Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Information desk/2025/January. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Information desk/2025/January, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Information desk/2025/January in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Information desk/2025/January you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Information desk/2025/January will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Information desk/2025/January, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
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)
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)
Search for colons in Sanskrit quotations
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Americans avoiding them is one thing, but treating them (again, rightly or wrongly) as offensive when others use them is another. Adam9007 (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Agreed (Zac). You can for example buy meat products labelled as "faggots" in the UK. Shops do not hide these or refuse to stock them. Adam, please don't duplicate the LONG Wikipedia thread you linked above, here. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:2921:96CC:86C1:8A9908:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
@Soundguys thanks for your contribution. Our entry referenced the OED's second edition, which doesn't offer IPA of the word but presents it as follows: "pneuˌmonoultramicroˈscopicˌsilicovolcanoconiˈosis". I can see that this has been changed in OED3, so I updated the entry and added your audio (thanks!). This, that and the other (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
No FWOTD today?
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)
I'm also available to help with FWOTD. I've also noticed the delayed entries for a good few weeks now — tried submitting a word once, but indeed the pages are (secretly) locked. Polomo47 (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Is there an up to date 'Wiktionary lookup' extension, that works reliably in Firefox? I tried to look up the word "Alas" in English, and received a result for Estonian. Ineuw (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I was wondering if there is a better way to handle the possibilities, rather than me changing the case. It was the start of a paragraph.Ineuw (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
In 나, there's a reference which its title is written {{lang|ko|{{ruby|(모)(음)의 (의)(미)(교)(체)의 (범)(주)-(중)(기)(국)(어)를 (중)(심)으로}}}} which includes a hyphen in the book name. But in the actual display 母音의 意味交替의 範疇中期國語를 中心으로 the hyphen disappeared. What should I do? 列维劳德 (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
GRUMPLE
We have no children. However, we have 35 nieces & nephews and their children = many more grand niece's and grand nephews. So, to seperate - me as an Uncle - or Grand Uncle from their Grandparents the kids came up with a new name - which I believe should be added to Wikipedia... GRUMPLE = Not an Uncle