as opposed to a use. But again, I'm looking for the generally recognized, unambiguous grammatical term for a mentioned word, on the same par of specificity with, say, "phrase", "noun", "postpositive", or "copula". Surely "mention" is not the name that linguists would use; it looks like a far worse candidate than "signifier". — HelpMyUnbelief (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
IP tried to request a "buzzword" label but that discussion went silent with no action nor consensus. So, i'm going to re-request that label here, and here's what the code would look like:
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am curious to find out more about the word "Kamikaze". I came here from Wikidata where I saw this word used for leading authority of Judaism in Israel and not the Japanese WWII suicide pilot that I have always assumed it meant. How would I find more information here about the topic. For example how long have both the above been in use.
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have just corrected the etymology of dinkus with information that I found when researching the word for en.wiki. I have used their template:cite dictionary, which is not recognised here. What should I have used? (or may I just be lazy and leave it for someone else to fix?) JMF (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The entry for imperial system defines it as "A system of measurement in use in the United States".
I'm sure the system is used in the United States, but the definition feels misleading. For example, the Wiktionary entries for pint and gallon make a point of distinguishing between Imperial pints/gallons and US liquid pints/gallons.
Not to be an imperialist but, shouldn't the definition of imperial system make some reference to Britain?
Latest comment: 29 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm looking for a website that provided an interactive map of German dialects through words/sentences by region with audio and IPA transcription I had seen browsing this wiki. Saumache (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Want to add to Ukrainian entries
Latest comment: 23 days ago6 comments5 people in discussion
I'm learning Ukrainian and have seen places where I can help with definitions of certain words on Wiktionary and some words that are completely missing. I would like to help, but I guess I have two questions before I start making changes.
1. I have no background in etymology so I wouldn't be able to add those for words. I can cite dictionary definitions and inflections easily as I've seen others have done, but I don't really have any resources that I'm aware of for etymology. Does this mean I shouldn't add any new words?
2. There's one particular word that I was thinking of editing (друкувати/надрукувати) where the linked dictionary definition specifically calls out typing on a typewriter, but the definition does extend also to typing on a keyboard of a computer according to my Ukrainian friends. If the dictionary definition linked only specifies typing on a typewriter, should I just include that definition for the time being? БабаЯзя (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you don’t speak the language, then be exceedingly careful not to propagate mistakes. It is advisable NOT to make entries if you just started learning Ukrainian, of course this depends on your level. 46.161.82.6715:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Usually when I think of adding entries, it's only things I've run by my teacher so as not to propagate mistakes. I usually check with a Ukrainian dictionary too which I'm able to read. My level is not fluent but it's good enough to carry a conversation about a wide range of topics as I've been studying it for multiple years. БабаЯзя (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, be careful, but if you are certain a dictionary definition is incomplete or does not fully reflect current usage, you should actually improve on that definition. We also aim to record former senses that are now obsolete. Note that we should never slavishly copy dictionaries anyway. When I create or edit an entry in a language in which I do not feel fully competent, I try to make sure that I can find actual uses in online sources that confirm what I think is correct. Some native speakers are good informants, but I’ve also run into cases where their information was seriously off – both for grammar and for the meanings of less common terms. --Lambiam23:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 22 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
There have been some attempts to mark out the pronunciations of Chinese entries in Latin or mixed script (called ‘alphabetic words’ hereinafter) with current templates, with a larger portion left blank. Afaik both Mandarin and Cantonese pronunciations rely heavily on automatic conversion, making it difficult to handle exceptional syllables, and
Cantonese pronunciations of alphabetic words are seemingly consistent (except for tones?). Not native in Cantonese, I am not sure, but there is a website encouraging readers to write foreign terms in a constructed script. They exemplified trial as twaai ou, and wrote themselves yes as jes, crypto as kwip tou, blood as blat.
Some alphabetic words in Mandarin are pronounced uniformly. I always hear web開發 rendered wềb kāifā (while in the page as wāibù kāifā), play as plèi, ping as pìng or pīng. But Mandarin pronunciations are generally less stable, and depend on individual differences, phonemes of specific words, and formality. The more casual the conversation, the less likely the pronunciations resemble the source language ー chuànsi is a ragged mimic of trans.
In Xiandai Hanyu Cidian, alphabetic parts of words are left unmarked (web開發 would be web kāifā if there were). We may leave all alphabetic words unmarked and remove the templates saying ‘incomplete’. Otherwise, we may mark out only the words with consistent pronunciation. 物灵 (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
A hasty conclusion might be that Cantonese alphabetic words are generally Cantonese-ized while Mandarin counterparts are largely not Mandarinized, as the editorial choice of Xiandai Hanyu Cidian seems to imply. In both languages even adapted forms are not restricted in the phonology, so there would be some modifications on the templates. (e.g. accepting initial clusters like skw, bl, pl mentioned above)
For Chinese languages other than Mandarin or Cantonese, I am curious how long it has taken/will take to stabilize their readings of words like AI ー since its rising the Mandarin reading seems to be ēi’āi or less frequently ēi’ài. 物灵 (talk) 04:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, the wiktionary eng link to "Corniculate" is missing its etymology. Does anyone know it?
I suppose it is probably Latin or Ancient Greek, like most anatomical terms (context: Corniculate cartilage) Petros Poupis (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In a weird anglicized construction, Nycteris can mean 'Disorder in the Night' and was used in that context by CS Lewis in The Pilgrims Regress on pp 83 and 88. Tony Greyhound (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Search for colons in Sanskrit quotations
Latest comment: 5 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Maybe not a newbie question, but how am I supposed to look for colons (:) in Sanskrit quotations? Those should be changed to visarga, but with the accent (either U0952 ॒ or U0951 ॑) after it. An example here. Exarchus (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
You can search with regex; paste this into your search bar:
Is translating from other Wiktionaries frowned upon? I am relying heavily on machine translation to translate the French definition. I am not using machine translation to generate a definition.
My second question is if my attempt is suitable or missing anything obvious. This is my first ever page, so I don't know much about form and am trying to follow the example of the entry for qu'est-ce que c'est. Thank you for the help! Gallium314 (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Looks like a decent attempt. I have some observations:
We use apostrophe ' (U+0027) rather than right quotation mark ’ (U+2019) when spelling French terms. French Wiktionary, however, uses the latter. Interwiki links between the two are created automatically and handle the difference.
You are right not to directly publish a machine-generated translation that hasn't been vetted by a knowledgeable human. It's fine to use other Wiktionaries to guide one's research but they aren't a direct source.
Given that your draft definition explains how/why the term is used (as opposed to glossing the term's meaning directly with an English translation), it should be enclosed in the {{non-gloss}} template, which will italicize it.
A creator of a new entry should be satisfied that the term meets the criteria for inclusion. See in particular the section about attestation. Terms that have scant attestation of real-world usage online or in durably-archived media may be challenged at some point. I'm not saying that this one will be, or prejudging the outcome if it is, just bringing this to your attention as you are a new editor.
Latest comment: 1 day ago7 comments4 people in discussion
I am talking about the label used to mark words here, not the everyday definition.
It is currently defined in Appendix:Glossary as "Language that is intended or likely to cause offense" (my bolding). However, several editors, most notably @Zacwill, keep removing them from various words because they are "not offensive", even though they are verifiably likely to cause offence, at least in some cases. They are absolutely right in that they are not intended to cause offence, but they are nevertheless likely to in some cases. I can only assume they think that the label is only applicable to the former (intended to cause offence), not the latter (likely to cause offence). If this is the case, then we should remove the "or likely" from the definition, or at least change the "or" to and "and". People have been banned from social media for using the "f-words" (I even got into a spot of bother on Wikipedia for it; they basically said it's offensive to Americans regardless of how it's used) in their "non-offensive" senses. Yes, I know that in some cases, the bans were lifted, but this is not always the case, and it still speaks volumes about how the words are seen, rightly or wrongly.
Now, I am in no way endorsing them being seen as offensive, merely documenting. It seems to me that a significant number of people see these words as offensive (rightly or wrongly), and they certainly seem to fit the heading "offensive" as currently defined, so this needs clarification. Adam9007 (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
For context, the words in question are fag (in the senses "cigarette", "chore", etc.), faggot (in the sense "meatball"), and snigger. I do not think labelling them "offensive" is helpful. We already have usage notes explaining that Americans are likely to avoid them because of their similarity to slurs. Zacwill (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Why would a UK shop censor the word "faggot"? I'm talking about situations where Americans are likely to see legitimate usages of the word like this, e.g. on social media. They are likely to see it as offensive, possibly even if they know what it means, as happened to me on Wikipedia. Adam9007 (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
This reply doesn't make sense. I guess it must have been made assuming Adam9007 came here with some intention to nitpick about words.
About what Adam9007 actually came to discuss: indeed, I wouldn’t find it productive to add “offensive” tags to such senses. I’ve never seen this either. Unless someone thinks this is actually common practice, I think we should change the glossary definition. Polomo47 (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, this isn't the first time people have assumed I want to play word games or something like that. But, this doesn't alter the fact that the way I read the 'offensive' label as it's currently defined, I'm seeing no suggestion that is it only meant for slurs. Yet, several people seem to think that it is. The way I'm reading it, the label can be applied to anything that might well cause offence, regardless of why. By the logic these editors are using, 'England' to mean the United Kingdom shouldn't be labelled as offensive, as it's not intended to cause offence nor does it refer to a person or group of people, or a characteristic thereof, which seem to be the de facto criteria for being eligible for the 'offensive' label. But the label as it's currently defined just means that it can cause offence, which does not necessarily mean that it is a slur. This is what needs to be clarified. Adam9007 (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have three requests:
The UK IPA spelling on pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis is incorrect. Whereas currently it is /njuːˌmɒ-/ it should be /ˌnjuːmə-/, as per the OED and the accompanying Wikipedia article.
I have uploaded an audio file at that has the correct pronunciation (I have tried to make it as clear as possible but it is obviously quite difficult!). I would appreciate if someone would add this with a British English or RP accent
The US pronunciation audio has many mispronunciations and should be removed entirely to not mislead readers.
Latest comment: 2 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There is no FWOTD for today or any day in the near future. I would like to help but I am not aware of how to convert nominations or my own ideas into accepted FWOTDs. Anyone could help out educate me? @Sgconlaw I remember you regularly helped out with word of the day. Thanks anyone for helping. Garethphua(言)02:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply