| Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others Mar 24th 2013, 00:27 | | | | Line 3,222: | Line 3,222: | | | * I naturally '''oppose''' and say '''keep'''. Apparent consensus by editors of Japanese entries (whether these editors are Japanese or not) is not enough. If German editors find an agreement to get rid of German compounds, while the native English speakers do not want to get rid of them in this ''English'' Wiktionary, the consensus of German editors ''should not matter''. Moreover, changes that involve ''removal'' of content from a ''large set of entries'' should require a ''formal evidence'' of consensus, which a Beer parlour discussion cannot provide. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 00:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC) | | * I naturally '''oppose''' and say '''keep'''. Apparent consensus by editors of Japanese entries (whether these editors are Japanese or not) is not enough. If German editors find an agreement to get rid of German compounds, while the native English speakers do not want to get rid of them in this ''English'' Wiktionary, the consensus of German editors ''should not matter''. Moreover, changes that involve ''removal'' of content from a ''large set of entries'' should require a ''formal evidence'' of consensus, which a Beer parlour discussion cannot provide. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 00:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC) | | | *:I don't fault you for wanting to keep your own vote, but it looks like you don't understand what consensus is. —[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup></small> 00:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC) | | *:I don't fault you for wanting to keep your own vote, but it looks like you don't understand what consensus is. —[[User:Metaknowledge|Μετάknowledge]]<small><sup>''[[User talk:Metaknowledge|discuss]]/[[Special:Contributions/Metaknowledge|deeds]]''</sup></small> 00:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC) | | | + | *:: I guess I should not have expected you to actually address any of the points I've raised. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|talk]]) 00:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 00:27, 24 March 2013 Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for deletion/Others - This page is for the nomination (for deletion) of non-main namespace entries. General questions about categories, templates and the like should be posted at Wiktionary:Grease pit. Remember to start each section with only the wikified title of the page being nominated for deletion.
Several problems that need some sort of resolution, or just outright deletion of the category - The title bothers me, what are "different locations"?
- Do we have any way of filling this up, and if so, is it just purely POV?
Ideally I'd post this at RFC instead of RFDO, but since nobody ever edits that page, I brought it here. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC) - We could certainly populate it. For example, the word house would mean something different if we took the trouble to document the differences by, say, average temperature, seasonal and daily variation in temperature, proneness to flooding and rain, as well as cultural differences. This could serve as a whole new way of encouraging us to add new senses to some common words. We would need a few more context tags and we would be using google news more to attest to the senses. But "All senses of all words in all languages.". DCDuring TALK 13:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
-
- I think what this category is intended for is words that exist both in British and American English but have completely different meanings. However, the category name is very ambiguous. -- Prince Kassad 14:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think it wants to go beyond that and include all English speaking places. But how to subdivide? If it's different locations, what happens if I use a word differently to my nextdoor neighbor? He's not in the same location, he's nextdoor! Mglovesfun (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- How about "English terms with differing definitions in different dialects"?—msh210℠ (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Alphabet categories None of these conform to the standard category structure. The contents are mostly stuff that should either be in Category:(script) characters, Category:(language) letters, or Category:(language) letter names. These should be orphaned and deleted. --Yair rand (talk) 05:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC) - Yes they're a mix of script characters and English names for the characters. If you want to move the contents I think you'd be doing us a favor. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Where the same name is used to refer to both the language and the script (which is most of those that you listed), it's pointless to duplicate categorization. When the script is more general (e.g. Cyrillic) it makes sense to sub-categorize the subset used for a particular language (Ukrainian). Similarly: letter names are script- and not language-based, and should be grouped in separate categories only if it makes sense to do so (e.g. if there are 2 languages using the same script, with the same letters having different names in English, which I don't exist, at least not different enough). --Ivan Štambuk 09:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC) - Move to Category:Arabic letters and be done with it! - -sche (discuss) 04:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I moved everything that could easily be moved, but there are still a few entries left that I am unsure about. Can somebody else take a look? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- The English entries were easy- they were already in Category:en:Arabic letter names, so I just deleted the Category:Arabic alphabet. The others were made very difficult because they're not independent letters, so they aren't clickable on the category page. I managed to find them by a combination of entering them manually into the search box and finding them in Appendix:Unicode/Arabic, then clicking the links there. I made sure they were all in Category:Arabic diacritical marks and deleted the Category:Arabic alphabet. Done. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you! - -sche (discuss) 20:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't the contents of this category be in Category:Place names? -- Prince Kassad 14:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC) - Not if the intent is to list place names of England (as opposed to those in English). The term "English" is ambiguous here, but this structure is consistent with our Category:English surnames listings. Discussions in the past have favored treating names (proper nouns) as a part of speech category rather than topical. As such, Category:English toponyms is a better name than Category:Place names, which is constructed as a topical category. --EncycloPetey 21:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, place names are topical. Category:Place names could be moved to Category:Toponyms. Also English toponyms (place names of England) is way too narrow. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
This entire category system is completely redundant to the topical category Category:Offensive. Since "swear word" is not a part of speech, this category and all subcategories should therefore be deleted. -- Prince Kassad 16:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC) - Delete and all the subcategories. Stick to the system we already have. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- But not all offensive terms are "swear words"; consider the verb Jew, for example. And conversely, I don't think I'd consider a swear word like goddamn to be "offensive", though it is in Category:Offensive, so perhaps someone's mileage varies. —RuakhTALK 17:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- As long as it works the other way, i. e. all swear words are offensive (which I think is true)... -- Prince Kassad 18:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Should be Category:Swear words in that case, but I think Category:Vulgarities covers it better. If we were to create a Category:Swear words, I think the best two parent categories would be Vulgarities and Offensive. Since MediaWiki doesn't allow us to rename categories, we'd still have to delete this. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Has existed since 2006, fancy that. Easy delete then, we don't even need to create a category to replace it. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Re: "all swear words are offensive": Please see the second half of the comment you're replying to. And anyway, by that argument, who needs Category:English suffixes when we have Category:English affixes? Or Category:Trees when we can have Category:Organisms? —RuakhTALK 20:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- You are missing the point. Swear word is not a part of speech. You don't add ===Swear word=== and {{infl|en|swear word}} to entries. That just isn't right. -- Prince Kassad 20:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- I understand that, but it's irrelevant to my comments. You claimed above that "This entire category system is completely redundant to the topical category Category:Offensive." I was arguing otherwise. (BTW, "part of speech" is not quite the concept you want. We also don't use ===Countable noun=== and ===Ergative verb=== and so on, but Category:Countable nouns by language and Category:Ergative verbs by language are to the good. But I agree that swear-words belong to the topical-category system, not the grammatical-category system.) —RuakhTALK 21:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ruakh, so in essence, you do want to delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not really. I want to move it. As it happens, moving a category does involve "deleting" it, but obviously that's not what Prince Kassad is proposing. —RuakhTALK 00:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- The issue, for me, is redundancy. Similar to [[Category:Derogatory]], [[Category:Offensive]] and [[Category:Pejoratives]], or [[Category:Archaic]] and [[Category:Obsolete]], we could end up categorizing entries in two, three, even four categories basically representing the same thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm having second thoughts; Category:Profanity is listed below; perhaps a Category:Profanities by language would be the most inclusive title. There is some overlap with offensive as Ruakh points out, but not total redundancy. Keep and move. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
This territory no longer exists. -- Prince Kassad 16:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC) - Rename to Languages of the former Netherlands Antilles? Or maybe Languages of the Caribbean Netherlands? —CodeCat 16:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm unclear on the status of the then-Netherlands Antilles: was it kinda like that of England or Scotland now (with the Kingdom of the Netherlands like the UK)? Were the Netherlands Antilles recognized by other countries and international organizations as sovereign? I dislike that we think about such topics in deciding what categories to have, but it may be necessary....—msh210℠ (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it was a member of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, so it's quite comparable to, say, Scotland. Note that we have Category:Languages of Aruba, another member of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (which became independent from the Netherlands Antilles in 1985). -- Prince Kassad 18:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think current non-existence should be a reason for deletion. If we're going to have this sort of category at all, then formerly-existent geo-entities should be as valid as currently-existent ones, provided we can answer the question: what languages were spoken in the geo-entity, when it existed? —RuakhTALK 17:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- So you'd want Category:Languages of the Soviet Union, Category:Languages of the Holy Roman Empire, Category:Languages of the Ottoman Empire, Category:Languages of British India? -- Prince Kassad 18:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC) addendum: please see WT:Beer parlour#Geographic language categories
- If we just go with Languages of the Caribbean Netherlands then we avoid the problem entirely. Because that term has been in use already and will continue to be valid in the future. —CodeCat 19:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not even sure what the language of... categories are supposed to achieve. Isn't it purely encyclopedic? Also, if we accept dead language in such categories (cf. Category:Anglo-Norman language) I see no reason, conversely, not to allow defunct countries/states as well. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Which is why I started the BP discussion. Personally, I would not try to push ancient languages into a modern country's borders. That's historically absolute nonsense, and it does not make sense. -- Prince Kassad 23:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- Weak delete. - -sche (discuss) 04:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
We should arguably not have this language. It is the same as plain Low Saxon, but with a different written standard. -- Prince Kassad 14:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC) - It's not quite the same. The languages on both sides of the border have each borrowed from their country's respective standard languages, both phonologically and in vocabulary. A (non-Low Saxon) Dutch speaker might understand the dialect of Groningen or Twente as they would their own language, to a significant degree. But that same speaker wouldn't really be able to understand the dialects spoken on the German side as easily. I know this from experience, too: I've watched videos of 'standard' Gronings being spoken and I can understand it decently, but I find videos of Niedersächsisch much harder to understand simply because they tend to sound much more 'German'. —CodeCat 14:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note that Ethnologue recognizes several standardized dialects of Low Saxon as separate languages, like Gronings {{gos}}, Drents {{drt}} and Twente {{twd}}. It might be better to use those... -- Prince Kassad 14:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- See Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#Translations_into_Low_German_dialects. - -sche (discuss) 12:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Struck (kept). Discussion has been superseded by the more comprehensive WT:RFM#Template:nds.2C_Template:nds-de.2C_Template:nds-nl. - -sche (discuss) 04:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Per a recent Grease pit discussion, what do these categories achieve? They exist mainly because {{countable}} {{uncountable}} always categorize. It would be easy enough to remove the categorization and just let the server catch up. {{fr-noun}}, {{ca-noun}} and {{oc-noun}} all add these automatically - I should know, I was the one that installed that feature! For clarity, all the subcategories should go. Particularly per Ruakh's comment that we mainly use {{countable}} and {{uncountable}} to contrast between senses of the same word, meaning that most entries that appear in one will appear in the other. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC) - Delete. Useless categories.--Vahag 10:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Category:English uncountable nouns. I cannot speak for other languages or the parent category. Knowledgeable contributors with experience in teaching English have suggested that handling countability is a significant difficulty for learners of English. I do not know about English natives speakers learning other languages.
- We should eliminate the truly useless Category:English countable nouns. As this is the default state of nouns in most (all) mlanguages, AFAIK, it hardly seems worth marking, except for contrast. If that is correct, it would argue for elimination of most (all) of the subcategories. If only we could assume that all and only "uncountable" senses were marked, we could dispense with marking "countable" senses entirely. "Uncountability", as the less common feature of nouns, merits marking.
- Lastly, the retaining the category Category:English uncountable nouns, at least, facilitates cleanup of the numerous misapplications of "uncountable". It is often misused to apply to countable (but normally uncouned) senses, ie, those that are almost always used in the singular, and sometimes to proper nouns. DCDuring TALK 11:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Countability in the languages I edit is a very insignificant issue, that's why I voted to delete the categories. Maybe we can keep Category:English uncountable nouns but disable categorizing for other languages. --Vahag 12:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
-
- This does seem to be the kind of thing that probably should be determined language by language. DCDuring TALK 18:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure that we need a category for them; keep the template {{countable}} and {{uncountable}} just delete the associated categories. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
-
- Once again, the uncountable category is a clean-up facilitator and will probably remain useful for that purpose for some time. DCDuring TALK 18:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I vote to keep uncountable nouns, delete countable nouns, for the reasons given above. In many languages, countable is the default, so it is not worth mentioning (just like 'regular verbs' would be a fairly pointless category). —CodeCat 13:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Didn't Stephen say there are languages where the default is uncountable? -- Prince Kassad 00:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- If that is the case, then the non-default countable category could be be retained for such languages. The categories don't have to be populated for every language. There might even be some where both were worth keeping or where other categories were necessary. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Weak keep both. - -sche (discuss) 04:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I hereby nominate this category for deletion on the grounds that the relevant suffix is a pluralisation suffix. Do we want Category:French words suffixed with -s et al. too...? Perhaps the discussion quite a bit above this should be noted too. 50 Xylophone Players talk 22:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC) - Since {{suffix}} has a pos (part of speech) parameter, I'd recommend Category:Welsh plurals suffixed with -au. Per the discussion above that you've alluded to. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- I thought we followed the general practice of excluding use of {{suffix}} for inflectional suffixes. It seems to me that we need to clean out the category by removing the etymology sections of the members. DCDuring TALK 15:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, I guess, seeing as we did keep Category:Welsh words suffixed with -iau. —RuakhTALK 16:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm in two minds. On the one hand, I don't want most languages to have categories like this for inflectional endings like plural endings. On the other hand, for a language like Welsh, where the plural endings are almost completely unpredictable, I do think it could be very useful to have a place where people can find all Welsh nouns pluralized with -(i)au, all Welsh nouns pluralized with -oedd, all Welsh nouns pluralized with -(i)on, and so on. If we really don't want this as a category, then at least as an appendix or several appendices. —Angr 18:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
-
- Well, that's true. Also, some plural endings may be isomorphic with other suffixes, so that the category would be full of words that didn't actually have the plural ending. Category:Welsh nouns forming plurals in -au does sound like a good idea, especially if it can be generated automatically by filling in a particular parameter in {{cy-noun}}. —Angr 15:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- This sounds like a sensible conclusion that has some agreement. Does it need more discussion at WT:RFM or can it be implemented based on the discussion here? DCDuring TALK 18:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
My problem with these templates is that they duplicate information already found in the conjugation template. Also, they're clearly designed for English rather than German, made obvious by the choice of third-person singular present, past tense (without any number or person specified, making the form chosen completely arbitrary) and past participle. Therefore, I don't think they're useful. If anything, {{de-verb}} should be expanded to show whether a verb is weak or strong. -- Prince Kassad 18:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC) - Support deletion. {{it-verb-are}} and some similar ones failed RFDO earlier this year. As we know from {{ca-verb}}, {{es-verb}}, {{nl-verb}} and {{pt-verb}} (among others) it is possible to specific this sort of thing in one template using a switch, rather than that just creating a template for every class of verb there is. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- keep. This template was not designed for English, but for German. German has just two classes of verbs -- strong and weak. The info presented by this headword-line template is ideal for headword lines. It presents the traditional key forms of German strong verbs. —Rod (A. Smith) 00:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
- Like Prince Kassad (Liliana) says, why not add a type=weak/type=strong parameter to {{de-verb}}? And the conjugation table can do the rest. Still delete, in my opinion. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Seems like a rather strange category to have... --Yair rand (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC) - Dunno actually, doesn't seem that silly. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- "rather strange" seems subjective and not enough reason for deletion to me. Mutante 10:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- We don't have any rules for topical categories, so we can be as subjective as we like. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Right. Delete per Yair (11:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)).—msh210℠ (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Seems fine to me. Several of my books about the English language include lists of -manias and -phobias, so I expect some people are interested in Category:Manias and Category:Phobias. — Robin 19:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Words suffixed with -mania and -phobia belong at Category:English words suffixed with -mania and Category:English words suffixed with -phobia. --Yair rand (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, for now anyway, I'd welcome a serious review of our topical categories, but I'm not optimistic we'd get a consensus out of it. So just keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC) [edit] Dutch entry templates All of these have been obsolete for a while now that we have a bot to do Dutch verb forms. And they're a pain to maintain. —CodeCat 12:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC) - Delete in good faith, since I don't use the templates I'm willing to trust CodeCat, one of our best editors, especially in Dutch. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
-
- I'm rather reluctant to call this a fail, but I don't really think anyone ever uses these... —CodeCat 20:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Delete the templates, trusting CodeCat. The templates have been deleted on 5 June 2011 by CodeCat anyway. --Dan Polansky 09:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted by CodeCat last June. —RuakhTALK 18:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC) "The following is a list of terms used in context of the Harry Potter franchise." We don't allow words only used in such context ([[WT:CFI#Fictional universes]]), so this category and its entries (if they truly belong in it) should be deleted.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC) - I don't see what's wrong with categorizing appendices, but this could be restated to include words that arose from that franchise, which is probably what was meant in the first place. DAVilla 20:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
-
- Keep. It will also probably serve to house terms which were invented for that franchise but were since adopted into the lexicon e.g. Muggle and I am guessing eventually Voldemort. - TheDaveRoss 18:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- But then it should be a "derivations"- or "derived from"- or what-have-you-named category, no?—msh210℠ (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- There already is a Category:Harry Potter derivations... --Yair rand (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- Care needs to be taken with terms from fiction such as these. Fans may use and hear them often, but such terms may rarely be found outside the fandom. Muggle may indeed be relevant; as evidenced by the quotations, some people have found it useful to fill a gap in the lexicon, and its meaning is fairly widely understood amongst those who enjoy the franchise casually (thanks to its relatively large popularity). However, terms like Snapefic seem to be practically exclusive to smaller communities of people whom find themselves mutually invested in the fiction much more than the average audience. These are probably not in significant use to be kept -- not currently so, at the very least. 76.184.230.142 14:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- No consensus, or keep consensus to keep, kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Unused, transwiki'ed template. TeleComNasSprVen 06:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC) - Was actually used once in a category that had no subcategories, so I removed it. I don't hate the template, but where would we use it? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
-
- Shouldn't every category use this, so you can hop down the category tree? (or atleast, language and parts of speech trees) 65.95.13.213 14:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 04:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
"rivers" is not a context. The template displays "geography" which (IMO) is a context. However to write (geography) Nile is ridiculous. How are words like Nile, Seine, Thames and Danube not used outside of geography? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC) - If geography were a context it should be used for the terms that academic, professional, student, and amateur geographers use. Context tags should not be used for purely topical categories (though there may be circumstances where there is a coincidence between context and topical category). In any event, Nile is not a geographic term nor is its use limited to geographers. DCDuring TALK 22:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
| | Input needed: This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look! |
Agreed. This should be replaced with Category:en:Rivers or whatever, and deleted. —Michael Z. 2012-05-22 20:48 z
Failed, it violates a vote so it was a mistake for me to nominate it, it should've been shot on sight. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC) Pointless. Very few linked pages. Keep the talk page though. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC) - delete -- Prince Kassad 21:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Good "disambiguation" page. You say "[v]ery few linked pages": but what else should be linked to from it? (Or do you mean few pages link to it? That may be true, but people may type it in manually.) Don't see the purpose of deleting it.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- It seems at worst harmless. It might be a good page for some specialized guidance on our practice concerning such entries. DCDuring TALK 22:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I mean very few pages link to it, suggesting that it wouldn't really be missed. However yeah, we don't have many disambiguation pages, but this not the only one we have (WT:CAT). I won't oppose the keep if that is the overall consensus, then. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete 'cause nothing's there. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted per MK. - -sche (discuss) 04:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Completely redundant to {{l}}. --Yair rand (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC) - I've seen this template and often wondered what it's for. Reading the documentation, you'd think it was literally copied and pasted from {{l}}. Are they compatible to the point that one could redirect to the other? PS Wiktionary:Grease pit archive/2007/October#Template:onym and Template:l. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- There are three differences that I can see: {{l}} supports a g= parameter while {{onym}} does not, {{l}} places glosses and transliterations in separate sets of brackets while {{onym}} places them in the same set, and {{onym}} works like {{term}} when the first parameter is blank, displaying the term unlinked. --Yair rand (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- If those are in fact the only differences (I haven't checked, but will take your word for it), then I'd be fine with either fixing {{l}}'s deficiencies and changing {{onym}} into a (deprecated?) redirect, or vice versa. —RuakhTALK 00:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think this template should be deleted, as long as {{l}} supports everything it does. —CodeCat 21:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- There seems to be a difference, o/p from each:
- * {{onym|el|[[κάνω#Greek|κάνω]] [[εμετό#Greek|εμετό]]|tr=káno emetó|gloss=to vomit}} > κάνω εμετό (káno emetó, "to vomit")
- * {{l|el|[[κάνω#Greek|κάνω]] [[εμετό#Greek|εμετό]]|tr=káno emetó|gloss=to vomit}} > [[#Greek|κάνω εμετό]] (káno emetó) ("to vomit")
- shouldn't rfd be removed — Saltmarshαπάντηση 04:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Those appear to be precisely the differences enumerated by Yair rand above. The reason for deleting {{onym}} is not because it is identical to {{l}} (which it most clearly and demonstrably isn't), but rather because it offers no useful functionality that is not already covered by either {{term}} or {{l}} -- and thus has no real reason to exist, as best I can tell. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Another difference: {{onym}} italicizes the transliteration (like {{term}}), whereas {{l}} does not (like {{t}} and {{head}}). —RuakhTALK 15:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- That difference really is trivial, it doesn't change what the template actually does. —CodeCat 16:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Nu, so? If/when we merge the two templates, every difference between them — no matter how trivial — will have to be merged in one direction or the other. —RuakhTALK 14:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's true, but something like an italic transliteration really doesn't seem like a big issue. Personally I think consistency is better, so they should either all italicise, or not at all. —CodeCat 15:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete/merge+redirect (per Yair). DCDuring said about a different set of templates that "a system that is too complicated will not be implemented correctly by anyone other than the developer of the system and perhaps an acolyte or two", and I think any effort to use {{onym}}, {{l}} and {{term}} distinctly is futile for just this reason. - -sche (discuss) 08:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- For some reason, I find myself agreeing with -sche with particular enthusiasm.
- The name doesn't seem constructively suggestive of function, purpose, or scope of desired application, either (like {{term}}), nor is it usefully brief like {{a}} or {{l}}. If anything the name seems misleading. Delete (I could imagine the name being possibly useful for something so redirection seems only a temporary expedient, though "temporary" may be a long time given its widespread transclusion [~6,000].) DCDuring TALK 17:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Given that is mostly just used in French-language templates, why not just keep it and rename it {{fr-onym}} or something? DCDuring TALK 18:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- I prefer to delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
This template generates a link from a citation to a source (such as Google Books). This seems redundant with many other templates that do the same thing in a more standardized way, such as {{quote-book}}. Also, in my opinion, the resulting text of {{citelink}} at Citations:add fuel to fire is ugly. --Daniel. 16:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC) - I think this template is only used inside other templates, where it isn't needed as you can simply write the text out. I would delete it, unless someone can come up with a way this is used usefully. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- It seems to be used directly on citations pages. I don't see the point of having it, but we would need to check some 75 pages and change to an appropriate replacement. DCDuring TALK 18:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
'Words' shouldn't be capitalized, we use 'terms' not 'words'. Surely we should either 1) delete this outright or 2) rename to Category:Tatar entries in Cyrillic script, with Latin and Arabic (script) versions too. I don't think we have these sort of categories for Azeri, Serbo-Croatian and whatnot, so just delete it. --Mglovesfun (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC) - delete. You can use the table of contents to get Tatar words in Cyrillic script. -- Prince Kassad 18:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- We have Category:Mandarin nouns in traditional script and Category:Japanese hiragana, though. --Daniel. 18:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Since I've created {{tt-pos}}, it would be quite easy to categorize these. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- The official Tatar is written in Cyrillic, anyway. All newspapers, books, signs, education, otehr media in Tatarstan, Russia are written in Cyrillic. The Roman spelling is a fashion, used mainly on the web, due to the fact that Roman spelling is not allowed but Cyrillic usage by far exceeds the Roman on the web as well. Writing Tatar in Roman letters today is the same as writing Turkish in the Arabic script - attestable but non-standard. --Anatoli 00:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete this multi-problematic category. - -sche (discuss) 16:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I just don't understand why this template was ever created; instead of: ==={{abbreviation|foo}}=== '''{{subst:PAGENAME}}''' Just use ===Abbreviation=== {{infl|foo|abbreviation}} How would this be different from a template called say, {{verb}}, {{noun}} or {{adverb}}? Oh, it does link to an appendix, though I (personally) dislike links in headers as distracting, though apparently they can also cause browser problems. But I've never witnessed that. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC) - Useful (and in fact used) for categorizing in etymology sections: "===Etymology=== {{abbreviation|Langname}} of...".—msh210℠ (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose, though {{abbreviation of}} seems to cover that. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Or just ban it in headers then. Perhaps that's why it was created; for definition lines and etymologies. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- No problem banning it in headers. Keep.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've come across entries using {{present participle of}} or {{past participle of}} in etymologies. By way of hypothetical example, interesting:
==English== ===Etymology=== {{present participle of|interest}} ===Adjective=== {{en-adj}} # ... I would simply switch the 'Etymology' head to 'Verb'. If this were intended to be a definition-line template it would now be redundant to {{abbreviation of}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC) - Totally agree: delete and use Abbreviation of [[#English|]]. in definition lines. The appendix link can be added there, if people wish to keep it. And replace the ==={{abbreviation}}=== headers by real POS headers: every abbreviation has a POS, abbreviation is not a POS itself. H. (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- I support banning this from headers. —RuakhTALK 20:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Mglovesfun. But I would not use Abbreviation of [[#English|]]. in definition lines (or only when this is the best possible definition). The abbreviation character is something of an etymological nature. Lmaltier (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- What's so bad about using it in headers...oppose. :p 50 Xylophone Players talk 18:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Is this what a standard template is supposed to look like? I don't know. But its parameters seem nonintuitive for non-English terms. Perhaps it's better to just use the separate components {{etyl}} and {{term}} instead of the lengthy template. TeleComNasSprVen 05:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC) - Either delete or improve. It's not really doing anything useful right now. But if it were to categorize somehow, I'd keep it. But Category:English transliterations just looks wrong. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what this is. At best, isn't it bad caps? Or is it a proper noun? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC) - They also all fail CFI. Tatar is written in Cyrillic, and no other script. -- Prince Kassad 14:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- w:Tatar language disagrees (I assume you know this already). However I tried some Romanized Tatar words in Google Books and found absolutely nothing. According to Atitarev above, Romanization is only used on Internet chat and similar, so many of the words may be unattested. Oh, and we have one Arabic script Tatar word. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
This template isn't in use anymore, I don't think there is a reason to keep it... —CodeCat 18:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC) - See #Template:t2i above. -- Prince Kassad 18:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, I would assume if its parent template is deleted, it would go too. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- But that discussion isn't really going anywhere, and this has a much higher chance of succeeding. —CodeCat 18:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- It might if you commented on it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, irritatingly so, because t2i has passed. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC) I'd rather have these in the inflection line as a {{scn-adj}}. For other languages with four forms, such as more-or-less all of the Romance languages we put these in the inflection line. Note, just realized scn-adj alreadu exists, will now look at it. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC) - {{scn-adj}} now seems sufficient as I've made it more flexible but with the same default values; {{scn-adj-n}}, the n seems to be for 'normal' and {{scn-adj}} already covers it; {{scn-adj-h}} is for variants which use -hi for the plural instead of just -i. That said, none of the three templates, for some reason, doesn't allow the masculine and feminine plurals to be different to each other. Is that because no such adjective exists? Hopefully, but I doubt it. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I saw someone adding some Latin script names to the list, so I was going to rollback to the last good version. There isn't one; all the name are Latin script. Ergo no usable content given, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC) - delete -- Prince Kassad 22:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- keep The content is usable, it just needs transliterating. —CodeCat 23:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Which is impossible, as the spellings given here are Englishized. It would require a complete rewrite, and a deletion is easier for doing that. -- Prince Kassad 08:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, hypothetically if I wanted to rewrite an English appendix on the Persian Wiktionary which was written entirely in Persian, I'd sooner blank the content and start from scratch than transliterate a few hundred (maybe a thousand?) given names. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- We would need to know if this list would be any use to someone (bless him) planning to add Persian names. The original initial letters are listed at least. Most transliterations of Persian names would probably meet the CFI. Appendix:Armenian given names and Appendix:Greek given names are also in wrong script. The two Persian ones are almost duplicates so one of them should certainly be deleted.--Makaokalani 16:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Like I've said above, for the Greek appendix I'd either move that to Appendix:Romanizations of Greek given names or just delete it to make way for an actual appendix. Since we have Category:Greek given names such an appendix could be created, and unlike Persian I could probably do it. And if I do (at some point) I'd sooner blank the whole page and start again than convert the Latin words to Greek ones. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's what I've now done for Greek given names, hopefully, demonstrating the point I've made above. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Same as #Template:ladecl1&2 above. Add the appendix wikilink to {{la-decl-3rd}} instead. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC) - Actually it's already part of {{la-noun}}. Silly me. --Mglovesfun (talk) 06:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Slovak templates Templates that create wikilinks to appendices. Until now they weren't redundant to anything, I've now added a decl parameter to {{sk-noun}}. Further issues, they're horribly ambiguous - what would you think if you saw {{ulica}} on a page? Slovak entries, many of them created in 2004 by Red Prince (talk • contribs) are really messy. Probably not considered so at the time, but essentially a thousand or more entries need rewriting so there's no need to instantly orphan these if they fail, but rather replace them with {{sk-noun}} and {{sk-decl-noun}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC) - I am about to support deletion, but I want to confirm that I have understood the reason for deletion. It seems that you are saying this: "The templates should be deleted, because they are now redundant to template:sk-noun; what they do can now be achieved with template:sk-noun". Is that right? The entry "kalamár" now uses {{stroj}}; can you replace the template in "kalamár" entry, so I can see in the revision history of "kalamár" what sort of formatting update you are proposing? --Dan Polansky 09:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well not everything can (or even should) go in sk-noun, there should be more use of {{sk-decl-noun}} and I don't know who will do that. Perhaps just by using {{rfinfl|lang=sk}}. Oh and see kalamár. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete all; thank you for the example in "kalamár" (diff). Note that "Template:sk-decl-chlap" is just a renamed "Template:chlap" and that "Template:sk-dub" is just a renamed "template:dub", so each of the templates nominated for deletion was only intended by their creator to link to a declension appendix rather than showing a declension table, a function that is now indeed fulfilled by the headword-line template {{sk-noun}}. Cool! --Dan Polansky 11:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- All have failed, it will take a bit of time to delete them all. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Note to self, finish off the last three. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
This Wikisaurus template makes use of a needlessly complicated technique of "/def" subpages, so I ask for its deletion. Via this request, I also ask that the "/def" subpages get deleted. The subpages are the following: Wikisaurus:tiny/def, Wikisaurus:ephemeral/def, Wikisaurus:speedy/def, Wikisaurus:quickly/def, Wikisaurus:scrawny/def, Wikisaurus:obese/def, Wikisaurus:impoverished/def, Wikisaurus:gigantic/def, Wikisaurus:wealthy/def, Wikisaurus:enrage/def, Wikisaurus:fatigued/def. The def pages are used only by this template. The talk page of the template (Template talk:ws refer) lists all the slash-def subpages and the source code of the template, so anyone can restore the idea if, in future, the editors of Wikisaurus arrive at the conclusion that the complexity introduced by the template is worth it. Here is how the template's use looks like: Here is the alternative currently used in most pages that link to Wikisaurus: Here is another alternative sometimes used, listing some synonyms before the link to Wikisaurus: --Dan Polansky 12:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC) - I agree, it's redundant to just writing it out, since doing so isn't very difficult. I've always just typed it out and this template certainly isn't simpler than typing it out; in fact it looks a lot more complicated, including linking to pages that only exist to stop this template malfunctioning. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, overuse of templates to replace simple functions. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. —RuakhTALK 18:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a Wikisaurus entry for a star. Having Wikisaurus entries for individual stars seems a bad thing. Its synonyms such as "Alpha Tauri", "α Tauri", and "87 Tauri" are all redlinks, and are going to remain so for some time, unless the community decides that star names of the form "Alpha Tauri" should be included. The synonyms can be entered in the mainspace if really desired, of which I am not convinced. I propose to delete the entry now and recreate it later if the decision is made to include a significant number of entries for stars in Wikisaurus; the entry should go lest it becomes an example for creation for further such entries. --Dan Polansky 19:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC) - Notably, existing entries for names of stars that include Greek letters include Zeta Geminorum, Beta Lyrae, Epsilon Pegasi and Alpha Centauri A. Most names of stars with that particular characteristic are not defined on Wiktionary. My last example is from 2009; the others are from 2010. Reasons to keep such entries may include displaying their characteristics, such as the fact that Gamma Arietis is actually three stars. --Daniel. 03:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- The only problem I can see is it's rather narrow as a thesaurus topic. But it seems to me the links would meet CFI, I don't see them as sum of parts or not dictionary material. And to nit-pick a little, you don't need a community consensus to create an entry, if so we'd being doing well if we created even one entry a day. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Non-sum-of-partness in proper names has not been taken to be a condition sufficient for inclusion, or else you would want to have "Albert Einstein". --Dan Polansky 10:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- One very common argument pro-deletion of names like "Albert Einstein" is calling them sum-of-parts of a given name and a surname. In this case: "Albert" + "Einstein". --Daniel. 10:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- IMO I've already covered this (Dan P's argument) above. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- All that I am saying is that, unless we want to include all names of artistic works including novels in Wiktionary, we cannot allow attestation combined with semantic non-sum-of-partness as a sufficient criterion for inclusion. I do not see that you have covered this in anyway, or how you have dealth with the exclusion of "Albert Einstein" that I have pointed out, an exclusion that follows from a recent vote. The names of the form "Alpha Centauri" show a similar combinatorial freedom as "Albert Einstein". --Dan Polansky 11:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- The terms "Albert Einstein", "Albert" and "Einstein" are synonymous in the context of referring to one person (or more people), and all of them can be used alone while making sense, so it's easier to claim that the first is a sum of parts. The terms "Alpha" and "Centauri" are not exactly synonymous with "Alpha Centauri" and cannot be used alone while making sense, so it's easier to claim that the last isn't a sum of parts. --Daniel. 11:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think this is the route to go down to get this entry deleted. It feels like assuming the invalidity of the aforementioned entries before they are even created, which is more or less the opposite of how we actually do it, that is, an entry is valid until it fails RFD or RFV. Anyway, the question for me is what limits are there on Wikisaurus entries? It's certainly best suited to topics usually covered by thesauri like "happy", "sad" etc. --Mglovesfun (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- The redlinks are only one reason for this RFD. If "Alpha Tauri", "α Tauri", and "87 Tauri" are seen as significant synonyms that call for a dedicated thesaurus page, Wikisaurus will be flooded with pages for names of stars, in spite of names of stars being a borderline thesaurus (AKA word finder) content. If, for example, "Alpha Tauri" is only included in some holonym page such as Wikisaurus:Taurus (where it already is), the number of Wikisaurus pages devoted to stars becomes reasonably low. Wikisaurus:Taurus is a reasonably small page right now, and can comfortably host various synonyms of the star names as further meronyms. --Dan Polansky 07:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- If someone were to create the red links as full English entries, would you nominate them for RFD? And (ok, very hypothetical now) if they were to pass, would you still want this page deleted? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- If someone created entries for "Alpha Tauri", "α Tauri", and "87 Tauri", I would have one reason less to get Wikisaurus:Aldebaran deleted, but I would try to get Wikisaurus:Aldebaran deleted nontheless. I do not know whether I would nominate the mentioned mainspace entries. --Dan Polansky 07:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete as too narrow a WS topic anyway.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Tagged by DCDuring (talk • contribs). Does this have anything to do with #Category:Importance? TeleComNasSprVen 21:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC) - Delete, most of these should be in prefix categories. For the others, it's not worth keeping this category. -- Prince Kassad 21:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I mentioned this category, in that discussion, shortly before it was tagged. It has characteristics of Category:Importance, Category:Coffee, Category:Water, Category:Female, among many other categories. That is, they apparently exist for the sake of listing which definitions that involve a single concept: As an example, "Category:Coffee" contains frappucino, coffee grinder and coffee shop. --Daniel. 04:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC) - It's a really weird category containing many things. Things that are etymologically related to three, often via Proto-Indo-European, or things involving three 'things'. My instinct is delete as it's no use to anybody. Interesting perhaps, but we do seem to forget that categories are supposed to be useful for our users and just come up with fanciful things to please ourselves. So delete and let's think about Wiktionary users more often. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. The category seems to contain terms whose definition involves three or threeness in some way, as dactyl--"A poetical foot of three syllables (— ~ ~), one long followed by two short, or one accented followed by two unaccented." The terms do not really seem to be included by etymology: the terms that start with "tri-" naturally also semantically contain the number 3 as long as the etymology follows the semantics at least a bit. I find the category actually quite interesting, but I admit its selection criteria are unlike those of most topical categories. For the record, here is the content of the category: 3-D, 3D, dactyl, hattrick, hattrick, lovetriangle, ménageàtrois, samisen, shamisen, teapoy, ter-, terce, ternary, third, thirteen, thirty, three, three-space, threefold, threeish, threeness, threepence, threesome, thrice, thruppence, tierce, TLA, treble, trefoil, trefot, tri-, triad, triangle, triannual, triathlete, triathlon, tribrach, tricolon, tricolor, tricolour, tricorn, tricorne, tricycle, trident, tridentate, triennial, trifecta, trifunctional, trifurcation, trigamy, trigon, trihedron, trilemma, triliteral, trillion, trilogy, trimester, trimetallic, trimeter, trinary, trinity, trio, tripartite, triphthong, triple, triplet, triplex, triplicate, tripod, triptote, triptych, triquetra, trireme, triskelion, tristate, trisulphide, trisyllabic, trisyllable, trit, tritactic, triumvirate, trivalent, troika. The category was created on 8 September 2009 by PalkiaX50. Category:One, Category:Two, Category:Four and Category:Five, which are similar categories, were all created by Facts707 on 13 February 2010; each of them contains only a few items. --Dan Polansky 13:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
By the way, keep as in line with Category:Coffee (these two are categories involving the concept described in the title). --Daniel. 18:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC) - Keep, the category is useful, I don't get where Mglovesfun is coming from at all. A friend of mine wanted to know a word for "to reduce to one third the original amount". I sent him a link to this category and hopefully what his looking for is in there. Bbx 10:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think this is potentially useful. I agree it is a weird mish-mash of etymological and semantic threes! Equinox ◑ 10:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Kept for no consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC) - Template:alternative capitalization bot
- Template:alternative spelling bot
Is there no longer any need for any of these templates to continue to exist? It's the same format for entries containing as definitions {{alternative <something> of}} when substituted. TeleComNasSprVen 10:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC) - I've seen Visviva use them. That's it. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- The choice of name is a complete mystery to me, however. Something like {{new en alternative form}} would be ok, IMO. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Unused, needs a total overhaul. But on reflection, why not use {{archaic}} {{past of|foo}}. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC) - Replacing it with that might make the 'archaic' category almost useless if there are many verbs with an archaic past form. —CodeCat 20:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Useless for having too many entries in it, you mean? Well maybe, do we also want {{archaic plural of}}, {{archaic present participle of}} et al.? Note, this is unused but there most be some out there; mist for missed, past for passed, for example. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- We could also add an extra parameter archaic=1 to those templates. —CodeCat 12:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do we really want to increase dependence on a small number of templates? We could use less-transcluded templates for experimenting with changes. For user-response testing, it might even be appropriate to have multiple versions of the most widely transcluded templates covering, say, 1%, 5%, 20%, 74% of the total uses of the original template. DCDuring TALK 16:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
This doesn't really seem like it could be a context... --Yair rand 13:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC) - It's not actually a context template. IMO check uses. It's used as a context template; most of those can doubtless be orphaned, probably all; if any can't then I suppose keep. If there's other use, perhaps keep depending on what that use is. Otherwise delete.—msh210℠ on a public computer 14:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think it predates {{context}} which is why it isn't formatted as a context label. I suspect it should be replaced with {{qualifier|proper noun}} or just removed in some cases. I will however, look into it before saying delete. A lot of the transclusions seem to be not in the main namespace. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, I've removed the obvious misuses, including one typo ({{proper noun}} instead of {{en-proper noun}}). For entries like PDF I separate the entry by part of speech, as opposed to 'Initialism' with the part of speech being given in a context label. The two remaining entries in the main namespace are curl and terra. For terra, it claims that it's a capitalized proper noun Terra so I should move it there, I just think it might not be capitalized in the given sense. For curl, it's a bit beyond me. Again, if the label is to be believed, there is a proper noun 'curl'. Though, I don't think it is. The transclusions in the appendix namespace are all {{context|proper noun}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Template:inanim
Unused and poorly formatted; I don't think it will even be used in the future. TeleComNasSprVen 15:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC) - It could be used for languages that use animate vs. inanimate, as opposed to masculine/feminine/neuter/common. Even though it is not used now, it may get used in the future. -- Prince Kassad 15:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- The 'poor formatting' is the same used for {{m}}, {{f}}, {{n}}, {{c}} et al. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Pointless. Most definitions I've seen on Wiktionary are "stubs" anyway. We have {{rfdef}} or {{rfc}} to cover such situations. TeleComNasSprVen 00:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC) - I'm pretty sure this isn't actually supposed to be used in entries. It can be useful in appendices, help pages, and project pages. --Yair rand 01:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's used by the preload templates like {{new en noun}}. For this reason, it can be handy for finding newbie mistakes, even if it's not intended that way. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
keep useful for Appendices. -- Liliana • 19:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC) - keep per Liliana-60. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Is there anything special about these verbs that they need a separate category, or are they just verbs that happen to be colloquial? —CodeCat 22:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC) - (Why do people insist on nominating shit for deletion before asking these questions?) There are a pretty considerable number of verbs in Persian that are simply pronounced differently than they are written. The changes seem to be pretty regular, and this category is rather useful for finding them, especially if you don't feel like searching Category:Persian colloquialisms for words that end in -dan and -tan. Keep. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 13:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- You can use CatScan to search for verbs that are both in Category:Persian verbs and Category:Persian colloquialisms. -- Prince Kassad 14:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- I've never heard of it and you're expecting an average user to be using it? Right. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 16:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-
- That is a defect that could be easily resolved. -- Prince Kassad 23:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Regarding CodeCat's initial question, I think Dick, your answer seems to be 'no, there is nothing special about these verbs'. If that isn't your answer, please clarify. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- No, this category would be quite useful for new and intermediate learners of Persian. The number of verbs with colloquial forms, which can differ quite radically from the literary forms, is not insignificant. The situation isn't the same as in English, or French, or Russian, or really any other language I can think of. I'm going to copypaste Dijan's message from his talk page here. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 14:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
:Persian has numerous verbs which happen to be pronounced differently in the spoken and the informal language. The category presently doesn't have many verbs in it, because the editors (myself included) have mostly worked on the literary language so far. But, the number of such verbs is extensive. They are quite important to all learners of the language. Why would they not deserve their own category? -- Dijan 21:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC) - The bolding is my own, now his :D — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 14:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- Keep the category, or list the verbs in an appendix. - -sche (discuss) 16:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC) First off, "gay" is a pejorative and a bit inaccurate a term, that could be better replaced by the word "homosexual". Secondly, what new information or improvement could this category possibly add that isn't already covered by Category:English slang or Category:Slang by language? Also might want to consider Category:Fandom slang by language and Category:Medical slang by language. TeleComNasSprVen 18:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC) ¶ Comment: the discussion about the Template:gay slang has not yet been resolved. If that is worth mentioning here. --Pilcrow 18:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC) - And Category:Military slang by language, and I don't think gay is in itself pejorative, just it can be used pejoratively. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- On what planet is "gay" a pejorative? To five year-old school boys, perhaps... As for "homosexual" it is distinctly old-fashioned and totally uninclusive. I would have opted for "queer" but I think we already cover this category at Category:LGBT. ---> Tooironic 00:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- I don't think we really cover this at Category:LGBT, in that one is a lexical category (containing slang terms used particularly among LGBT folk) and one is a topical category (containing terms relating to LGBT). There's a lot of overlap, of course — in many languages, most LGBT slang is going to be LGBT-related, since that is what queerfolk will have most needed to coin slang for — but I think it's worth keeping both categories. —RuakhTALK 01:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Speaking as a gay man, I am offended at the notion that "gay" is pejorative! (That's just me, of course. I'm certain that there exist gays who feel differently; but for what it's worth, my impression is that my view is typical.) Personally, I find "homosexual" O.K. in many contexts, but only in reference to homosexuality proper, not to cultural accessories: in 2011, I find "homosexual slang" awkward at best. However, I have to disagree with Tooironic's preference for "queer": it's an offensive-but-reclaimed term, which means that (for me at least) it only really works in the mouth of someone with perceived in-group status. But "LGBT", as (s)he suggests, seems fine to me. —RuakhTALK 01:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- I too don't think of "gay" as a pejorative word; and I too believe this view is typical. Category:English gay slang is fine (in my opinion). If you guys are going to consider a long and awkward name, then you should note that Category:English homosexual slang is not the most accurate choice. It would be Category:English nonheterosexual slang. --Daniel. 04:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- How is "nonheterosexual" more accurate than "homosexual"? As a substitute for "gay", it seems — if anything — less accurate, since "gay" is arguably narrower than "homosexual" (lesbians are clearly homosexual, but often not considered "gay"), whereas "nonheterosexual" is clearly broader (since it includes also bisexuals and perhaps asexuals). As I noted, "LGBT" — which is broader yet — seems fine to me, but I don't see how we can describe one or another name as more "accurate", since the name itself will determine the content of the categories! —RuakhTALK 23:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I would prefer to call it LGBT slang, because it encompasses the broadest possible sense. Gay slang, even if it refers to men and women, still leaves out transgenders and (probably) bisexuals. —CodeCat 23:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say keep this one, cuz the gay men have... metric tons of slang. Even if this category were made to include slang of lesbians and transexuals and everyone else in the queerworld, it'd probably be dominated by the slang of the gay men. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent —
- Keep but I prefer LGBT slang as well; the fact that it would be 'dominated' by gay slang doesn't seem to be a problem to me. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC) I can't imagine how this template would be used. The title would be confused with the "Wikipedia new" template or {{wikipedia}} and the contents appear to be duplicating {{aus-bun}}. TeleComNasSprVen 06:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC) - Keep if you want this old abandoned project to be continued. The idea, if I remember correctly, was controlling the Wikipedia article linked from each language category by means of (again) a big switch function, like {{wiktionary edition}} does for Wiktionary editions. Then, Category:English language would link to w:English language because it is the default value anyway, while Category:Norwegian Nynorsk language would instead link to w:Nynorsk (not to "Norwegian Nynorsk language"). --Daniel. 08:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I get it, but I'm not sure it's needed. w:Latin language redirects to Latin, so the Wiktionary Category:Latin language doesn't need any modification; it just follows the redirect. Same for w:Norwegian Nynorsk language. Unless there is an example where the redirect doesn't work, why keep it? --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I remember only one example: Category:Gutnish language and w:Gutnish language. --Daniel. 05:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Going back to the original question, how would this be used? --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
This page would ordinarily hold an appendix concerning Greek script, as used by Ancient Greek, Modern Greek, Phrygian, Ancient Macedonian, Bactrian, etc. Right now, it is a redirect to Appendix:Greek alphabet, an appendix dealing with the Modern Greek usage. Having this as a redirect is very misleading, in my opinion. --Yair rand 22:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC) - If you distinguish {{el}} (Greek language) from {{Grek}} (Greek script), I suppose you could make a case that they aren't identical. But I'd keep the redirect until (if?) it's replaced by something else. Seems like an entirely reasonable use of a redirect to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Mglovesfun. I suggest eventually replacing that redirect by a full language-independent appendix, per Yair. --Daniel 23:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps for a hardened Wiktionary veteran, there's a clear difference between Greek script and Greek alphabet, but I don't think most users would view it that way. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, just revert the move from Greek script to Greek alphabet. This page doesn't just detail the Modern Greek alphabet, but the Greek script in total. -- Prince Kassad 11:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC) This template categorizes pages in Category:Alcoholism, and I guess the intention was "alcohol consumption". It is only used on drinking game. Alcohol is an ambiguous name for a topic, since it also has a chemical sense.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 13:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC) - Maybe move it to {{alcoholic drink}}? —CodeCat 13:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Would that be Category:Alcoholic beverages or Category:Cocktails? I would rather suggest a move to {{drinking}} (Category:Drinking).--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 14:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- But drinking could mean drinking in general, not specifically alcoholic. —CodeCat 13:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- What exactly might be categorized under "drinking in generel"? I don't see any real ambiguity, but then again, I didn't see any reason for this template in the first place.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 12:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
This code expands to 'Lenape' which is a macrolanguage, and we already have the codes {{unm}} and {{umu}} for its two sublanguages, and also Category:Unami language, while Category:Lenape language has already been deleted before. —CodeCat 21:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC) - Hm, but there seem to be a lot of terms for which the specific dialect is not known, only the (macro)language, Lenape. I've used the template on a number of entries. I vote keep for now. - -sche (discuss) 21:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be a verbatim copy of wikipedia:en:Escalator#Etymology. The wikitext should be hosted in one place, not several. I.e. the home for the text should be either Wiktionary or Wikipedia, not both. Opinions? --Hydrox 12:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC) - WT:BP#Huge etymologies indicates that the text from Appendix:Etymology/escalator should be in the entry escalator, rather than on a separate page.
- Such a move would, however, introduce a few nonstandard headers, such as "Name development and original intentions". --Daniel 16:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- I see no reason why "wikitext should be hosted in one place, not several". Not all transwikied entries are deleted from the original location. If the information is correct and relevant, keep it wherever it is found. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just keep, in the absence of convincing reasons to do otherwise. I already explained to Hydrox months ago that hosting wikitext in multiple places is not a bad thing, but (s)he created this RFDO anyway, so apparently (s)he just needed some second opinions. --Daniel 10:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Weren't these (appendix subpage pseudoentries) supposed to have been deleted by the creator? DCDuring TALK 00:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC) - I don't know where you got "by the creator" from, but we did vote that this is not to be the standard format for appendices. --Yair rand 01:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I thought that was one of our good-citizenship norms. If not, it should be. I try to clean up any systematic messes of mine. DCDuring TALK 02:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
-
- Or you could merge the subpages of Appendix:Star Trek yourself. --Daniel 08:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- These entries got confused when Daniel Carrero moved them into the appendix namespace; Ruakh move beam up back into the main namespace but didn't move the three inflected forms back, which I have just done now. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oops. Well, thanks for fixing it. :-) —RuakhTALK 00:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
But what about all the other ones? - -- DCDuring TALK 01:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- And other detritus of the fictional universes (incompletely categorized, so a bit hard to find. DCDuring TALK 01:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- The real problem is that some of these will meet CFI! Daniel C moved a lot of terms originating in fictional universes without checking that they might meet CFI, which is a bit dubious, and I'd have thought contrary to his interests anyway. For example transporter is used in more than one franchise, isn't it? --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- The way transporter was defined[1], it looked like a term used only in context of Star Trek. Either just removing the "star trek" context label, or moving the whole sense to an appendix, or both, would be good ways to improve the entry. Accuracy is in line with my interests. --Daniel 00:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- DCDuring, knowing what are the unconverted appendices is not so difficult: you could just have asked me. These would be the children of Appendix:Pokémon, Appendix:Star Trek, Appendix:Star Wars, Appendix:Chip's Challenge, Appendix:Harry Potter, Appendix:J. R. R. Tolkien, Appendix:The Simpsons, Appendix:Farscape and Appendix:Brave New World.
- Good examples of already converted appendices are Appendix:Haruhi Suzumiya, Appendix:DC Comics and Appendix:The Legend of Zelda. --Daniel 00:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
This page is outdated and completely contradicts common practice regarding policies. -- Prince Kassad 13:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC) - Keep I'm not an established editor, so this should count as Weak keep but I found this page very useful. As a newcomer from enwiki, I found the rest of the help pages (the tutorial especially and Welcome, newcomers) a bit patronising and more importantly: only about mark-up and some Wikietiquette. This page led me to the WT:Copyright policy (it's tough to gauge how copyright applies to dictionaries-how much can you be inspired by a copyrighted definition). If the page is outdated, it can surely be improved, there's no need to delete it.' I personally found it far more useful than the tutorial and the welcome page put together. Puchiko 22:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Um, we don't want these categorized by country or region, do we? Surely just by language. Are we gonna have Category:English male given names from France as well? I don't doubt we could find hundreds of them, but do we want to? --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC) - See Wiktionary:About given names and surnames#Categories. I don't qualify to categorize these names by original language, and they should be stored somewhere. Also it's reasonable to group together the names of India, because they really could also be called transliterations. It wasn't meant as an encouragement for creating similar categories. It did bother me when an anon created Category:English male given names from Pakistan, obviously incensed that Urdu would be called an Indian language. Since the modern trend is to make category names as long and complicated as possible, here are some suggestions for a better name:
- Category:English male given names from the languages of the Indian subcontinent
- Category:English male given names from the languages of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka
- Category:English male given names that look like they might be transliterations from languages spoken in the former British India where English is one of the official languages.
- Or should names from unkown and rare languages be kept permanently outside subcategories? I'd like to see as few subcategories as possible. I think a subcategory should have at least 10-20 members, so there are no categories for names from Provençal (Eleanor), Basque (Xavier), Akan (Kwame), Tahitian (Tehanu), Hawaiian (Leilani) even though they are borne by Anglophones. Category:English male given names from Yoruba is madness. What about putting all the rare languages in Category:English male given names from unkonwn or rare languages? Or more exacly, from languages that are rare as origins of English names... Alternatively rare languages could be grouped together: "languages of Africa", "languages of Polynesia" etc. --Makaokalani 13:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
This was page was emptied out per this BP dicussion (pages that try to list a lot of info for every language are unmaintainable). --Bequw → τ 19:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC) - It's a bit of a weird concept. First of all, you're only gonna use an inflection-table for a language you know well. Secondly, to find such a template, I'd either guess at a name, such as typing Template:pt-decl into the search bar (pt being Portuguese) or type in Category:Portuguese templates. Trying to remember the name of this page would come a distant third; like Bequw says, it would be very difficult to maintain and it's quite empty now. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I can't really see any use for this. --Yair rand 14:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC) - I quite like the idea, to be populated by {{audio}} when lang is given, see Category:Mandarin entries with audio links. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hypothetically, one could use this, together with a list of common terms or terms that have some kind of pronunciation difficulty, and, say, CatScan, to produce a list of terms that need pronunciations. Obviously there are other ways to achieve a similar result, such as having a bot identify terms that might warrant an rfap. DCDuring TALK 15:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- This isn't a category containing entries with audio pronunciations, it's a category containing entries with audio examples, such as evil laugh and bark. It's a duplicate of Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:listen. --Yair rand 15:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
- I rescind my previous statement. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep. I like that category. --Daniel 04:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC) - Weak keep. — Beobach 21:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Isn't this the same as 'Berber', which already uses the code {{etyl:ber}}? —CodeCat 14:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC) - I can't discern any difference. delete -- Liliana • 14:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- I seem to think I created this because it was used in an entry, not because of any personal desire for the template. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- It looks like [[Tamazight]] had "Tamazight", and you formatted it to use {{etyl:ber-tam}}, which you created at the same time. —RuakhTALK 14:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, as I couldn't find a code for Tamazight, I have no idea if Berber and Tamazight are effectively the same thing. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's not the same thing, although maybe it would be better if we treated them the same. "Berber" is the name of a language family which includes a staggering profusion of languages/dialects. "Tamazight" is just "Berber language" in most Berber languages, but confusingly it's also often used as the official name for the specific dialect spoken in central Morocco (which has its own ISO code, tzm). Personally I think we should lump them all together as "Tamazight" and deal with local differences on the level of definition-line context markers, but this is confused by 1) the fact that some Berber languages have a history of being treated separately, eg Kabyle and Touareg; and 2) the fact that we have never had a discussion about it here and there is no history of consensus. Ƿidsiþ 15:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- See also [2].—msh210℠ (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- As I understand it, 'Berber' is a language family (ISO defines 'ber' as a family), and 'Tamazight' is a macrolanguage that encompasses (almost) all of that family, similar to how 'Gaelic' and 'Goidelic language' are mostly the same. I don't think there is really a distinction between them that is useful for Wiktionary? —CodeCat 16:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- We need to decide what it means exactly. If "Tamazight" is intended to include Kabyle and Touareg, I think that sounds weird and "Berber" would be better. "Tamazight" to me suggests northwestern varieties. Ƿidsiþ 09:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think nobody who seriously studies Berber languages considers Touareg to be part of Tamazight. There definitely is a distinction between these terms. Maybe we need something like this classification list to categorize the Berber languages properly? (especially since there isn't really any agreement on what constitutes a language and what is better classified as a dialect) -- Liliana • 13:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Per the above discussion, delete. - -sche (discuss) 21:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
AFAICT, there is no good reason for this category to exist. There should not be 1822 members in it. There should be none. There must be some template-based miscategorization going on. DCDuring TALK 04:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC) - The discussion is already ongoing above at #Category:Taxonomic names as to what to do. The question to be resolved is: Do we use Category:Taxonomic names for all of these (my own preference too) or Category:mul:Taxonomic names or Category:Translingual taxonomic names, each of which implies that these are possible in other languages. I've determined that most of the problem was in the implementation of {{taxon}}, which categorizes based on an imcluded language parameter and apparently defaults to English. I've made an edit specifying "lang=mul" to at least empty the "en:" category of all but a fraction of the entries, but we still need to decide where we want all of these entries to end up. --EncycloPetey 05:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note: It is also possible that there are some pre-Code obsolete taxonomic names that never existed outside of English. See Quadrumana for a possible instance. --EncycloPetey 05:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- I forgot about the ongoing discussion. Thanks.
- I also prefer Category:Taxonomic names for the main home for these. I'll keep my eye out for the ones like Quadrumana. Even those older terms were Latinate, were they not, and intended to be useful internatonally? Should they not be treated as also Translingual? DCDuring TALK 06:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- We have used "Translingual" to mean that a term is used identically across a wide range of (often unrelated) languages; see for example the citations I added to sensu stricto. So, I would call a word "Translingual" unless it actually can be shown as used in multiple languages. Intention of use isn't really documentable in a case like Quadrumana, as this name was used pre-Code. Once the international Codes came into acceptance, then it becomes clearer because authors are bickering about satifying international agreement requirements for publication. However, if Quadrumana can be documented to languages like Swedish and Russian, then I think calling it "Translingual" makes sense. --EncycloPetey 17:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
This one could probably contain Superman, etc., but apparently the current practice is having only Category:en:Fictional characters for all fictional characters... --Daniel 08:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC) - So, you're proposing we delete the English category, but keep the ones in all the other languages? Or what? --EncycloPetey 08:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm proposing the deletion of that category. Many times I said something along the lines of "don't forget to delete the other language versions as well!", but now I just didn't want to do that, for the additional deletions could (or could not) be obvious. No, I propose deleting them all, including Category:hu:Superheroes and Category:fi:Superheroes. --Daniel 08:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how this can achieve anything. A list of the most common 2000 words in contemporary poetry (quite how that's been compiled, I don't know). Since we have all 2000 words, what does this page achieve, and for who? --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC) - When is "contemporary"? Can we even tell when this category falls out of date? Equinox ◑ 19:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
This is useful for cryptanalysis, as sample texts are often taken from poetry. (anonymous) - Perhaps, but cryptanalysis is out of our scope. I don't object to someone putting it on their blog or something. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Does not some degree of frequency data fall under our purview? I would worry most about the fact that there's no evidence on how it's been compiled.--Prosfilaes 23:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't oppose Wiktionary:Frequency lists, quite the opposite, I've used them myself, I oppose this particular list for the reasons stated above (both by me and by other users). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep it. Certainly I would be happier with some information on where this list came from. However, I have made use of it, and others may do so. There are significant differences between how English is used in verse from how it is used in prose, and an indication of frequencies in the former has been useful to me in a project I am working on. It would be better still if I knew a little more about how the 511,000 words of contemporary poetry used were collected, but limited knowledge in that area does not by any means make the list unusable. The nomination says "I don't see how this can achieve anything", and "what does this page achieve, and for who?" However, apart from the fact that it has achieved something for me, even if it didn't, would there be any harm in keeping it here? The number of people for whom it achieves something may be very small, or it may not, but it is not zero. Anyway, even if it were zero there would be no harm in keeping it. What advantage would be achieved by deleting it? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
It might have been a courtesy to have informed the author of the page of this discussion. I have now done so. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC) - Keep - and I will only support deletion if it turns out to be a copyvio (which I suspect it may be). --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. I am voting keep on my own article. The nominator asked, "Since we have all 2000 words, what does this page achieve, and for who?" This is based on the false supposition that the only purpose for these frequency lists is to see what words Wiktionary doesn't already have. People use word frequency lists for a wide variety of purposes. Teaching poets and writers to spell the most common words makes this a useful pedagogical tool (see also Wiktionary:Frequency lists/Contemporary fiction. This is the purpose I had in mind. As to how this was compiled, I went around the Internet -- sites like FictionPress.com and other places where poems were hosted. Two of the biggest contributors were 4degreez.com/4thkingdom.com and a high school creative writing class website that I can now no longer find. Once I reached over 500,000 words, I used Mike Scott's WordSmith software, including a lemma list, and produced this list. Jeremy Jigglypuff Jones (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
-
- "People use word frequency lists for a wide variety of purposes" yeah but that's not a reason for Wiktionary to have it. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Not needed; just use {{context|of a person}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC) - Apparently created to get it off of Special:WantedTemplates. Not a good enough reason IMO, delete. No opinion —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 18:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC) 19:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- If that's true, it should never have been made. The way {{context}} works, it will always put stuff on that list. Delete in favor of using {{of a|person}}.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- The main reason to create any {{context}} template is to categorize, as in terms of displaying text, context does this well already. Any context template that doesn't categorize simply saves eight keystrokes - {{of a person}} instead of {{context|of a person}}. But deleting them probably doesn't achieve much, if anything. For example would we get rid of {{figuratively}} or {{transitive}}. Similarly, {{of a|person}} achieves the same thing; it saves a few keystrokes with no other advantages, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. I think "Of a person," should be a part of the definition rather than being marked as a context. --Dan Polansky 09:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
These categories contain one or two subcategories: declension templates and conjugation templates. Categories like Category:Japanese conjugation-table templates or Category:Japanese declension-table templates are also subcategories of Category:Japanese templates and Category:Japanese inflection-table templates. So, we have something like this: - Category:Xxx templates
- Category:Xxx conjugation-table templates
- Category:Xxx declension-table templates
- Category:Xxx inflection-table templates
- Category:Xxx conjugation-table templates
- Category:Xxx declension-table templates
I think "conjugation-table templates" and "declension-table templates" categories could be inside "Category:Xxx templates", so categories like "Category:Xxx inflection-table templates" are redundant. Maro 19:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC) - Some inflection-table categories have direct members. --Yair rand 20:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Some languages also have individual categories for different kinds of declension template. For example Category:Greek adjective declension-table templates. —CodeCat 11:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
redundant to Category:Kongo language -- Liliana • 15:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC) - Apparently Kongo is the macro-language and Koongo is a 'sublanguage'. We generally decide these on a case-by-case basis. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Speedily deleted by Liliana-60. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Woefully underpopulated. Was this intended for trans-lingual entries only, with or without subcategories for specific languages (don't cry over spilt milk), or as a catch-all like Category:Wiktionary pages that don't exist? Should it be deleted, or populated? — Beobach 21:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC) - No. It is a category for entries with redirects. Keep it. --Daniel 21:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Your ideas could become subcategories of it, though. --Daniel 21:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- What is the purpose of this category? You can always use Special:Listredirects. delete -- Liliana • 01:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- How would you populate it, anyway? What purpose does it serve? Delete, I think. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
This was in Special:UncategorizedCategories because we don't have a language code for Proto-Korean. Wikipedia says ""Proto-Korean" is not a well-defined term". Should we delete this category and change the one entry (물) to refer to Old Korean and/or not categorise, or make a proto: code for PK? — Beobach 21:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC) - That entry should have most of its Etymology section stripped entirely, since it is based on the ill-fated Altaic hypothesis. That would make this category empty. -- Liliana • 01:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Isn't this exactly what we cover with {{ar}}? Shouldn't these two be merged? -- Liliana • 03:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC) - I think we use {{ar}} to mean {{arb}}, yes. I'm not certain. To rephrase it, how should {{ar}} and {{arb}} be used if they are kept as separate templates. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Arabic is a macrolanguage so it would refer to any Arabic variety, including standard Arabic. On the other hand we also have {{etyl:sem-arb}} for the Arabic language family. —CodeCat 12:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's really a bit like having Mandarin, Chinese and Sinitic then, just even less clear! In which case we could use the same approach, ban {{ar}} using only {{arb}} for Arabic and sem-arb for the language family. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I can see how this would be used, namely in etymology sections of Arabic dialects. But surely "From Standard {{etyl|ar}}" should be sufficient for these? -- Liliana • 20:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC) - Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per Liliana. - -sche (discuss) 08:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Can one of our Japanese editors tell me what this is good for? I fail to see the point in it. -- Liliana • 18:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC) - The only potential utility I see is the link through to the term makurakotoba, but this is not very useful. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 05:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
-
- Oh, it gets even better -- the IP user who created {{makurakotoba}} never even added the makurakotoba entry, but only linked through to w:Makurakotoba. Wow. Not very ... together. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 06:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Is it a context of sorts, or the sort of thing that should be in the definition itself? --Mglovesfun (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not terribly familiar with the term, but judging from the WP article, it's a sort of set phrase used as a lead-in for a specific something else, which can sometimes be used as a stand-in for that something. I can sort of see why someone thought it might be useful to have such a category, but I have no idea how many such terms there might be. Shogakukan's J-J dictionary goes into ancient poetic forms, making me think this isn't too common in the modern language (which might also help explain how I've missed hearing about these before now). -- HTH, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps analogous to {{simile}}? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe a bit. Reading around on the term, it sounds more like cases where you've got a set intro, like, "there once was a man from Nantucket", that comes to represent the bit coming after -- in this case, just saying "a man from Nantucket" calls to mind ribald jokes, and I think this might be more the kind of association meant by makurakotoba. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Not a context. Neither do I think we should include stock symbols, but oh well. -- Liliana • 22:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC) - Delete, correct. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- That is, if something is a stock symbol, it should be in the definition itself a bit like this. --Mglovesfun (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Since we do not have names of museums in Wiktionary (or at least we aren't supposed to), what is this good for? -- Liliana • 02:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC) encyclopedic -- Liliana • 02:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC) - Indifferent to keep, not really worse that [[Category:London]]. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Even if it's kept, it is still bad caps... -- Liliana • 18:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
D —Michael Z. 2013-02-21 22:20 z This old page is orphaned. It only contains links to sister projects, which we have right on the Main Page already, and a list of templates, a bunch of which have already been deleted on RFDO as well as others which will be soon. I don't see any value in keeping it. -- Liliana • 06:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC) - Delete, I'll add to that that a lot of the templates on there which haven't been deleted are unused, and quite possibly have never been used. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Remember to fix "what links here" things first. SemperBlotto 11:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
IMO delete: the benefits of such a category are AFAICT three: - the category can be browsed;
- the page can, at a glance, be seen to be closed (check the bottom line); and
- tools like CatScan (CategoryIntersect) can be used to search among pages in the category.
The first two reasons do not exist in this case, as (respectively) - [[Wiktionary:Votes/Timeline]] is better than a category for that purpose and
- we have a "decision" section at the bottom which is almost always very clear.
The third benefit of this category is not enough IMO to keep it. Others may differ. If we do keep it, it should be completely populated, or it's worth less.—msh210℠ (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Bad caps. Should we keep the terms in some subcategory like this, though, or just keep them in Category:en:Medicine? - -sche (discuss) 07:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC) -
- Can we fix the name?Acdcrocks 11:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed, debate continues. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
How is that a useful topical category? Except for a few misguided German entries, it only contains Wales. -- Liliana • 16:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC) - And Wales is a country, or is there another Wales? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- It used to be a principality w:Principality of Wales, and it still has a prince (w:Charles Windsor) - but I'm a republican —Saltmarshtalk-συζήτηση 13:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- In the UK, the term "The Principality" (used in newspapers, radio and TV news) means Wales (just as "The Province" means Northern Ireland). But, yes, the category can be deleted. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Failed. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC) From what I can tell, this is redundant to Category:Konkani language. -- Liliana • 21:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC) - Accoding to Wikipedia, Konkani is a macrolanguage with Maharashtrian Konkani (ISO code knn, which we called Konkan Standard, above) and Goan Konkani (gom) as dialects. Others divide the language into three dialects, Northern (Maharashtrian), Central (Goan) and Southern. I'm not sure we want to make the distinction, though. - -sche (discuss) 21:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Speedily deleted by Liliana-60. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Delete this category. Eventually, all Czech entries are going to have links to audio files, so this is at best a maintenance category. The list of Czech entries that have an audio section can be extracted from a dump; this is also true of the list of Czech entries that use the template "audio". --Dan Polansky 09:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC) - Keep. From experience I can say that in the past I tried to search for entries with audio (because it would help me learn to pronounce fluently and remember the words), but failed. I can't imagine that I would be the only one. Such a category would have helped me much. So: When will all have audio? What about in the meantime? --JorisvS 10:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Are you saying that you have searched for Czech entries with pronunciation and failed? Many common words already have pronunciation, imported from The Shtooka Project project, so randomly browsing common Czech words should get you a lot of words with pronunciation. See also Commons:Category:Czech pronunciation, which has 3,067 member files. --Dan Polansky 11:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not so much Czech in particular, but in general. I am getting at this from a more general perspective. Nonetheless, I would appreciate an answer to the questions I've asked. As for Commons, strangely these files do not say they're being used here on Wiktionary even though they are(!). --JorisvS 10:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your questions: Q: When will all [entries] have audio? A: I don't know. Ten years from now, there will probably still be many entries without an audiofile. Q: What about in the meantime? A: In the meantime: If a language has a significant number of audiofiles in Wiktionary, merely randomly browsing common words of the language gets you a lot of entries with audiofiles. If a language has a very small number of audiofiles in Wiktionary, the small set cannot be effectively used for language learning anyway, but even if you want to have a look at that set, you can look up the set of all audiofiles in Commons. On another note, in order to make it easier to find the Commons category from Wiktionary, {{langcatboiler}} used in language category pages such as Category:Czech language could be extended to link to the category for audiofiles in Commons. --Dan Polansky 08:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deleted by User:CodeCat without any kind of discussion. I restored it and sent it hither. -- Liliana • 08:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC) - I see it was deleted because it is hypothetical. We should also remove the hypothetical Category:Southwest Pama-Nyungan languages, in that case, and Category:Yok-Utian languages, and the Template:etyl:Penutian I created. (Also, what about the non-linguistic family Category:Papuan languages?) An alternative to deletion might be to indicate that the categories are hypothetical (Category:Papuan languages already indicates it is geographic). - -sche (discuss) 19:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Papuan is on RFD right now. Look above you... -- Liliana • 19:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Good, delete it (Category:Papuan languages), and delete the hypothetical families (only) after putting their contents into any narrower but real families like Category:Yura languages. - -sche (discuss) 19:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've replaced and deleted Template:etyl:Penutian. - -sche (discuss)
(diff | hist) . . m Wiktionary:Languages needing improvement; 15:00 . . (+76) . . CodeCat (Talk | contribs | block) (Undo revision 14109988 by Liliana-60 (talk) - entry count is not the only thing that determines quality, almost all the nouns are lacking inflection) [rollback] In this case, the page is redundant to Category:All languages. Wiktionary is still in development, and all languages need improvement in one way or another, there isn't really a language you could consider complete at this stage, and a list like this does not add a lot of value. Heck, most German nouns lack inflection, so by that argument, you could add Category:German language to the list! As well, if someone speaks a language, he's gonna find out what needs improvement by himself, if not, this list won't help him. -- Liliana • 15:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC) - Oh... looking at the title, I thought it meant that the language itself needs improvement. Y'know, like English, and spelling reform. (Kidding.) Anyway, yeah, delete unless someone presents a good argument for keeping or revamps the page so it lists what's most needed/wanted in each language (though even that should probably be on the "About language" pages, so maybe delete anyway).—msh210℠ (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I can't imagine this page will ever be terribly useful. On the other hand, while all languages may need clean up, some will need it more than others. In the same way that if an entry is tagged with {{rfc}} or {{rfc-sense}}, it doesn't imply that other terms/definitions not tagged don't need clean up, they just may need it less. So to be honest I just don't care. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- Please don't rush into deleting. This is a first attempt and the page is far from perfect. There is some interest in this and this could be made much more useful - especially in terms of showing the number of entries. What is important is to raise awareness about some languages being neglected or wanting skills. --Anatoli 00:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
The template was created after discussion at [[Wiktionary talk:Todo/Anomalous section0 content#ja]]. It's used on only two entries currently: - [[ја]], which is in Cyrillic script, uses the template to note "Note: This is written in Cyrillic script. See ja for the Latin-script of the word".
- [[Io]], which is capital-I lowercase-o, uses the template to note "Note: This is uppercase i, not lowercase L.".
IMO this is what {{also}} is for: These transclusions should use {{also}} instead, and this template should be gotten rid of. (Arguably, the site-wide use of a template such as this should be discussed at the BP rather than here, but the template author, Bequw, has indicated that RFDO is okay with him.)—msh210℠ (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC) - Though creator, I'm ambivalent towards its existence. The real question is what to do with the pre-existing messages which this template merely regularized (and if similar messages would be useful as well). --Bequw → τ 17:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's not redundant as {{also}} doesn't allow any 'comments', it's a question of whether we should have any messages at all in these entries, I too am pretty ambivalent about it. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
We are not an encyclopedia of botanists, as much as we don't have names of linguists or anyone else. I already deleted those that fail Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-12/Names of individuals. -- Liliana • 13:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC) - Delete, sort of. I think this should be the other way around; delete the individual senses of the 100+ words in this category that refer to individuals, then delete this as an empty category. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wikispecies has this very well covered- why duplicate? Chuck Entz (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is a reference explaining the use of words; binomial author abbreviations in this sense are words, so we are explaining something etymological here. That said, perhaps these should be in an appendix. bd2412 T 00:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, as they are conventional words (and their use is not obvious at all e.g. I was not aware until recently that Linnaeus is never used in botany, only L. is used). They are worth an entry as much as surnames. They are not entries dedicated to botanical authors, but entries dedicated to abbreviations used for botanical authors. The contents is not encyclopedic at all. Lmaltier (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Only used once; should be redundant to {{timeline}} which is still nominated for deletion, but has neither passed nor failed because of lack of input (since 2010). Same reasons; this template adds nothing that cannot be done just as well if not better outside of the template. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC) - {{timeline}} has since passed RFD. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- If we keep {{timeline}} there shouldn't be a reason to delete this. -- Liliana • 22:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Can't we make {{timeline}} more flexible instead? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems a bit too specific to me -- Liliana • 18:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC) - True, but a lot of our categories are very specific. There's no real rationale on what to include, so I find it a bit pointless to make a decisive comment on this one. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
-
- Keep, there are a lot of waters, in fact I just added a bunch, interesting category if you ask me.Lucifer 03:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC) [edit] All 3-letter language templates that have a 2-letter equivalent We have many languages that have 2-letter language codes, but we also have separate 3-letter codes for them. Templates such as {{eng}}, {{fra}} and so on redirect to the corresponding 2-letter templates, {{en}} and {{fr}}. The idea is that someone can use either of them, but in practice this does not work at all. Many templates, most prominently context templates, break when the 3-letter codes are used. Ideally they shouldn't really be used at all. So going with what I said above I'd like to propose either deleting these templates or replacing them with a notice indicating that only the equivalent 2-letter code can be used. —CodeCat 13:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC) - They also cause problems with {{Xyzy}} because it cannot find a script for these, I should note. -- Liliana • 13:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. (The issues with {{Xyzy}} and related templates actually can be addressed by creating the /script subpages for these . . . I just don't think we should do that.) —RuakhTALK 22:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- No objection. Deletion seems one option. Keeping them as redirects is another. The redirects work most of the time, but not things like {{t|ita|abitare}}, as it comes up with no such Wiktionary (ita) as the code is {{it}}. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's better if they don't work as codes at all, than if they work sometimes but not all the time. —CodeCat 14:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, let's do this thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Has this been done now? —CodeCat 00:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's in process, but there are a lot of these codes and with no easy way to find them it might take a while. -- Liliana • 00:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've been using Appendix:ISO 639-1 language codes. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
deleted -- Liliana • 18:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC) I think this may at best be categorized as "useless trivia". Even the Japanese entry by kanji categories are more useful than this! -- Liliana • 09:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC) - Is this comparable to category:English seven-letter words (redlink)? If so, keep (and extend to other languages): useful category for word-puzzle solvers and natural categorization scheme for words.—msh210℠ (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Nope, since it doesn't take kana into account, it counts only the kanji in every word. -- Liliana • 13:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Basically useless trivia, though we have a lot of that. Weak delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Category:Japanese character counts currently only has subcategories in the format Category:Japanese terms written with ten Han script characters, that naturally don't count kana; they count only characters of another script ("Han script") mentioned in the category name. If people want a category for counting kana, possible names are the short Category:Japanese four-hiragana terms and the long Category:Japanese terms written with four Hiragana script characters. (I'd be inclined to choose the shorter.) --Daniel 18:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Uhh, aren't there quite a lot of terms spelled with an apostrophe? Think of all the contractions, for one. How is this any more useful than, say, Category:English terms spelled with A? -- Liliana • 21:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC) - Category:English terms spelled with A? Someone should create it! --Daniel 04:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. —Internoob 01:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, neither interesting nor useful in any practical way. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
rfd-failed, straightforwardly. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Is it really so hard to just use ‎ and ‏? They could even be added to the edittools if needed. -- Liliana • 13:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC) - I, for one, sometimes need to use these characters; now that I know of the templates' existence, assuming they're kept, I'll... continue to use the escape sequences directly.—msh210℠ (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, no harm in them really. Would seem reasonable to
subst: them but I see no advantage of using either the template or the HTML code. So keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't have anything against the lists themselves, but this template is coded in what may be the most unintuitive and complicated way possible. It should be split up into subtemplates that do not depend on the name of the entry they're transcluded on (yes, that is how the template is coded currently!). -- Liliana • 13:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Not a sovereign country or anything, no need to keep this. There are millions of islands on the globe and they surely don't need their own categories. -- Liliana • 03:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC) - Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- I wonder, though. Would an isolated land mass be more interesting in terms of what languages have lived on it than a small country like, say, Belize or Switzerland? (I'm using Belize as my example advisedly. It is, if I'm not mistaken, the only anglophone country in Central America. Likewise, Switzerland is, I think, the only country with Romansch. Despite all that, would Easter Island be more interesting?) Likewise, would a category for languages of the Hawaiian Islands (that is, Hawaii and Midway Island) be more interesting than a category for languages of Hawaii or Colorado? I'm not sure. I'm also not sure we should have any of these categories.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think something like Category:Languages of India is both useful and on topic. Well maybe on topic; perhaps Wikipedia should handle this sort of things. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- The thing about islands is that because they're isolated, they tend to have more distinct local languages. —CodeCat 21:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Easter Island is sparsely populated and way off the beaten path no matter which direction you're coming from. Basically you've got Spanish and Rapa Nui, with perhaps a smattering of French and English. Not much to categorize. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Not a sovereign country. Currently the only US state with its own category since Category:Languages of New Mexico failed RFDO. -- Liliana • 08:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC) - Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. —Internoob 19:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- Why should sovereignty matter, if a state or province speaks a different language from the rest of a country? Perhaps in some places where it makes sense to do this. We're not necessarily only concerned with official languages. That said, is Hawaiian a major language there anymore? ~ Robin 09:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hawaii is a special case among the states. It may not be a sovereign country now, but it used to be. The sugar plantations used to ship in workers from all over the world, there was a huge influx of Southeast Asian immigrants after the war in Vietnam, and it serves as a gateway for the South Pacific and half of Asia into the United States. Languages with significant populations that I can think of just off the top of my head include Chinese, Hawaiian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Samoan, Tagalog, Tongan, and Vietnamese. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Texas was also once sovereign. Anyway, I don't see it as problematic to move everything in this category to Category:Languages of the United States of America: most of the languages you mention are also spoken by large mainland communities. - -sche (discuss) 06:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, note User talk:Ishwar#Cat:Languages_of_New_Mexico, which says there was consensus for Hawaii. - -sche (discuss) 06:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Going by the reasoning that it's undesirable to have two different codes for the same language, I'd like to propose deleting this code. This template was already submitted at WT:RFM#Template:zh but I would prefer it to be deleted outright, so that {{cmn}} is the only template for Mandarin. —CodeCat 02:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC) - Delete, same reasons. Having two parallel category trees for Mandarin can only cause confusion and genuine difficulty in finding things. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- I support deletion. However, there are many translation entries that are still using this code e.g encyclopedia. Is there any way to use a bot to clean this up? Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 02:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's a really easy replacement to do by bot, but I don't think we need to; both cmn and zh need to point to the zh Wikipedia and Wiktionary, as they exists while cmn.wikipedia.org does not. That does mean I think that {{zh/script}} needs to be kept, probably as a redirect to {{cmn/script}}. It would be possible to bypass that, but it's not worth adding all that extra code to {{t}}; better just to keep the redirect. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- If we have a zh Wikipedia and Wiktionary, wouldn't it make more sense to delete {{cmn}} and standardize on {{zh}}? Seems confusing to use zh everywhere else but cmn here. It would also seem more consistent with deleting All 3-letter language templates that have a 2-letter equivalent. ~ Robin 09:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Irritatingly good point. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- While that's true, the code 'zh' officially stands for 'Chinese' which is a macrolanguage, while 'cmn' stands for 'Mandarin'. So they are not really equivalent. —CodeCat 12:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- zh is a convenient code but I think that it will eventually disappear from the project, to be replaced by proper ISO language codes : pronunciation, usage notes, definitions, etc. may differ between languages. This process will take much time. Lmaltier (talk) 20:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- And are you sure that all current zh entries are about Mandarin? This should be checked before any action. Lmaltier (talk) 20:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- At least in the translations sections other Chinese languages also use {{t|zh}} at the moment, I guess it's in order to point the transwiki zhwiktionary. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect to {{cmn}}. (If it is kept, it must be renamed: two codes cannot have the same name, it breaks langrev and other things.) - -sche (discuss) 22:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Failed. It still needs to be orphaned though. Can someone with some knowledge of Chinese help with this, maybe with a bot? —CodeCat 22:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC) - I've done some spot-checking. The good news is that the vast majority of transclusions seem to be {{t|zh}} after "Mandarin:" in the translation sections. Another major source is request templates like {{rfe}}, and {{attention|zh}}, which are often under a Mandarin L2 header. When they are under Mandarin, then it's easy bot-work. Changing the parameters should clear the decks for the trickier ones.
- Another- and more problematic- batch is Wikipedia templates. I ran into a fair number of uses of {{pedialite}}, which seems to require that language code to find zh.wikipedia (I tried replacing the zh with cmn, but it didn't know what to do with it). Then there are the cases of {{etyl|zh}}, which are often Mandarin, but not in any way that a bot could tell. The cases where zh is the second parameter should be easily fixable by bot since they should match the L2 header anyway. There are also the "Mandarin terms from" and "terms from Mandarin" categories, but I can fix those by hand- derivcatboiler seems to like cmn just as much as zh for the language code. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 Woah, woah, woah! Simply swapping out {{zh}} for {{cmn}} really doesn't strike me as the best way to go. I strongly suspect that {{zh}} was originally intended as a generic "Chinese" marker, i.e. "some version of Chinese that is not necessarily Mandarin and may in fact be an ancient form of the language". "Mandarin", as I understand it, is specifically the modern Beijing dialect. As such, {{zh}} really should be swapped out for {{zhx}} instead, or ideally some more temporally specific lang code such as {{och}} or {{ltc}}.- Case in point: the etymology for galangal now suggests that the term was borrowed into Sanskrit from Mandarin -- which ultimately sounds like science fiction, as that would require time travel.
- Another: the etymology for zen likewise suggests a borrowing from modern Mandarin into Old or Early Middle Japanese. Moreover, the purported "Mandarin" pinyin doesn't match the pinyin given on the linked 禅那 page ("chánnà" vs. "chánnuó").
- I'm afraid that the bots have made a bit of a hash of at least a few entries. Would it be possible to walk back their work, and / or redo this swap using some more-appropriate lang code? Then again, maybe this is only an issue where {{zh}} was swapped for {{cmn}} in etymologies -- if so, would it be possible to just undo the bot edits if the swap was in an etym section? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- If there are etymologies that say Mandarin when they shouldn't, then they should be changed, it's as simple as that... —CodeCat 13:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. My hope is that it would be relatively easy to generate a list of entries where the bots have changed {{zh}} into {{cmn}} in Etymology sections; otherwise, it's a more complicated issue of trawling through all uses of {{cmn}} and checking if the use is in an etym section... :) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Uber pointless, see #Category:English terms spelled with '. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC) - Delete, as before. —Internoob 19:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
- As phrases are included, it is not very useful (except maybe for maintenance reasons). But, if limited to terms without spaces such as presqu'île, it would be very interesting. Lmaltier (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't fit in the category system. What is this good for? -- Liliana • 18:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC) - Delete furthermore why not delete all the empty categories from Category:Move to Wiktionary. Some of these have been emptying or at least a year, perhaps two or three years in some cases. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- What it's good for is that transwikied pages can be inspected by those who may know the language they contain words in. I don't see any reason to delete it: what's the harm in it. But I only strenuously oppose the deletion if there's some automated or semiautomated process that adds entries to this category. Anyone know whether that's the case?—msh210℠ (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Such a category is only useful if used; pointing users to cleanup categories with no entries in them as at best useless, and at worst counter-productive as it may annoy the users. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - I've been shooting these on sight (I mean, they've been empty for years in some cases). --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
There are many problems with this one. First of all, it is very redundant, since the part of speech header already says "Initialism" for all of these. Secondly it links entries automatically, which is in most cases not appropriate since the written out terms do not meet CFI. In short, this is not needed, and what it does it does badly. -- Liliana • 15:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC) - Yes, I noticed that just now, when Cirt added a sense line at ADS. It does seem redundant. Equinox ◑ 15:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's not needed either. Usually initialisms are defined just by writing the expansion as the definition, there is no need for 'Initialism of' before it. And linking isn't necessary in many cases either. On the other hand, it would be nice if a link existed if the entry it links to exists as well. And we need to account for that in cases where the expanded form is created after the initialism. —CodeCat 15:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- The part of speech isn't "initialism" for each of these. See e.g. [[USSR]], which is as it should be. Also, I believe this template is used in some etymology sections. Strong keep.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Those uses are wrong and should be removed, as this is explicitly not an etymology template. -- Liliana • 20:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep and delete {{initialism}} instead. Per msh210, you can use this when the header is not initialism, such as UTI (a noun). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
When the "Initialism" section is ever needed, anyway? I have the impression that we can always replace it by "Noun", "Verb", etc. headers in English. --Daniel 12:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC) - Ideally yes, I'm strongly in favor this, but sometimes when the initialism is expanded it's a phrase, like for the win. It seems a bit silly to categorize FTW as an English phrase. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- If for the win is an adverb, then FTW could have an adverb section, too.
- Possibly GTFO is a better example because it expands to a full sentence.
- Frankly, maybe "Abbreviation" or "Initialism" is common in dictionaries, but a "Phrase" header (or maybe a "Sentence" header) does not look half bad in there. --Daniel 22:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually yes, you're right. When formatted that way, it seems to work. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
One entry. A geographical classification with AFAIK no easy way to populate it. Also the parent category, Category:Terms derived from Australian Aboriginal languages. — Pingkudimmi 14:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC) - keep as Category:Australian Aboriginal languages passed RFD. -- Liliana • 16:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep for the same reason. Irritating, isn't it? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. A useful category for etymological information that is "incomplete" and may remain so for quite some time. DCDuring TALK 12:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC) I'm not quite sure how this page would be useful. We already have pronunciation keys for individual languages, so this page seems to be used mostly to compare pronunciations in several different languages. I see several problems with this approach as of right now... The list of languages is rather small and seems biased towards European languages (why Finnish but not Arabic, Mandarin or Hindi?), and there are too many languages and too many specific details in each language to fit all of them into one table. The table also doesn't consider the issue of phonemicity. Long vowels are not phonemic in French yet are listed as if they are, while the reverse is done for Dutch. And consider what would happen if Arabic were added: would words containing /a/ be added to that column even when the allophonic range of that phoneme can go anywhere from [ɛ] to [ɑ]? I would consider this 'comparing apples and oranges' at best. —CodeCat 20:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC) - I've always used the page as a one-stop pronunciation lookup, to get an idea of how the symbols are pronounced. Of course, Wikipedia has more extensive converage of all the symbols, and a one-stop-shop is only useful to those who speak several of the listed languages (monolingual people can use monolingual pages). I'm on the fence about (perhaps weakly in favor of) keeping the page. I'm strongly in favor of keeping the shortcut WT:IPA, though, to point to information on the IPA symbols (even if that means making it a soft redirect to WP). - -sche (discuss) 21:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- w:de:Liste der IPA-Zeichen is a pretty nice list of IPA symbols. If someone could translate it and expand it with missing letters, we would have the perfect replacement right there. -- Liliana • 23:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't that redundant to WT:IPA already? —CodeCat 00:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete/merge with Wiktionary:International Phonetic Alphabet. There's clearly a lot of hard work gone into this page, sadly not all of it accurate (it claims that in French on and son don't rhyme, d'oh) but how can we justify including some languages and not others. It looks to me like something that should be on someone's user page, where they can be as POV as they like. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I want to keep the link to this on WT:IPA so that someone searching for IPA has a comparative one-stop shop that has collected a lot of work. I think it should stay on a user page or user sub-directory until it is slightly more universal. Below is a list of 20 languages i use for starting point Swadesh lists.
-
- ar-Arabic, bn-Bengali, de-German, el-Greek, en-English, es-Spanish, fa-Persian, fr-French, he-Hebrew, hi-Hindi, id-Indonesian, ja-Japanese, kr-Korean, nl-Dutch, pt-Portuguese, ru-Russian, tr-Turkish, sw-Swahili, ta-Tamil, zh-Chinese
- I started with the six (6) w:Official languages of the United Nations, ar, en, es, fr, ru, & zh. The mere six (6) de facto official w:Languages of the African Union, ar, en, es, fr, pt, & sw only require adding in the last two. The four (4) official languages of the w:Union of South American Nations, en, es, nl, & pt only require adding nl. To cover the rest of the Americas, the four (4) official languages of the w:Organization of American States, en, es, fr, & pt are all already included. In detail, the w:Central American Integration System official language of es; the w:Caribbean Community official languages of en, es, fr, & nl; and the w:North American Free Trade Agreement official languages of en, es, & fr are all already included. Australia's one 1 official language, en, is already included and also the working language of the w:Pacific Islands Forum. Antarctica is desolate. Eurasia is less integrated. Because of the unwieldy number of 23 w:Languages of the European Union (EU), the over-representation of European languages already and to come, and the fact that the most widely spoken language, en, is already included, the only two (2) added to the list are the most natively spoken language, de, and the only one (1) with a script not yet represented; also the backbone of Christianity; el. The only (1) official language of the w:Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the w:Eurasian Economic Community, and the w:Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia is the already included ru, which is also co-official and mutually intelligible with be-Belarusian in the two-language (2) w:Union State. Because much of the geographical extent of the CIS contains people familiar only with trk-Turkic languages, the largest member of the language family, tr, is added and also the official language of the w:Turkic Council. The one (1) official language of the w:Arab League as well as the w:Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, ar, is already included as well as being the backbone of Islam but the language, he, of the country that disconnects the Arab League geographically, Israel, has a script that's not yet represented and is the backbone of Judaism and of import to Christianity and of interest to Islam; as such a language added is he. The one (1) official language of the budding w:Economic Cooperation Organization, en, is already included but the predominant language, fa, is inter-intelligible with Tajik & Dari and the backbone of Zoroastrianism, Yazdanism, Ahl-e Haqq, Sufism, Babism, & the Bahai Faith; as such a language added is fa. The only one (1) official language of the w:South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), en, is already included but the most widely spoken language, hi, is inter-intelligible with ur-Urdu; the largest member of the predominant language sub-family of the region, Indo-Iranian; besides its script, Devanagari, is not yet represented and the backbone via Sanskrit of Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, & Jainism; as such a language added is hi. The one (1) working language of the w:Association of Southeast Asian Nations, en, is already included, but the largest member, id, of the predominant language family map-Austronesian is inter-intelligible with Malay; as such an included language is id. The last three nations of Asia, China, Japan, and Korea cover the already represented language, zh, the backbone of Taoism & Confucianism as well as scripts not yet represented which are therefore added in ja & kr, which also round out the w:ASEAN Free Trade Area#ASEAN_Plus_Three of China, Japan, & South Korea. Covering linguistic diversity through these w:Supranational unions covers most families, geography, religion, and script through only gives eighteen (18) languages; the other two (2) came from looking at w:Global Internet usage#Internet_users_by_language (en, zh, es, ja, pt, de, ar, fr, ru, ko), which re-justified de, ja, & ko; w:Linguistic demography#Most_spoken_languages (zh, hi, es, en, ar, bn, ru, pt, ja, de), which highlighted the next added language from the SAARC with its not yet represented script, bn; w:List of languages by total number of speakers (zh, en, es, hi, pt, ar, bn, ru, fa, pa; fr, en, ru, pt, ar, es, fa, zh, de, ja; zh, en, es, ru, fr, hi, pt, ar, bn, fa), where each top ten entry was included except pa-Punjabi, which is not national and does not have a distinct script or a great deal of difference from hi/Urdu; w:List of languages by number of native speakers (zh es en hi ar bn pt ru ja pa), as before; w:World language#Living_world_languages (en es fr zh hi ar pt ru de id fa sw ta it nl ja bn), which highlighted the next added language, ta, from the not yet represented dra-Dravidian family and script as well as it-Italian, which does not have a distinct script or a great deal of difference from es. Four (4) national scripts notably absent are the Ge'ez alphabet of am-Amharic as well as ti-Tigrinya, the hy-Armenian alphabet, the ka-Georgian alphabet, and the Thaana abugida of dv-Dhivehi. Also notably absent are the indigenous languages of Australia with its largest family, the ~codeless Pama-Nyungan (e.g., nys-Nyoongar); those of South America, (e.g., qu-Quechua, official in Bolivia); and those of North America the (e.g., azc-Uto-Aztecan nah-Nahuatl, ~codeless Na-Dene nv-Navajo, aql-Algic abe-Western Abenaki, iro-Iroquoian moh-Mohawk, & esx-Eskimo-Aleut iu-Inuktitut official in Canada's Nunavut Territory. For more information, see w:Lists of languages. Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 05:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
| | Input needed: This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look! |
I still maintain that this page can never do what it intends to do, because it does not consider phonemicity. From experience with talking to others I know that subphonemic differences are often not even apparent to speakers, which makes it hard for them to interpret this table. And since it only has a few languages in it, it is very selective and POV-ish. —CodeCat 17:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC) - Keep. - -sche (discuss) 21:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. The nominator makes a good case, but I'm afraid the table is just too useful. ~ Nelg (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Approximately 120 subpages full of unwikilinked Chinese characters. No obvious purpose. User has not added/edited actual content since April 2011. —This unsigned comment was added by SemperBlotto (talk • contribs). - I don't much care. Of course we shouldn't allow any old rubbish in the user namespace, but I'm not convinced this is rubbish. Having said that, I don't know what it is, as seemingly none of it is written in English. Seems to be word lists, or words from poems, or both. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep because I know that at least some of them are useful (English and Hungarian wordlists including redlinks) and some are interesting (Chinese characters by stroke count). Obviously many are pointless, but since you're nominating everything, I have to vote keep. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I needed an idea of the pronunciation of this symbol; oː so as not to look a complete idiot when pronouncing a river name. I am no linguist and don't have any idea what phonemicity means.. and the table you wish to delete was helpful. The ipa table in wikipedia is just too complete for someone short of time who wants a quick reference. This seems like a misnomer. In general a trademark is not essentially part of a language. It is something that has a legal status in one or more jurisdictions, often spanning multiple languages. For example REALTOR/Realtor/realtor is shown as an English term. If it is indeed a trademark at all, as it seems to be in the US, it is one in any language in which it appears in the US, eg, Spanish, Navajo, French. Since we have no practical ability to delimit and display the national or linguistic scope of the trademark status members, I suggest we simply include all trademarks in a single category or have no category whatsoever. I'm not sure whether we should even try to get at this as a context/usage label. Alternatively, perhaps we could recruit some intellectual property attorneys as contributors. DCDuring TALK 00:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Polish-speaker Maro blanked this, and it now shows up in Special:UncategorizedCategories as an empty category. Delete it or recategorize, please. — Beobach (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC) - Delete. It is and it was an empty category. Maro 15:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm for deleting empty categories (such as this one) but a recent Beer Parlour discussion suggested keeping these. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Empty categories are useless and misguide users who are looking for sth. It's not a big problem to (re)create a category if new entries appear in it. Maro 16:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep it unless Polish has no dialects... —CodeCat 17:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- @Maro, I'm with you on this one. See Wiktionary:BP#Deleting empty categories; yea or nay? (February 2012 archive when archived). It seemed to show a pretty even split. I tend to think we don't keep empty entries because they are valid entry titles, so we shouldn't keep empty categories either, even when they are valid titles. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep; I've added an entry to the category, I expect that several Masovian terms could also be added to it. - -sche (discuss) 21:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
-
- Kept. pl:Kategoria:Polski (dialekty i gwary) has more than a thousand entries in its subcategories (pl:Kategoria:Regionalizmy białostockie, etc). - -sche (discuss) 03:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Almost all of the subcategories are empty, so I think these categories were once used but their contents was since moved to another place. —CodeCat 12:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC) - Delete, been empty for a while, I seem to think only two categories aren't empty. Some of the non-empty categories only actually contain categories which are themselves empty. So, only two categories contain any actual entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Maro 15:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, all the entries on here have already been created, so this likely serves no more purpose --Yakky snacks (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC) - All but these two:
- therapeutæ, therapeutae — n. pl., from NL., from Gr. (pl.) an attendant, servant, physician — (Eccl. Hist.): A name given to certain ascetics said to have anciently dwelt in the neighborhood of Alexandria. They are described in a work attributed to Philo, the genuineness and credibility of which are now much discredited.
- there-anent — adverb — (Scot.) Concerning that.
- - -sche (discuss) 19:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- therebiforn is also a redlink, because it is only attested once, so I moved it to therebeforn, which is attested more often. - -sche (discuss) 19:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- But if attested in Chaucer and printed before 1500, it would be Middle English, hence would meet CFI as a once-attested term in a dead language. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
{{language}} is already gone, so I think this should go too. There is just one technical barrier... it's needed because some language templates need an extra prefix (conl: or proto:). As part of this deletion request I'd therefore like to rename those templates to remove the prefixes. In other words, {{conl:tlh}} and {{proto:ine-pro}} would become {{tlh}} and {{ine-pro}}. —CodeCat 13:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC) - That's sort of the point, it serves a purpose unless we choose to rename such templates. I think we should discuss that first, then discuss this, so keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, but in principle, do you think this template should go? If you recall, {{Xyzy}} failed rfd even when no solution existed for replacing it yet. —CodeCat 11:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't this template used as well to determine what is a proto language or a constructed language in the first place? -- Liliana • 12:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- No that is {{langprefix}}, which is used by some templates besides this one (such as {{termx}}). It's not affected by this deletion. —CodeCat 12:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear that I disagree with the presumptions of this proposal. {{languagex}} is not needed for language templates with an extra prefix, because that extra prefix should always be supplied by editors. The whole point of those prefixes is to draw a distinction between real, attested language and fake or unattested ones — a distinction which has always enjoyed a strong community consensus. {{languagex}} was part of a campaign by a few editors, including yourself, to make an end-run around that consensus, and try to convert those prefixes into a minor technical detail that editors don't need to worry about, when it's supposed to be a major defining distinction that editors should never lose sight of for a second. I objected at the time; you defended it; now you can live with it. ;-) —RuakhTALK 13:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Always? Like {{etyl|etyl:Late Latin}}? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- I just put {{etyl|etyl:aus-yol}} into several entries... - -sche (discuss) 18:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, always, but not like {{etyl|etyl:Late Latin}}, no: Late Latin is not a language code, etyl: is not a language-code prefix, and {{etyl:Late Latin}} is not a language template, but an etyl-template. CodeCat's decision to pretend that etyl-templates are language templates, and to take them as a model for non-mainspace language templates, is part of what got us into this mess. (BTW, I doubt we'd want editors to supply the language prefix as part of the language code; something like lang=proto:ine-pro would be problematic, because then the template still wouldn't know what's going on, and would generate HTML with invalid language codes. Something along the lines of lang=ine-pro|langtype=proto would probably work better.) —RuakhTALK 18:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Btw, I put in those instances of {{etyl|etyl:aus-yol}} before I saw this discussion. If I should have input the Yolngu etymological information in another way, please let me know. - -sche (discuss) 19:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly what you wanted, it should be just {{etyl|aus-yol}}. —RuakhTALK 20:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- Quite apart from its use in etymology templates, it's being used in {{IPA}} and {{langnamex}}, so I say we need to keep it at least until someone figures out how to replace it there. —Angr 15:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Tagged by Koavf, who has been tagging files we host locally. This is an old screenshot that was used in a Beer Parlour troubleshooting discussion from a year ago. Do we still need it? I doubt Commons needs or wants it. - -sche (discuss) 19:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC) - Keep as this is a part of a discussion. Maro 20:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- What Maro said.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Move to Commons and delete here. en.wikt doesn't host files and especially not for personal hosting. The instructional value of this image could be just as high if it was at Commons:Category:Wiktionary. koavf (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Where do you get the idea that we don't host files? Certainly pictures of birds that we use in our entries should be on the Commons instead. But this is a Wikt-specific file that no one will want to use on another project. If it's moved to the Commons, it may be deleted using the the Commons' deletion process without our knowledge or consent. Keep here.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Mg and I discussed this on WT:ID, and he pointed out that this isn't a formal category (there's not formally any such thing as a 'proper adjective'). - -sche (discuss) 22:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC) - I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean. Is it an adjective that expresses a relationship to a single defined entity? Like English does to England? I think delete... —CodeCat 22:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but then we lose functionality. How else could we sort together entries like Hitlerian and Napoleonic? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- (And don't say eponyms, because that includes nouns too and is thus of a much greater scope. It doesn't fulfill the same purpose). --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- There's always "eponymous adjectives" Chuck Entz (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's pretty good.--Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- No strong feelings, I'm not sure what a proper adjective is anyway, so categorizing them is gonna be hard if nobody can come up with a usable definition. So I lean towards delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Some dictionaries and books have the term: proper adjective at OneLook Dictionary Search; AHD; Merrian-Webster; google books:"proper adjective". Whatever the name of the category, I find having such a category useful or attractive; Category:English eponyms is too much of a mix of "Achillean" and "Aaron's rod" for my taste. On the choice of a name, google:"eponymous adjectives" (16,100 hits) appears way less common than google:"proper adjectives" (177,000 hits). Following the Google books sources found by searching for "proper adjectives", proper adjectives include (a) "Achilean", "Popperian", "Chomskian", and (b) "English", "Spanish", "Swedish", "Namibian". German examples include "Berliner". Further category members are "Martian" and "Jovian". It follows that a proper adjective is not the same as an eponymous adjective. The definition of a proper adjective is of the form "Of or relating to <proper name>", with variations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- So then what distinguishes "Of or relating to <proper noun>" from "Of or relating to <not a proper noun>" in any significant way? —CodeCat 19:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- For one thing, capitalization marks proper adjectives off, in English anyway. Just like proper nouns are almost always capitalized, so are proper adjectives. For another thing, proper adjectives show specific suffixes, it seems; by having a glimpse at them as a group, you get a feel for how they are created in English (or another language). --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Capitalisation differs per language though. Dutch in particular has rather complex rules about the capitalisation (which don't make even the slightest sense to me), whereas for example Swedish and Spanish just spell such adjectives in lowercase. —CodeCat 19:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) There's one more thing: the current categorization of "Addisonian" into Category:English eponyms may be wrong, if one believes the definitions of "eponym" found at eponym at OneLook Dictionary Search; see Merriam-Webster: eponym and AHD: eponym. It seems to me that all these adjectives should be removed from Category:English eponyms. These dictionaries have the genus of "name" rather than "word" in the definition of "eponym". This would require research into what linguists usually mean by "eponym" to be on the safe side, though.
- Capitalization varies per language, no doubt. It is the patterns of suffixing that are interesting in the first place, I think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- But those, too, are language specific. It would seem a little inconsistent to call English#English a proper adjective, while engelsk#Swedish, its translation and cognate, is not. —CodeCat 20:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- The suffix patterns are a few within each language, which is what makes them interesting, to me anyway. As regards calling the adjective "English" a proper adjective in English, while its Swedish analogue is called just an adjective, you've got the same inter-language inconsistency in names of languages: "English" is ranked as proper noun in English, while its Swedish analogue "engelska" is not ranked a proper noun. Not really a problem, if you ask me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Presumably you're judging that based on capitalisation. So what about German, where all nouns are capitalised and adjectives never are, so there is no way to tell 'properness' from the spelling? —CodeCat 21:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- German does capitalize adjectives in 'sch derived from personal names (Grimm'sches Gesetz, Verner'sches Gesetz, etc.) as well as the uninflectable adjectives in -er derived from place names (Berliner Luft, Kölner Straßen). Adjectives are also capitalized when they form part of a proper noun (Atlantischer Ozean, Schwarzes Meer) or a species name (Australische Kasarka, Kleine Bambusratte). —Angr 21:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- The adjectival properness is not told from the capitalization. It is told from the definition form of "Of or relating to <proper noun>", or the like. In Czech, proper adjectives are often not capitalized, as in "pražský" ("Praha"), "newyorský" ("New York"), "kansaský" ("Kansas"), "popperovský" ("Popper"), or "humovský" ("Hume"). --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Move to Commons and delete here. en.wikt doesn't host files and especially not for personal hosting. koavf (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC) - Keep. I see no reason to delete it. Maro 00:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- We have no use for userspace images. Delete or move to the Commons, as uploader prefers.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Move to Commons and delete here. en.wikt doesn't host files and especially not for personal hosting. The instructional value of this image could be just as high if it was at Commons:Category:Wiktionary. koavf (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC) - Keep. I don't think Commons needs it. Maro 00:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Where do you get the idea that we don't host files? Certainly pictures of birds that we use in our entries should be on the Commons instead. But this is a Wikt-specific file that no one will want to use on another project. If it's moved to the Commons, it may be deleted using the Commons' deletion process without our knowledge or consent. Keep here.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Move to Commons and delete here--image is unused and is a slight variant of one there anyway. koavf (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC) - Delete --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, indeed Commons already has a near-identical version. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Move to Commons and delete here. en.wikt doesn't host files and if this is at Commons, it can be used by other projects. koavf (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC) - What is its license? —RuakhTALK 15:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Where do you get the idea that we don't host files? Certainly pictures of birds that we use in our entries should be on the Commons instead. But this is a Wikt-specific file that no one will want to use on another project. If it's moved to the Commons, it may be deleted using the the Commons' deletion process without our knowledge or consent. Keep here.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hosting There is by default no uploading. Cf. Commons:Category:Wiktionary. Just move it there--it's waiting for it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Move to Commons and delete here. en.wikt doesn't host files and if this is at Commons, it can be used by other projects. koavf (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC) - What is its license? —RuakhTALK 15:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Where do you get the idea that we don't host files? Certainly pictures of birds that we use in our entries should be on the Commons instead. But this is a Wikt-specific file that no one will want to use on another project. If it's moved to the Commons, it may be deleted using the the Commons' deletion process without our knowledge or consent. Keep here.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- In reply to Ruakh, good question. Commons has a 'policy' of if in doubt, delete, and in this case I'd be happy to do the same. The file isn't even used, so a cautious delete seems ok to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it was uploaded here by its creator, so I'm not worried that we might need to delete it for licensing reasons; I just meant that it may not be licensed in a way that would allow it to be moved to Commons. —RuakhTALK 22:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Response to msh210 There is by default no uploading. Cf. Commons:Category:Wiktionary. Just move it there--it's waiting for it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
No longer updated now that Tbot is dead and will never return. This was a terrible idea from the beginning. -- Liliana • 13:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC) - I agree, delete. —CodeCat 15:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- For those of us who never understood how the translation system is automated, could someone explain why we're dumping these templates? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- There used to be a bot, User:Tbot, that went through every Wiktionary page, checked whether the translations exist at the respective foreign-language edition of Wiktionary, and updated the templates accordingly with {{t+}} (page exists) or {{t-}} (page doesn't exist). The only thing this changed is the color of the link. Yes, this is one of the most inefficient methods ever invented by mankind. Anyway, now the bot is gone, and the link colors haven't been updated since 2009, so we might as well ditch 'em and replace them with the generic link color.
- Here's an example:
Kind (de)
Kind (de)
Kind (de) -- Liliana • 18:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC) - Ahhh, I see. Definitely delete these misleading fragments of annoyance. I have been confused by it before, but I didn't realize that this was the reason. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Actually yeah delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I would fail these per unanimous decision were these templates not so widely used. Redirects to {{t}} seem to be the way to go; delinking them by bot would be a low priority, but also very simple. As of tomorrow these will have been nominated for two weeks. Does anyone at all want to keep them? Mglovesfun (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, if we can get a replacement for Tbot working. For the time being, it would probably be preferable to redirect, since many uses of these may be inaccurate at the moment. Broken links should be clearly marked as such, if possible. --Yair rand (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Even if we can find another bot to do this task I'd still prefer not to have it, it's too clumsy and for too little benefit. —CodeCat 00:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Rather keep and ask and encourage the programming wizards (i.e., those people who resolve the issues raised at WT:GP) to prepare a new Tbot. I consider the death of Tbot (talk • contribs) a loss (less than the death of its programmer, of course). On topic, I find the colour scheme for translation links with {{t+}} and {{t-}} more consistent with the general appearance of Wiktionary; the colours also convey useful information on whether it makes sense to click to see a monolingual definition of the term in question. -- Gauss (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Yair.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Since {{alternative spelling of}} now categorizes in Category:English alternative forms (or whatever language is given) these categories are almost empty. It seems there are six entries in Category:English alternative spellings. The advantage of unifying these is all the entries are in one category system, not spread very unevenly over two. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC) - Delete. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 00:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- RFD failed, Mglovesfun (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Transwikied from Wikipedia, but I'm not so sure we want it either: - It basically duplicates what we do with categories and translation sections
- It only has three "starter" entries, which have very few names- and even fewer in the correct scripts.
- If populated, it would be astronomically huge, unless we came up with a system of lots of these.
Chuck Entz (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC) - It seems that it was moved from Wikipedia. I say delete, but before it's deleted someone who speaks the languages, or at least understands the scripts, should add the content to the translation sections. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 15:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- What's the rush? Keep until all items are wikilinked (preferably using {{term}}) and someone has added all orange- and red-linked items. Not even all the Translingual genus names and species epithets are new included. In many cases we would need the appropriate script added to do this properly. Perhaps we can recruit the person who initiated this at WP to work on this class of entries here. DCDuring TALK 16:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- I would tend to delete it as it contains very little usable content. If it gave us lots of red linked valid terms then it would be a definite keeper. There are however very few, few enough to move easily to WT:RE:hi and WT:RE:mul. Also benghalensis which it lists is probably a typo for bengalensis which we have. Only a Hindi speaker would know if the Hindi terms are also typos. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- NB most of the red links are wholly invalid because not written in the correct script. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. I'm interested to add/update entries for Indian names of trees. Especially herbs as I'm interested in Ayurveda. This wiki page is a god-send for people who need to use both scientific and local names of plants/trees.
- Guruduttmallapur (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- Is it a godsend no matter how many errors there are? If kept we should tag it with {{rfc}}, or more likely "this page is almost completely wrong and is not likely to be corrected". Mglovesfun (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I was unaware of this template until today, and thus the vast majority of our Tok Pisin terms do not use it. In all cases, it gives exactly the same output as {{head|tpi|noun}} and is therefore quite redundant. Originally, it was created to display the plural form of nouns (as its outdated documentation still claims), even though they are regularly formed by placing ol in front of the noun (we do not have entries for Tok Pisin plurals because they would all be SOP). It is used in so few places that I will replace all instances of it manually if there is consensus for deleting this.--Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC) - No, not again. We've had this kind of discussion with {{fi-noun}} already. strong keep. -- Liliana • 20:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see how that is related. In Finnish, it may actually make a difference for certain nouns; in Tok Pisin, it gives an identical output in every case. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- I create new templates for languages even if they show the same as {{head}}. keep. —CodeCat 12:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- I seem to think one argument that's been used in the past is there's no way to add additional features to make it more useful if we delete it first. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- What additional features would we add? Tok Pisin nouns do not decline or inflect in any way, never have diacritics or orthographical messiness, and have standard headwords. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Seems redundant to may the Force be with you. Definition is not in a fictional-universe style. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC) - Redirect, but what about "implying effective use of the Force"? Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 23:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
These seem to be invalid, we don't categorize 'place name' as a part of speech category; for topical categorization, we have Category:cmn:China. Category:Chinese place names is futhermore invalid because we don't class Chinese as a single language, so it would be like Category:Germanic place names, and Category:Mandarin place names only contains pinyin anyway, so can be legitimately emptied of its current content, regardless of whether it later passes RFD or not. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC) We don't categorize by gender -- Liliana • 12:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC) - Erm we certainly do in some languages. What confuses me, is I didn't realize that Telugu had gender; {{te-noun}} doesn't have a parameter for it. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Which ones? I haven't seen such categories before. -- Liliana • 16:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Mglovesfun, Telugu has gender according to w:Telugu grammar#Gender. —Angr 16:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Masculine nouns by language has 18 members. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- And Category:Telugu masculine nouns isn't even one of them. —Angr 17:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- Category:Masculine nouns by language is not clear on which kinds of masculine gender it encompasses. Telugu has grammatical gender, but it's based on objects being neuter, women being feminine, and men being masculine. Look at Category:Telugu masculine nouns and you'll see that it's all nouns that are inherently for males only: words for sons, fathers, certain types of men, or male-only names. Category:Hebrew masculine nouns is completely different; דג ("fish") is masculine, even though fish are not inherently male in any way. (And as a side note, דג isn't even in Category:Hebrew masculine nouns...) --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- So it's the same gender system that English has, more or less? I'm not sure if that really matters a lot, if it has strict grammatical consequences. The Bantu languages have an elaborate system of classifying words based on meaning (although it's not as neat as it was historically), and the Slavic languages distinguish between animacy in masculine nouns, which also has a semantic connotation in addition to a grammatical one. —CodeCat 18:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delete with whole Category:Masculine nouns by language and subcategories. These categories are useless and I see no reason to keep them. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. Maro 22:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- No more useless than Category:Telugu nouns, right? I mean nobody would learn a language by navigating such a category; such categories are for Wiktionary statisticians only; they're not intended to be useful for language learners. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- I use categories like Category:Telugu nouns. I frequently use Category:Old Church Slavonic nouns or Category:Old Church Slavonic nouns because some sounds can be spelled in different ways and its a good way to find words when you're not sure of the spelling. But I don't see any value in having gender categories. It's no different than having categories for words that end in consonants, and another for words that end in vowels. Who cares? In fact, Slavic masculine nouns are generally those that end in a consonant, and Slavic feminines are mainly those that end in -a. Neuters end in -o or -e. I don't think these categories are useful, but our standard noun and verb categories certainly are useful. —Stephen (Talk) 06:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Some languages do have categories to sort words by declension or conjugation. I imagine sorting them by gender is similar in that respect because it may affect the grammar, especially if the language has no other grammatical categories. In that sense, 'feminine nouns' may be interpreted as 'nouns of the feminine declension'. —CodeCat 12:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- But why would you want to know whether a word had a masculine or feminine declension when you can just look at the declension table as see for yourself what the declension is? And besides using gender categories for this would not work very well, because nouns such as папа are classified as masculine but have feminine declensions...or кофе, which looks like a neuter, is classified as masculine and is undeclinable. If you need a number of examples of a certain kind of declension, you should go to a template like {{ru-noun-inan-1}} and click on "What links here." —Stephen (Talk) 12:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to apply what I said to Slavic languages because I know they don't work that way. But in Telugu maybe the gender is the only factor in deciding declension, I don't know. —CodeCat 12:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I don't think that would be of any help in Telugu either. Eventually we need to add declension tables for the Telugu nouns, but gender categories won't be useful in that endeavor. —Stephen (Talk) 12:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Where would this be used? Anything on this site is added with the understanding it's CC by-sa 3.0 anyway.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC) - For licensing images. Except we're not supposed to have images to begin with, so delete -- Liliana • 17:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Some images are okay; the Far Side cartoon nominated above is certainly worth keeping, for example. Maybe keep this, but its use will be so limited (because we have so few images, especially so few by-sa ones (which can IINM be moved to the Commons)) that I'm not sure it's worth keeping. Ambivalent.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not all of our images are CC-by-sa-3.0. Some our logos more restrictively licensed, aren't they? And some other images are non-free fair-use. Furthermore, sometimes images which should be shareable are mistakenly added here; they need to be explicitly licensed before they can be migrated to Commons, because Commons admins are understandably sticklers for proper licensing. Keep. - -sche (discuss) 22:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
These have been in Special:WantedCategories for ages, but I don't think we do want them. The capitalization needs to be changed at the very least, but I don't think that 'Variant pronunciation' is a topical category. I don't know quite what this even means, does it mean each of these terms has at least two pronunciations, or rather than they have a variant, less common pronunciation than another more common term? Can we just remove all the categories please, and delete these two when empty? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC) - Um, what? No and no. This kind of information is extremely valuable and cannot be found in any other dictionary. Do not delete. But you're right about the capitalisation - feel free to change "Pronunciations" to lower case - but ONLY IF you can do so without creating a huge mess. ---> Tooironic (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- What sort of information is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- In Mandarin, readings for combinations of characters (i.e. words - 詞) are extremely fixed - the vast majority have one pronunciation. But there are a small minority of words which have more than one reading and that's what this category is supposed to cover. I wrote about this on my blog a few years ago, take a look. ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Right, I think we need a better title, such as one starting with 'Mandarin' not 'cmn'. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Tooironic but move to Category:Mandarin variant pronunciations in simplified script. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
This is not a family, so what does this mean? This is a bit like 'Terms derived from African languages'... —CodeCat 20:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC) - Based on the Old Armenian entries which are in that category I think it means that the term is derived from an unknown language native to the Caucasus, instead of PIE. Leaning towards keep, but I'd like to see what others have to say before voting. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 20:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's intended for terms which come from a Caucasian language, but you don't know which one. On that basis, it should probably be kept (see however the below) -- Liliana • 21:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Until further research clears up the relationship between North-East, North-West, South Caucasian and Hurro-Urartian languages and the paths by which Armenian borrowed from them, this category will be useful. --Vahag (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
This was discussed on the Tea room WT:TR#Category:English synonyms. I have no problem with {{synonym of}}, though it's kinda the same (but probably with a better name) as {{alternative name of}}. But we shouldn't categorize these. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC) - If a word means exactly the same as another, why not use that other word as the definition? —CodeCat 16:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's our norm yes. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 16:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. This is like having a "Category:English words that mean things". —Angr 07:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Is there such a thing as "Category:English words that don't mean things"? (Actually curious, not just being silly.) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 15:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't think there are any English words that unequivocally don't mean anything, but there are words such as is and that and of whose contribution to an utterance is more syntactic than semantic. (w:Function word touches on this subject.) —RuakhTALK 15:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you Ruakh, I appreciate the link and am reading through that now. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
-
- My effort is Category:English particles. Also words like cetera in et cetera. Anyway, that's as far off topic as I want to go. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Straightforward failure. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Apparently supposed to serve as a parent for Category:Terms derived from substrate languages. This should be solved in another way instead of this ugly hack. -- Liliana • 19:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC) - I agree, but where should it go? —CodeCat 21:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Into category:Etymologies by language perhaps?—msh210℠ (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm RFDing these but I think at least part of those pages could be merged into a single page, perhaps Wiktionary:Language-specific templates or even into Wiktionary:Templates which is mostly empty right now. In any case, the headword-line page seems redundant to Category:Headword-line templates by language. —CodeCat 18:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC) - Merge. I will delete the unmaintainable list and link to the category. —Michael Z. 2013-02-11 00:09 z
-
- I see – each category listing needs a link to the relevant guideline before the list should be deleted. —Michael Z. 2013-02-11 00:13 z
I was considering updating this to reflect the current situation. But given the number of incoming links (not very many) I think we should just delete it. Also, how would the updated version read? Presumably something like 'this page no longer has any relevance'. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC) - Keep and add {{inactive}} at the top. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Has anyone tried to count lemmas? By my very crude estimate we only have about 400,000 in English. That is the information I would like to have. I don't doubt that others would like it for English and for other languages.
- I don't see what good this particular page does. DCDuring TALK 19:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- It goes beyond active, it can never be used again in a constructive way. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to know how many entries in English we have, use Wiktionary:Statistics. This information here is OBE, and I don't see how it could be useful to anyone, so delete -- Liliana • 04:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- If I subtract from the number of English gloss definitions (389K) the difference between the number of English definitions (578K) and the number of English entries (446K), I get an estimated number of English entries with lemmas of 257K. Making a generous allowance for multiple PoS and Etymologies on those pages, perhaps there are 300K English lemmas. Any way to get a better estimate than that? DCDuring TALK 04:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Define "English lemma". Are you looking for the total number of English POS sections that contain a non–"form of" definition? —RuakhTALK 20:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- That would be good enough for me, assuming that "form of" includes all inflected forms, misspellings and similar, but not {{non-gloss definition}}, though the last is might be used only 1000 or so times in English. Any reasonable approximation is fine. This would be nice to know from time to time. DCDuring TALK 21:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- What about "alternative form of", "obsolete form of", and so on? —RuakhTALK 21:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- I would be fine with excluding them and also any "translation only entries", few though they may be. OTOH I would really like to include translingual terms that are understood in English. How many of the ones in unaccented Latin script would not be understood in English? If there were some generally accepted standard among English or monolingual dictionaries or indeed any accepted standard among any group, I would be happy to accept that. DCDuring TALK 22:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'd also like to exclude Phrasebook entries, though I think some of those entries as misclassified. DCDuring TALK 22:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've just scanned the latest dump (from less than a week ago) for each set of English definitions (split by ety and POS), and used two different approaches to count the sets:
- Approach 1: A set of definitions counts as a lemma if (1) any definition has any wikitext, other than whitespace or periods, that is not inside any template other than perhaps {{w|...}} or {{l|en|...}}; or (2) any definition has any of the templates {{non-gloss definition}}, {{acronym of}}, {{initialism of}}, {{n-g}}, {{given name}}, {{surname}}, {{abbreviation of}}, {{short for}}.
- Approach 2: A set of definitions counts as a lemma if any definition has any wikitext, other than whitespace or periods, that is not inside any argument-less template, nor inside any of a few dozen form-of templates or a few dozen context templates. (This involved a bunch of special-casing.)
- Approach 2 is, barring truly bizarre wikitext, a strict superset of Approach 1; the idea is that Approach 1 should give a lower bound, and Approach 2 should give an upper bound, so that I could add special cases to each approach, letting them approach each other asymptotically, until they gave values that I considered "close enough". (Of course, these are lower and upper bounds on an idiosyncratic value; I counted various things as non-lemma "form of"-s, and various other things as yes-lemma definitions, that under a different phase of the moon I might have treated the opposite way.)
- So, that explained . . . Approach 1 gave 298,322; Approach 2 gave 299,516. So, for one arbitrary and haphazard definition of "English lemma", based roughly on DCDuring's definition but cutting out the harder-to-implement parts (phrasebook, translingual) and filling in sketchinesses not covered above, we're within 1% of having 300,000 English lemmata.
- —RuakhTALK 02:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. The Translingual entries matter because a competing monolingual dictionary would almost always have entries for symbols, numbers, and taxons and count them as lemmata. And many (most?) of our phrasebook entries are not typically in a monolingual entry. Some of our lemmas may involve some double counting, such as where we have a sense for a verb that has a notation like "usually with to" and a full entry for just that sense at [[VERB to]]. There is no point in trying to achieve further precision when we are still not quite getting to the "right" target.
- I guess my ultimate objective is to be able to compare en.wikt as a monolingual dictionary with other monolingual dictionaries, principally MWOnline, MW 3rd, and the OED, print and online. I am quite sure that we have fewer senses for the most polysemic English words than these dictionaries. It would be nice if we were withing striking distance for lemmas. I will check my references for any counts that have been prepared both for the numbers and for the operationalized definition of "lemma" used. DCDuring TALK 02:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Landau has a good methodology for when it is justified to include a dictionaries bold-faced terms as valid headwords/lemmas for counting "size". In some ways our format and methodology make things more clear cut as we do not include our nearest equivalent to run-ins: derived terms. Also we exclude abbreviations that only appear on the page of the abbreviendum and terms only in lists in our appendices.
- MW3 claimed some 450,000 headwords, the OED 425,000 or so. MW3's total includes many terms in what it calls International Scientific Vocabulary, some of which we include as Translingual. OED's total includes many terms what we would call Middle English. Neither includes "encyclopedic" entries, in contrast to many other dictionaries.
- We could also take a sample of headwords from MW3 (<1000 words) and determine whether we have the term covered and conversely. That would enable us to estimate our size relative to MW3. The sampling procedure for MW3 would be a random or quasi-random sample of pages, then of columns, and lastly a distance from the first line to get a list of lemmas, then again weighting inversely by the number of lines for the entry (to avoid overrepresenting polysemous terms). The same could be done for any print dictionary. I don't know how to sample MWOnline or other online dictionaries. I assume someone here could generate a random or quasi-random sample of English headwords. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- What about splitting by just etymology and not POS? I think that's more like what other dictionaries mean when they say "n entries".—msh210℠ (talk) 22:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- That knocks us down to just 133,470 lemmata. (I liked it better the other way!) —RuakhTALK 23:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Landau is pretty explicit that he would count each Etymology-PoS combination. I would find it hard to believe that any commercial dictionary would use a method that would reduce their total count of headwords. A few of our distinct etymologies might be questioned, such as those that separate nouns from verbs because there were distinct Old English words for the noun and verb, both from a common root or certain back-formations from derived terms that end with the same spelling and related meaning, but they are defensible and Landau would defend them, I think.
- Landau Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography (2001), page 109-114, "Entry Counting" lays out what he would count. It is oriented toward justifying inclusion of some items for which print dictionaries, even big ones with small type, save space by eliminating a separate entry or definition for the bolded "headword". One point he makes is that mere lists of, say, words prefixed with un- count as long as the normal meaning of the word is totally predictable from the meaning of the two morphemes. If we are diligent in including valid redlinks as entries, we need not concern ourselves with such rationalizations. DCDuring TALK 00:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Any chance of staying on topic, chaps? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nope, none at all. Personally, I found this to be just as unfit for RFDO as it was fascinating. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well, at least it helped show the extreme distance between what we have (the page in question and the better pages with data that still don't address the issue very well) and what we could use: data to allow headword-to-headword comparison with other dictionaries. DCDuring TALK 21:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe move the contents to Template talk:count page? I think we should have an explanation somewhere, for anyone who wonders why there was a template with a link inside it on every linkless page on Wiktionary for a long while... --Yair rand (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- I thought I'd commented in this discussion already; it seems I haven't: I favour keeping the page, marking it as historical. If the contents are moved to Template talk:count page, I favour leaving a redirect from WT:Page count. - -sche (discuss) 20:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
This is an invented code which doesn't exist according to SIL. -- Liliana • 17:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC) - I fail to see your point; isn't the question 'does the language Elfdalian exist'? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Both are questions, actually. Do we want to treat the lect as a separate language? If so, what code should we use for it? If "dlc" isn't a valid code, we need to create a code following our "exceptional code"-creation pattern: so, "gmq-elf" or similar. This is because "dlc" could later be assigned by ISO to some other language. - -sche (discuss) 18:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I should've said that. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have to agree with this sentiment. dlc is an invented code and as such, should either be moved or deleted because of that. Razorflame 18:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
dlc is the LINGUIST List code for the Dalecarlian dialects, of which Elfdalian is one. The LINGUIST List code specifically for Elfdalian is qer, so I would recommend either using gmq-qer for Elfdalian or lumping all of Dalecarlian together as a single language and using gmq-dlc for it. (I would prefer the second option myself.) —Angr 19:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)- Incidentally, "dlc" for Dalecarlian was in a draft version of ISO 639-3, but was removed (along with "scy" for Scanian) before publication under pressure from the Swedish government, who wanted those two languages to be considered dialects of Swedish rather than separate languages (see m:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Elfdalian and GerardM's blog). GerardM also says, "According to the rules of the ISO-639 standard, the code dlc will not be used for anything but Dalecarlian", so we don't have to worry about it being assigned to something else. —Angr 17:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- The second link says According to the rules of the ISO-639 standard, the code dlc will not be used for anything but Dalecarlian. If that's true, then we can safely use that code as there is no danger of a conflict with another language that is later assigned the code 'dlc'. Whether or not it's not valid ISO-639 is not really that important, as we can use any code we like as long as it conforms to the rules for the HTML lang= attribute (which allows codes other than ISO-639). A few days ago I did some researching about Elfdalian and added some entries and even without knowing Swedish too much I can already tell this language is almost as close to Old Norse as it is to Swedish, and much less like Swedish than standard Danish or Norwegian are. There is no way a Swedish speaker would understand it. As for the other varieties of Dalecarlian... well I don't know too much about them and they aren't very well documented, so I suppose we could use the name 'Dalecarlian' with the assumption that it will primarily be Elfdalian, but also allow other varieties if attested. —CodeCat 17:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Re: "the HTML lang= attribute (which allows codes other than ISO-639)": I believe you're mistaken, or rather, irrelevantly correct. The HTML specification defines valid language tags by pointing to RFC 1766 or BCP47. RFC 1766 required the first part of a language tag to be either i, x, or a two-letter code assigned per ISO 639. BCP 47 (currently RFC 5646) allows a few more possibilities, but it still forbids a language tag from starting with a two- or three-letter code that is not a "shortest ISO 639 code", unless the tag is one of a very short list of grandfathered tags (such as sgn-CH-DE and zh-min-nan). So while it's true that it's possible to construct a valid HTML lang= attribute that is not an ISO 639, dlc is not an example of this possibility. —RuakhTALK 19:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, Wiktionary does have language templates that don't correspond to ISO 639, and indeed we recognize languages that ISO 639 does not, such as Jèrriais ({{roa-jer}}) and (among North Germanic languages) Gutnish ({{gmq-gut}}). I do think our best bet is to move this template to {{gmq-dlc}} and change the content of it from "Elfdalian" to "Dalecarlian" so that other Dalecarlian varieties (to the extent they're attested in written form) can be subsumed under it. (On the other hand, we also have a precedent for calling a language by the name of its best known dialect: we call {{yue}} "Cantonese" even though the code covers all Yue dialects, not just the Cantonese standard dialect. So in principle we could get away with calling {{gmq-dlc}} "Elfdalian" as well.) —Angr 20:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's fine to recognize languages that ISO 639 does not, but I think our use of nonstandard-language-codes-that-look-like-real-ones is a mistake. (And CodeCat seems to agree with me, since she says that "we can use any code we like as long as it conforms to the rules for the HTML lang= attribute"; she was mistaken about how to do that, but acknowledged that it's something we should do.) Fortunately, it's a mistake that we can rectify, once we acknowledge that it is a mistake worth rectifying. In the case of Dalecarlian, we should use {{gmq-x-dlc}} (or similar): gmq is a valid language subtag, but dlc is not a valid extension code, so we need to mark it as "Private Use" by using the x prefix. —RuakhTALK 21:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Part of me disagrees with this on principle, I don't feel right with the idea that a standards body like ISO can tell us what codes to use, especially not when a national government has influence on it. What basically happened is that the Swedish government told us we can't use 'dlc'. It's a bit crazy... :/ —CodeCat 21:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ruakh, if you say
gmq-x-dlc is better than gmq-dlc, I'll take your word for it, and if there's consensus that you're right then we should move the other non-ISO code templates to names with an "-x-" in them as well. CodeCat, I understand your frustration and agree that it sucks that ISO caved in to political blackmail, but HTML uses the ISO codes for better or for worse, so we can't just start making up codes that influence the HTML of our pages. —Angr 21:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC) - I do say so, but I don't ask you to take my word for it. I encourage you, and other editors, to look through the relevant standards (W3C technical reports on HTML/XML/XHTML; IETF RFCs on language codes; the IANA language-code registry), or perhaps this informal guide by the W3C if you prefer a less technical document, and form your own opinions. —RuakhTALK 21:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- One thing I see in the informal guide is that we have another option for picking a code:
sv-SE-W using the ISO 3166-2 country and subdivision name as an extension will get us a properly defined "Swedish as spoken in Dalarna County". The drawback to using that is that there may be a local variety of Standard Swedish spoken there in addition to Dalecarlian. —Angr 22:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC) - No, that's not allowed, because subtags are separated by hyphens, and can't contain hyphens, so SE-W is two separate subtags: SE would mean Sweden, but W would be an invalid extension subtag (invalid because unregistered, and because extension subtags always have to be followed by one or more additional subtags). But if we're O.K. with treating Dalecarlian as a form of Swedish, as sv-* implies, then we may be able to register a "variant" subtag with IANA, such as dalec, such that Dalecarlian would be publically defined as sv-dalec. (I think. I've never really looked into how variant codes work.) —RuakhTALK 22:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it wasn't supposed to be more than a kludge, so if it isn't allowed anyway, I'd rather use
gmq-x-dlc for linguistic reasons (Dalecarlian linguistically isn't just a dialect of Swedish, whatever Stockholm says). —Angr 09:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- [@CodeCat, after e/c] Well, but the main purpose of these codes is interoperability with other standards-compliant systems. I don't like that political factors play a role in the assignment of codes, but we don't really accomplish anything by silently subverting it. We can fight the injustice by expanding our Dalecarlian coverage and treating its words as ==Dalecarlian==, but assigning Dalecarlian its own pseudo-code dlc will not help and should play no part. (Imagine that your corrupt local government was bribed to split up your telephone area-code into two, and you don't like the new area-code you've been assigned. Does that mean you'll continue to give out your phone number as using the old area-code, even though it won't actually enable long-distance callers to reach you?) —RuakhTALK 21:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think I get it, dlc was removed as Wikipedians put it 'with prejudice'. Since we keep {{sh}} because although ISO 639-1 retired the code, we still find it useful, and we should aim to make use of ISO 639, but not to be a slave to it. So I'm fine keeping this per the KISS principle; why use a seven or nine character code well three will do. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- There is a difference: sh used to be valid. dlc never was. -- Liliana • 21:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- @Ruakh: can the codes Wiktionary uses in its HTML be different from the template titles/codes, or are the template-values automatically the HTML values? I.e., can we (per our current naming scheme) name the template {{gmq-dlc}}, but set the HTML to "gmq-x-dlc"? What HTML codes are currently associated with our other exceptional codes, such as {{roa-jer}}; do they include "-x-"? When the WMF creates exceptional codes for new wikis in languages without ISO codes, what naming scheme do they follow? - -sche (discuss) 22:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Re: first two questions: I guess it depends what you mean by "can" and "automatically". Currently, we design templates under the assumption that these will be identical; we don't have any mechanism in place for mapping from language-template-name to HTML-language-tag. If {{gmq-dlc}} is Dalecarlian and {{gmq-dlc/script}} is Latn, then {{term|foo|lang=gmq-dlc}} will be <span class="Latn mention-Latn" lang="gmq-dlc">[[foo#Dalecarlian|foo]]</span>. But there's no technical reason that we can't institute such a mapping.
- Re: third question: As I'm sure you can guess from the answers to your first two questions, the answer to this one is "e.g. roa-jer; no, no -x-".
- Re: last question: They no longer do that — see m:Language proposal policy — but back when they did do it, their naming scheme was basically "invent something realistic-looking". Needless to say, this eventually led to problems. The Swiss German Wikipedia is als.wikipedia.org, but ISO/SIL assigns als to Tosk Albanian and gsw to Swiss German. Our scheme, inventing codes like roa-jer, is not nearly so bad as that, IMHO; but it's still far from ideal.
- —RuakhTALK 23:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if this is a stupid question but, who forces us to use syntactically valid language codes? As long as browsers can parse them, everything should be fine? -- Liliana • 23:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC) - If they aren't syntactically valid, then browsers can't necessarily parse them. I don't trust them not to give out dlc. (For example, Romania found rom to be troublesome, as it imply the Roma in their eyes, so they demanded a new country code and got rou, even though that was reserved, as the Republic of Uruguay has apparently used it in some context.) And if it's given to say a language written in China in the Chinese script, indicating the text is in dlc may make a browser preemptorily change to a Simplified Chinese font.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Only subcategory is 'paper sizes'. It actually looks like a bit of a joke, though I don't think it is. We don't have for example Category:River products for entries such as salmon. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC) - At bgc "forest products" gets 5,400K hits, "river products" gets 10K. "Forest products" is fairly standard characterization of the wood and paper industies, which are not easily separated in practice at the production end. DCDuring TALK 19:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ok not heard of it. So, can this be used? We do have Category:Woods, and Category:Paper would be a good parent for Category:Paper sizes, so maybe it is a keep. Any further opinions? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I added a few illustrative examples, both new entries and old. DCDuring TALK 22:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Though, you did add them to the wrong category. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- We can also add [[ivory]].—msh210℠ (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete unuseful category.—msh210℠ (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't know that there was a utility standard or any other objective standard for topical categories. I just thought that I could get in the playpen with DanielDot, with the same priveleges. DCDuring TALK 00:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- @DCDuring, msh210 isn't claiming there is one. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Right.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Current content of Category:en:Forest products: delignify, fourdrinier, kraft paper, kraft pulp, lignin, Stihl. Of these, delignify (a verb), fourdrinier (a machine used in making paper), and Stihl (a type of large industrial saw, usually cordless with a petrol motor and a large circular cutting blade) are not forest products. The category was created on 14 August 2010 by DCDuring. For a 2010 discussion, see User_talk:DCDuring/2010_QIV#Category:Forest products. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Created as a clone of a Wikipedia template. The Duplication-Is-Evil principle would have us use a bot to replace all instances of {{BIPA|x}} with {{IPA|[x]}}. On the other hand, keeping it lets us copy Swadesh lists from Wikipedia, provided Swadesh lists continue to be created on Wikipedia using w:Template:BIPA. - -sche (discuss) 00:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC) - Orphan and delete. And note that w:Template:BIPA was deleted almost three and a half years ago, with the delete-message "not used for almost 3 yrs". —RuakhTALK 03:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, I mean, what the heck? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Failed, redirecting to {{IPA}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC) For Proto Sino Tibetan. Used twice. Presumably same rationale for deletion as for others just above. DCDuring TALK 04:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC) - Delete, same reasons again. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, delete. - -sche (discuss) 02:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
This is not a language, so we don't allow it in entries. And etymologies should use {{etyl:zhx}} if it's not certain which Chinese language a term derives from. I'm not really sure if deleting it is the best option, but I can't think of any use for this as a legitimate language code nor as an etymology code. —CodeCat 19:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC) - Delete per nom.. — Ungoliant (Falai) 19:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Kill with fire. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Apparently abandoned, incomplete. DCDuring TALK 17:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC) - Delete. A little bit of {{#expr: magic could be used to complete it (provided we're O.K. with e.g. 1st rather than first), but it's hard to imagine what it would be used for. —RuakhTALK 19:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think I speak for everyone when I say, what's the f*cking point of it? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- If we knew that, we wouldn't be RfDing it. DCDuring TALK 22:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- We can nominate things for deletion even when we know what they are. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- These appear to be defective. If we had Category:Defective templates, I suppose we could so categorize it. Should we? Should we keep them for educational purposes? "Sharpen your template skills by fixing this template!" DCDuring TALK 23:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- De-defectivized. So it's no longer useful as a challenge. Can we delete it now? —RuakhTALK 01:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Except for 11 and 12. DCDuring TALK 02:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- The only use I can see for this template is to have other templates take numbers as parameters e.g. for clarifying nouns as 'nth declension' ({{foobar|m|1}} is marginally easier to type than {{foobar|m|first}}), and have those templates feed those numbers to this template and return the appropriate ordinals... but {{foobar}} could just do the conversion in that case, now couldn't it? Delete. - -sche (discuss) 02:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it could, but only if it's the only such template. If there are several (which is conceivable in a case like this) then it would lead to duplication of code, which is a bad thing. —CodeCat 10:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Is there any difference between {{n-th}} and {{N-th}}? If not, and if it's decided this is a useful thing to have about the house, at the very least {{N-th}} should redirect to {{n-th}} rather than being a separate template, shouldn't it? —Angr 10:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Before the recent modification, N-th converted "1" to "First", n-th to "first". DCDuring TALK 11:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
This is only used in one entry, in Japanese. That single usage might be legitimate, but as it's just one use I wonder if there isn't another more widely used template for all the other Japanese past tense forms, which would make this template redundant. I'm hoping a Japanese editor can shed some light on this. —CodeCat 17:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC) - Delete. Maro 19:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, I think when DAVilla created this in 2007, it was already redundant to {{past of}} or maybe {{simple past of}} or even {{past participle of}}. It looks to me like a pure error, that's been missed for so long precisely because it's only been used in one entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Now untranscluded. DCDuring TALK 03:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
A template for displaying text on either side of a keyword? Not used in the main namespace, or anywhere outside of one user-subpage. (It's linked to from three others.) Seems to have been intended for highlighting headwords in quotations, but I don't think it should be used. - -sche (discuss) 03:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC) - Delete, User:Visviva/free shows how to use it, which is exactly why it should not be used. Also, from the name I assumed it was a script template. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- I would love for Wiktionary to have the vast corpus resources for which this would be useful so that we could generate huge KWIC lists and mark and sort the usages by sense. But we don't and, anyway, some of this capability is available for free at BYU-COCA et al. So it doesn't seem very useful. Sigh, delete. DCDuring TALK 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Does the formatting the template uses not bother you? I'm happy enough just bolding words. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- My sadness might just be because of my association of this format (fixed-width font and all) with research on much earlier computer systems of my youth. This is not the format used at COCA which does more-or-less center the bold search terms in their KWIC list. DCDuring TALK 23:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I originally just deleted this, but, to be fair to the contributor, I decided it was best to check about what we do with such things. My original impression was that it was a way to create what would normally be an appendix outside of the appendix namespace. I'm now told that this is being used as a sort of sandbox to develop content for the entry. This is a huge amount of largely encyclopedic content- I wonder how much of this could ever be appropriately added to the entry. I also wonder why this couldn't go in a user-page subpage. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC) - Well it clearly shouldn't be here, the content should be at 屯, right? Userfying seems ok too, it's pretty standard to 'draft' ideas on user subpages on Wikipedia, the reason we don't do it so much here is our entries are much shorter than Wikipedia articles. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- For my 2p, I'd say nix the bit about "The conquest of Champa", not least since that's a quote in English about use of the term in Vietnamese, which has exactly bupkus to do with use of the term in Korean. But the rest of it looks like appropriate content for the Korean entry. Korean, like Japanese, has borrowed tons of vocabulary from Chinese, and these Sinically derived terms have many synonyms and many compounds, so the length of those two subsections strikes me as perfectly normal for a hanja / kanji entry.
- I had been talking with User:KYPark about something else and s/he mentioned creating the Talk:屯/Korean page as a sandbox, but I didn't understand what s/he meant at the time. Seeing the sandbox page itself and reading Chuck's and Mglovesfun's comments above, I agree that this kind of drafting would be better done on a user's own subpage. I'll make a note at User_talk:KYPark to that effect, and if s/he is okay with it, I'm happy to move the Talk:屯/Korean page to a more appropriate place, perhaps User:KYPark/Sandbox. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I was thinking of User:KYPark/屯. It really doesn't matter that much. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oh it's already there! So delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- After I brought it to his/her attention, s/he copied the content to a user subpage. So yes, delete. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. —RuakhTALK 12:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Not a valid script code -- Liliana • 21:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC) - We don't have a way to extend script codes like we do with language codes. There is no need either, because script codes are only internal to Wiktionary, they don't appear in the HTML. So keep for now. —CodeCat 00:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- There should be, though. We'll get into big trouble if ISO decides to assign the Ibrn code to a script other than Iberian. -- Liliana • 04:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- None of the Iberian scripts has even been encoded in Unicode yet, so what exactly are we expecting to tag with this template? If we have entries for any Paleohispanic language, they'll have to be in Latin transliteration and tagged {{Latn}}, as we already do for Tocharian, for example. If these scripts ever get encoded, ISO will probably assign them a code then, and we can worry about it then. Delete. —Angr 07:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Even if we want a script template for Iberian script, we shouldn't make it look like an ISO code just for the sake of looking like an ISO code. (See w:Cargo cult programming.) —RuakhTALK 12:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
-
- Bleh whatever I guess I agree, delete it then. I had genuinely thought that these script codes were made up on Wiktionary, just like some family codes and such. I never realised ISO had anything to do with script codes lol...o.O 50 Xylophone Players talk 01:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it does say at Category:Script code templates and Wiktionary:Scripts. —CodeCat 11:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Maro 23:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete for practical reasons. Unicode can't handle this script, and all the uses of {{Ibrn}} seem to be written in the Latin script anyway. If Unicode could handle it, it would need some sort of code. But that's a hypothetical point... delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Michael Everson has primary responsibility for the w:ISO 15924 script registry. He sees all the proposals for Unicode, as Ireland's representative to ISO for ISO 10646, and he co-wrote some 450 of them. I believe the registry has, among others, all the scripts he anticipates will be encoded in Unicode, and he will add new scripts that come up in serious Unicode proposals. If necessary, Qaaa—Qabx are reserved for private use.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Translingual is not a language and it doesn't have its phonological system. Maro 16:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC) - delete is this a joke? -- Liliana • 16:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- But translingual items can and do have pronunciations. The Category:ICAO spelling alphabet for example has officially designated pronunciations which are internationally recognised. —CodeCat 16:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I, for one, would like to know how to pronounce some of the genera and other taxons. At the very least where the stress might be is independent of the phonological system of the language in which the word (or phrase for species names) is embedded. DCDuring TALK 18:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- The Latin names of the taxons are pronounced differently depending on who's pronouncing them. English speakers pronounce them in anglicized Latin, German speakers pronounce them in germanized Latin, and so on -- and stress is not necessarily independent of this. —Angr 18:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I think. I've added pronunciations to Translingual sections with tags like {{a|English}} to show it's an English pronunciation of the term. For example 20 is pronounced /ˈtwɛn.ti/. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I would actually think that the pronunciation is for twenty, and that 20 is just a translingual representation of that word. So it should really have something like 'for pronunciation, see twenty and its translations'. —CodeCat 20:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- To take the case of taxons, the utility of this would be to provide users an acceptable pronunciation for use in, for example, a presentation of a paper they might be giving to a possibly international, technically competent audience or in a podcast to a similar audience. If we don't have anyone who might be able to respond to that concern, I guess we can provide external links to this work or others like it or to MWOnline. DCDuring TALK 18:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- As Angr notes, that would seem to depend on what language the rest of the talk is in. (Or is the talk composed solely of the pronunciation of a sequence of taxa?
:-) )
- Delete. We should also hunt down and fix ==Translingual/Pronunciation=== entries.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- The world won't miss our not having it as other sources with fewer scruples are available. DCDuring TALK 17:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
As a programming language, this is out of scope in this project. -- Liliana • 20:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC) - Delete, yes, it's a misunderstanding of the word 'language'. This is a different sense of the word language, the one we don't cover on this project. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- What they said.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep - no reason to delete an accurate appendix because we feel that it's less a language than words from various anime that we also keep appendicized. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Delete. Let us not attest keywords and APIs of programming languages in use via three quotations from durably archived public free-as-in-freedom code repositories. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC) - Delete for above reasons. Bear in mind especially that there are literally hundreds of dialects of BASIC, all with different sets of keywords. It's not a standard like ANSI C. Equinox ◑ 20:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
-
- And, regarding Metaknowledge's remark, those anime appendices are equally silly and equally worthy of deletion worse! We need to consider each deletion candidate in isolation. Equinox ◑ 20:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: There's also old relevant discussion at [[Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2010/October#colspan, etc.]].—msh210℠ (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Not a context -- Liliana • 21:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC) - Move or redirect to Template:aviation? —CodeCat 21:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, but make it display (aviation) instead. — Ungoliant (Falai) 00:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Then why not just redirect it to Template:aviation? —Angr 09:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Because it would categorize in Category:en:Aircraft still. Not strictly forbidden to do this; see {{protein}} as an example. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- But why exactly would a term like fighter plane be restricted to an aviation context? -- Liliana • 04:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- We still don't know whether we really mean these things to be usage contexts or subject-matter indicators. I'd like them to be usage contexts. After checking whether the terms which now use this are restricted to an aviation of other context, change the context tag appropriately and delete. DCDuring TALK 03:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, we do know. They are usage contexts, not subject-matter indicators. We've voted on just this issue: context labels are not to be used just to add topical categories. Q.v.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- On reflection, while the vote msh210 links do doesn't say anything about what context labels display and how they categorize, I don't see how this template can ever be used in a way that doesn't violate the vote. As Liliana-60 says, why would the name of any aircraft be restricted to experts? NB I wouldn't mind updating that vote, I wonder if there's any appetite for it. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
D These just encourage new editors to label referents. —Michael Z. 2013-02-21 22:00 z Per the tag {{inactive|This idea was rejected and is not policy on Wiktionary}} and also Help:Reverting says there is no Three-revert rule on Wiktionary. This page gives the opposite impression, and it's not a good use of {{inactive}} as it's not inactive so much as it's wrong. Inactive is for projects that get abandoned but which shouldn't be deleted because they're good projects. This isn't good or a project. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC) - Delete. Not helpful in any way. Someone can move it to their userspace if they want to promote it. —Internoob 15:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- When I was a newbie, this was the page from which I have expressly learned that Wiktionary has not three-revert rule, unlike Wikipedia. What I think I would do is replace the content of the page with the following: "Unlike Wikipedia, Wiktionary has no three-revert rule. The three-revert rule would state that an editor must not perform more than three reversions on a single Wiktionary page within 24 hours of their first reversion.", or the like. Back then, I found Wiktionary talk:Three-revert rule enlightening. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- We have WT:WFW now. Maybe it could be expanded with a table of some sort that lists Wikipedia practices and the equivalent Wiktionary practices (or lack thereof)? —CodeCat 17:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted. Utter bullshit if you ask me. :p User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 21:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
This template is redundant to {{l-self}}... —CodeCat 18:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC) - They do two different things. l-self boldfaces a self-link and not another link; notself boldfaces neither. (And notself is in use.) Keep.—msh210℠ (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've orphaned it now. It was used in only two places: in {{soplink}}, which should have used {{l}} instead, and in {{Latin variations}}, which I orphaned in favour of {{list|en|varieties of Latin}}. —CodeCat 13:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Should have used {{l}}?? Why? In any event, see my recent edit to {{soplink}}.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Your edit didn't work. It is still not substable. And yes, should have, because in its original state it completely ignored the
lang= parameter that the documentation mentioned. I just added that parameter, using {{l}}, so that it linked to the right section. I did not make {{l}} itself substable, because it isn't meant to be substituted. —CodeCat 17:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC) - Thanks for the correction: it's now substable.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- It works better now, but
{{subst:soplink|bake|cookies}} results in [[bake|bake]] [[cookies|cookies]], which is less desirable than {{l|en|bake}} {{l|en|cookies}} or [[bake]] [[cookies]]... —CodeCat 17:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Anyway, did your edit to {{soplink}} effect a change in boldfacing in entries? (I didn't check.)—msh210℠ (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- (You'll pardon me, I hope, for being very leery of (even established) editors who make presumably well-meaning edits to templates, without regard for the resultant drastic change in how entries are displayed.)—msh210℠ (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, it didn't change anything in boldfacing because I replaced {{notself}} with {{l}}, not {{l-self}}. My reasoning was that if a non-English term, say hypothetically land, is defined as {{soplink|open|land}} but there is no open land entry, then we would want the word 'land' to link back to the English section on that page, we wouldn't want it to be unlinked. —CodeCat 17:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, okay, then I'll revert my reversion. Thanks for the explanation. Note that I still say to keep the template nominated for deletion: AFAICT the reason I gave above applies still.—msh210℠ (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- And I've now checked all transclusions of {{soplink}} to make sure they use
lang= or link to English words: this was necessary now in light of your (CodeCat's) change to that template (which I just reverted to). I note that nobody did this when you (CodeCat) first made said change. Cf. my comment, just above, of 17:39, July 15th. (Sigh.)—msh210℠ (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC) - I did actually check all the transclusions. There aren't that many. —CodeCat 08:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Checking doesn't help if the entries aren't edited in light of the template edit. One entry needed it. I don't mean to sound snide, but this has been a problem over and over again with template edits.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- {{l-self}} was created by CodeCat a few days ago. Clearly {{notself}} wasn't redundant until CodeCat created it. I think either CodeCat should've modified {{notself}}, or if not possible, create a separate template if needed for a separate function. So if they do have separate functions, keep 'em separate. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- When I made it, I wasn't aware there was already another template. I specifically intended it to be used in inflection tables and such, where it's probably more useful to show bold text than to display a link to the language section the table already is in. The bold part wasn't a specific idea... it was based on older inflection tables that used raw links rather than {{l}}, so that they already produced bold text. I just combined that idea with the usefulness of linking to a language section like {{l}} does. Another advantage to having bold text as opposed to regular text is that many inflection tables use the inflection-table CSS class, which displays red links in black instead, and so a regular non-link would be indistinguishable from missing entries in that case unless you hovered the mouse over it. —CodeCat 19:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Unused. Probably unusable. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC) - Strong delete, I don't expect it's usable, and even if it is usable, {{trans11}} does the same job but even better as it allows up to 11, not exactly 11. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 20:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
As previous. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC) - Strong delete, as previous! Mglovesfun (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 20:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
As above. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC) - Delete. It's a seriously bad idea to mess with {{trans-top}}, any changes to that should be discussed on the talk page before implemented as it's so widely used. I say treat this as a no longer used sandbox, and delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 20:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Content of template: '' DCDuring TALK 11:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC) - Very strong delete, this is really, really wrong! In situations where '' won't work, you can use <i></i>. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. —RuakhTALK 12:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
This needs no discussion, I speedied it. -- Liliana • 13:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Unused experiment? SemperBlotto (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC) - I can see how it works. It might be useful for me as it happens as I don't know X-SAMPA nearly as well as I know IPA. I tend to say it isn't doing anything harmful, though it's awkward nobody's forced to use it and it does have a defined use. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK it is really painful it use, for example of French grêle the syntax is {{X-SAMPA|{{subst:ipa2sampa|ɡ}}{{subst:ipa2sampa|ʁ}}{{subst:ipa2sampa|ɛ}}{{subst:ipa2sampa|l}}/}}, which is a pain to write. Having said that... it does work. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- I just used this in compete (diff) to do the X-SAMPA. Keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
As above. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC) - Delete, doesn't make any sense. Maybe it once did. I think it's now redundant to {{langt}} which now covers alternative language names. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 20:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
As above. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC) - I don't get it, why would this ever be useful? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Yet another unused experiment. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC) - Delete. Unused in the mainspace; not linked from any discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
-
- Deleted, I agree. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
And another. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC) - I am worried that I am going to miss a preload, subst-only, work in progress, or just an interesting idea. After all, most of these have no documentation or are - ahem - "self-documenting". If folks would like to categorize or document a template in a way that indicated its current or potential value, then we could bypass RFDO. DCDuring TALK 16:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well Category:Untranscluded templates ought to be redundant to Category:Templates that must be substituted, as substitute-only templates are used but not transcluded, while anything that is substitutable but not used really ought to be either used or deleted. As a rule, I say if potentially useful but unused, keep, as the one surefire way that useful template will never be used is if you delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Argh, this one's not well formatted it all. It could be turned into a subst: templates but I don't really see the point, it seems as easy just to write the stuff out by hand. Writing it out by hand gives more flexibility too. I'll abstain. But my instinct tells me this isn't used anyway, so wikifying it will have no benefit. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps in an ideal, static world with perfect categorizers the two categories would have identical membership. It is because our world is not ideal or static and those willing to categorize are not knowledgeable enough to do so perfectly that there may be a need for other categories. Do actively used preload templates show up as transcluded? What about templates in development in Template, not User space? What about all of those orphan templates that are really worth keeping because of all the good ideas therein? DCDuring TALK 16:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Re "anything that is substitutable but not used really ought to be either used or deleted", note that some may be used substed even though usable and unused unsubsted.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- DCDuring, I'll take you literally:
- "Do actively used preload templates show up as transcluded?"
- No, like {{new en plural}}. Unless the template can either be used as a subst or a non-subst template
- "What about templates in development in Template, not User space?"
- Move 'em or delete 'em. That's what this page is for, such discussion
- "What about all of those orphan templates that are really worth keeping because of all the good ideas therein?"
- You've in effect answered yourself; if they are really worth keeping, keep 'em.
- Mglovesfun (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- @msh: Where does one look to find whether a subst'ed template is in fact used?
- @MG: How do we keep untranscluded, undocumented templates, not intended for preload or substing, so that they can be found and used? DCDuring TALK 17:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Re "Where does one look to find whether a subst'ed template is in fact used?", beats me. I suppose one could determine what its output would be when substed and see whether any edits have that output. (That wouldn't be completely conclusive, as people might be typing {{subst:foo|bar|baz=xyzzy}}, hitting "Show changes", copy-pasting the result into the edit box, and editing it beyond recognition, but that seems like a fairly remote possibility barring some specific reason for thinking people do so with a given template.)—msh210℠ (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
[edit] A Bunch of Turkish Inflected-Form Categories I noticed these in the Special:UncategorizedCategories page, and was going to add the appropriate categories and move the misspelled ones, but then I noticed who created many - if not all- of these, and thought I should check whether this kind of categorization is appropriate. If the consensus is that they're ok, I'll happily withdraw the nominations and fix the problems. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC) - We don't do this in any language I'm familiar with, except Latvian and Icelandic, and I'm pretty sure we stopped doing it there. Delete --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- I templatised Category:Turkish terms with homophones. — Ungoliant (Falai) 03:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- These categories are very specific, but languages are all unique so they have to be judged as such. I think asking User:Sinek would be a good idea. User:George Animal is also listed as a native Turkish speaker, I think the other users Category:User tr-N aren't currently active. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- I just realized: these seem to each have their own template that produces them, and the templates aren't language specific- one could just as easily find Category:French possesive singular forms someday. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not all of them do, but the more specific ones seem to. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Now that I know what was populating them, I've orphaned and speedied the misspelled ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think that a general useful template form for all languages is difficult - if not impossible -, but I propose to follow the way it is done in Hungarian, as this Finno-Ugric language is somehow similar to the Altaic Turkish. In Hungarian, words are formed also agglutinively, and I know that a word can have several cases at the same time. Sae1962 (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think all that categories (the most of them; like:Turkish third-person singular possesive dative forms) are redundant because that templates exist not even at the Turkish Wiktionary.It is nonsense to create the pages (e.g.:my auto, my page, my father, of the father). It would be enough if the templates exist.They don't have to be created.The creation of the entries like (arabam:my auto) are also redundant because all that things are the same.Arabam (my auto), evim (my house) etc. It is better to create a page for the grammar part for the possessive nouns of the Turkish language.I'm in favour of this idea.GeorgeAnimal. 13:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- PS:I am for the deletion of the pages.--GeorgeAnimal. 13:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC).But the templates shall remain in the entries.---GeorgeAnimal. 13:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- These Turkish inflection forms can be all generated from simple grammar rules. Including them in the Wiktionary is totally useless. They don't even have exceptions like in English you have dog ->dogs but mouse->mice. Because Turkish is an agglutinative language, if you started including all possible Turkish constructs you would have no rational way to reject something like Çekoslovakyalılaştıramadıklarımızdanmışsınız which means "reportedly you are you one of those whom we could not make Czechoslovakian". Terms with definitions that are Sum-of-Parts are not included in the Wiktionary and with a similar reasoning, I believe grammatical constructs in agglutinative languages that follow simple rules should not be included either. For this reason the categories listed above and the words contained within them should be deleted. Same argument applies for the templates mentioned below. --İnfoCan (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
| Off-topic comments about whether there should be entries for all possible word-suffix combinations |
|---|
Actually we do have a way of rejecting something like Çekoslovakyalılaştıramadıklarımızdanmışsınız, namely the requirement that words actually be attested in use (and not merely as mentions). I don't think Turkish is considered one of the limited-documentation languages, so Çekoslovakyalılaştıramadıklarımızdanmışsınız would have to be attested three times in published literature to be included. If not, it isn't included. If it is attested, however, there is actually no reason we shouldn't include it. —Angr 20:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC) -
-
-
-
- OK, the country of Czechoslovakia does not exist any more, and the above is just an old joke that elementary school kids tell each other. But seriously, if you want attestation, no problem: Avrupalılaşmamıza is a down-to-earth example, it translates as "to our Europeanization" (as in "Islam is shown as an obstacle to our Europeanization", as used in a newspaper editorial). Google search gives me three independent attestations from newspapers [3]. Or, yapamamamızın ("of our inability to do"), 7 attestations just in Google Books [4]. So, is Wiktionary going to include such words now? If so, then probably 90% of the words in Wiktionary can potentially belong to Turkish or some other agglutinative language. This is ridiculous and calls for a proper definition of what a "word" is, to set an inclusion policy. I believe that the attestation part should come in only after you have "peeled off" all the generic inflections. --İnfoCan (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Why shouldn't Wiktionary include such words? We're not paper, we're not going to run out of space. On the contrary, the ability to include such things is one of our major selling points, what sets us apart from conventional dictionaries. I see no harm at all in including such forms, and they may be very helpful for people learning Turkish who haven't yet quite mastered all of the suffixes and so don't know exactly what to shave off to get to the lemma. —Angr 21:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Your argument is equivalent to saying that the Wiktionary should have translations of every four-word English phrase to Turkish. I could say there is no space limitation, and it will certainly be useful to Turkish speakers who don't know English. Yes it is doable but it is not efficient. WikiMedia is great for writing an encyclopedia and perhaps a traditional dictionary, but I don't think it is the right tool for doing what you propose. Rather than entering a translation of everything, you need a rule-based parsing system. I know such Turkish language parsers exist, I have seen them at academic Web sites in Turkey. It would be far less work to write software that parses Turkish than write all these translations! --İnfoCan (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's not quite equivalent, because Wiktionary's goal is "all words in all languages", and yapamamamızın is a word, while a four-word English phrase isn't a word. Now if we had a parsing system like you're talking about, where someone could type in yapamamamızın and be given the information about its root and affixes, then I'd agree we wouldn't need it as an entry as well. But until we have such a parsing system here, if someone creates an entry for yapamamamızın, and someone else nominates it for deletion, I will vote keep. —Angr 22:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Someone may create an entry for yapamamamızın but will soon tire of creating such entries. This discussion reminds me of the joke about the person with the hammer seeing everything like a nail ;-). You have to admit that current WikiMedia software is not designed to deal with this kind of data. That's why the Foundation has started to move toward new concepts like WikiData [5].
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- To think that a word is a bunch of characters with a space character on either side is an English- (or rather, a non-agglutinative language) speaker's world view :-). For yapamamamızın and "of our inability to do", the important parts are yap and "do" and the rest is grammatical detail. English uses spaces to separate most morphemes, Turkish relies a lot more on grammar rules. If four words separated by spaces don't deserve to have an entry in the dictionary, nor does a lemma with three suffixes. --İnfoCan (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Let me elaborate. The grammatical rules I mentioned can be summarized in a few paragraphs on a special page in the Appendix: names space and this would be far more efficient than having a template for each inflection form of each Turkish word. On the other hand, it did occur to me that there are a few exceptions to these rules, mainly because of exceptions to the Turkish vowel harmony rules (for certain words of foreign origin (for example the dative case of sol, the musical note, is sole, but the dative case of sol, meaning "left", is sola). For such exceptions, and only for them, a specialized template would be useful to indicate that the usual rules do not apply. This minor point aside, I still stand by my view above. --İnfoCan (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
|
-
- Per İnfoCan--Sabri76'talk 17:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
-
- Actually I find it unnecessary to create articles every declined noun form and conjugated verb form, as it'd mean countless forms. Being quite different than English, there are so many possible situations that are expressed by a suffix in Turkish. But I also think of the users that have no knowledge of Turkish. We also have to take into account that, even someone without a basic knowledge should be able to find the definitions they needed. So if someone sees a word like evimizdeyiz ("we are at our house") and tries to look it up, they'll probably find nothing, as it has 3 different suffixes. And searching words like this is useless, as Did you mean ...? part can't always lead you to the right direction, as the forms on the declension templates are not shown on the searches.
-
-
-
- Rather than creating each form, I guess we could edit the templates in order to give links to each suffix, something like that: evimizdeyiz. I guess this is more practical, as there are so many (and I mean it.) suffixes and there'd be millions of different combinations with all Turkish nouns. But I still have no idea about the search part, is there way to make it possible to show the info on the declension templates? Sinek (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
| More off-topic comments about whether there should be entries for all possible word-suffix combinations |
|---|
-
-
-
-
- Creating millions of pages for all possible combinations of Turkish words with their single, double and triple suffix combinations is very inefficient. It is like creating separate pages for every possible two-, three- and four-word phrases in English. If somebody needs to look up a word like evimizdeyiz ("we are at our house"), you need a parsing-based solution, not a catalog-based solution that WikiMedia provides. It is possible to write scripts that take a word like evimizdeyiz and split it into ev (house) + -imiz (possesive, 1PP) + -de (locative case) + y (vowel-vowel connector) + -iz (copula, 1PP). The output of such a script can then give the necessary links to a such a user. --İnfoCan (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- That's exactly what I said. I just don't know how to link the user (who searches evimizdeyiz) to the bare noun, ev. Sinek (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
|
- Any chance of moving all the off-topic stuff to the Beer Parlor? The deletion debates has got lost among it. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry. I collapsed my comments above. --İnfoCan (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I would favour deleting these in favour of an approach like that used in Hungarian noun form categorisation. To elaborate, categorise possessive noun forms in one possessive noun form subcategory, then perhaps for any further inflected forms based off a form that is possessive (should we include them) categorise them as basic noun forms; for example, evimizde could be included as "locative singular(?) of evimiz". I don't know how accepting of this people would be but I think it would be kind of ok to give some like a free pass to the basic inflections, except perhaps in the case of odd or rare words, so that we would generally have no qualms about the addition of the simple case forms and probably nominative possessive forms too but would maybe be more strict or watchful of additions of not so basic forms like non-nominative possessives and such. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 14:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC) [edit] A Bunch of Inflected-Form Templates Same as above, but no language-specific issues to complicate things. These all categorize to the language specified in the language-code parameter. There may be others, but I don't have the time to look through this: [6] Chuck Entz (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC) - Many of these were originally misspelled, but were moved to the correct spellings. A few still had the typos in their categorization language, but I corrected them so the misspelled categories would be orphaned, then deleted those categories. Some of these didn't have correctly-spelled categories to categorize to, so we'll need to deal with dozens of entries in a few non-existent categories once we decide what to do with everything. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Like above, I propose to follow the way it is done in Hungarian, as this Finno-Ugric language is somehow similar to the Altaic Turkish. In Hungarian, words are formed also agglutinively, and I know that a word can have several cases at the same time. Sae1962 (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
-
- I don't know what the practice is for Hungarian entries, but for the same argument I made above [7] I believe these templates and the words they are used for need to be deleted. --İnfoCan (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Part of efforts to resolve category navigation problems in 2007. Not linked to except in those discussions. DCDuring TALK 23:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC) - Terminate with extreme prejudice --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Kill with fire. Designed to work with {{nav}} which failed a deletion request in 2009 or 2010. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. --Yair rand (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Killed with fire. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 23:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Do we have TTBC categories for dialects? I couldn't find any other. And how would {{ttbc}} categorise an entry into this anyway? — Ungoliant (Falai) 04:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC) - Just speedy it. There's an option in the dropdown for "Empty category". --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- @Ungoliant, re: "how would {{ttbc}} categorise an entry into this anyway?" pt-BR seems to be ISO code for it. That code is used here in some pronunciation files and in citing a translation of Harry Potter used to attest or illustrate some Portuguese words. I think someone has attempted to use it to add translations as well. As to whether is a language of a dialect: who has the bigger army, the bigger economy? DCDuring TALK 04:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- By that reasoning, one would expect there to be a ttbc category for US English... Chuck Entz (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted for being obviously unnecessary/unwanted. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 01:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Not a context... Mglovesfun (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC) - Deleted and orphaned in the mainspace. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 20:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Invalid language code -- Liliana • 15:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC) - Yeah, it's really more like ca-CLN. Note that this comes with the full load of categories (POS etc) but no entries. Delete --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete this template and all the categories associated with it. —Angr 18:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
-
- Delete. To learn Catalan a read an essay on the Catalan Wikisource about Algherese, and the essay considered that it was just Catalan. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- From my experience, Algherese is just Catalan with a few small grammar and vocabulary differences, no more different than Valencian. It is much closer to standard Catalan than Occitan is. —CodeCat 09:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ciao. For its creation I have made reference to article Dialetto Algherese indicating SIL = CLN. Furthermore with L.R. 11.09.1997 of the Autonomous Region of Sardinia states that "the same value given to the culture and the Sardinian language is recognized by reference to the territory concerned, to the culture and language of Alghero, the Tabarchino Islander Sulcis to dialect Sassari and the Gallura". However, if the existence of this template is not scientifically justifiable delete it as well. Thank you.. --Discanto (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have deleted all of the categories and updated all trans-tables which used the template, but wait a few days before deleting it to be sure Whatlinkshere is/stays empty. - -sche (discuss) 17:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Where would this be useful? --Yair rand (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC) - There have been occasions where I think systematic rickrolling would drastically improve Wiktionary. This is not one of them. Rickrollers, format your own damn links yourselves. Delete. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
- For the record, there are a couple of YouTube links on Wiktionary used to back up pronunciations. That of course, doesn't mean we need a template for it. Writing out links the traditional way is just fine. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a little template I made for DCDuring (talk • contribs), and he has shown no interest in using it since. If it won't be transcluded, it ought to be deleted. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC) - Comment, looks like it would work as a subst: template. There is a {{rft-archived}} template which doesn't have to be subst:ed. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- If the creator and the one for whom it was created are fine with it's deletion and no one else has expressed any interest in it, then just delete it IMO.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- You can ask DCD, if you care enough. Or wait for him to notice. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
And Category:Intransitive verbs by language, Category:Ambitransitive verbs by language, Category:Ditransitive verbs by language, and their subcategories. They seem rather useless to me, like nouns by gender and countability. Ultimateria (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC) - Keep as a parent cat. In many languages, they are quite linguistically important. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's a good idea to distinguish transitivity in entries, but I just can't imagine any use for these categories. Is anyone really going to need a list of transitive verbs in Icelandic? Ultimateria (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- I feel about the same as Ultimateria, but not strongly enough to care if these get kept or deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Maro 18:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- What about Category:Ergative verbs by language? —CodeCat 12:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep all. Both linguists and language-learners can benefit from categories like these. —Angr 17:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- How? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- If I'm studying how transitive verbs in Icelandic work, it's good to have a list of them to test my hypotheses on. —Angr 22:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- The main problem with categories like these is that transitivity is dependent on sense. Some senses of a verb may be intransitive, some may be transitive. So the titles are a bit misleading: it's not the verbs that are transitive, it's their senses. —CodeCat 21:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, again that depends on the language. True in English, but false in Tok Pisin. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, in that case keep then. It would be nice if {{transitive}} categorised entries in this category again, though. —CodeCat 11:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Angr and Metaknowledge. - -sche (discuss) 16:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
As already stated, these categories may be very misleading: e.g. in French, transitive verbs almost always have intransitive uses, and many verbs generally considered as intransitive (e.g. nager) also have transitive uses in some cases. Should they be included in both categories? If kept, the meaning (and the name) of these categories should be clarified, so that verbs such as nager don't appear in both Transitive and Intransitive verbs (which is currently the case with fr.wikt, very unfortunately, because categorization is automatic through templates). Or these categories could be restricted to some languages. Lmaltier (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC) An idea that was abandoned 5 years ago... —CodeCat 21:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC) - Can we reform them instead of deleting them? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Reform them in what way? —CodeCat 21:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a tentative request as I'm not quite sure if this template can be deleted. The only language that has this code assigned to it is currently {{ang}}, Old English. Is it really necessary? We have other languages with uncommon Latin characters, but they have never posed a problem that I'm aware of. It also seems redundant compared to {{unicode}}. —CodeCat 21:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC) - We have {{nv-Latn}} and {{pjt-Latn}}. {{ang-Latn}} could be justified, but I doubt it's needed as we don't use Latinx for languages which use the same characters. So I'm for the deletion, cautiously. If it fails, as an intermediate solution it could redirect to {{Latn}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, æ-macron and y-macron don't display in IE6 without this template... Do we still want to accomodate IE6 users? -- Liliana • 10:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oh really? Do any other languages use these? Simple answer is yes, we want to accommodate everyone. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Even Lynx users? I imagine there will always be IE6, IE5... IE 1 users on the internet... somewhere. We can't really keep supporting them all. IE6 is already 11 years old, most web developers gave up supporting it as soon as they could. According to Wikipedia it's used in the US by less than 1% of people. —CodeCat 11:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, by all means we should support Lynx, and fall gracefully back onto alternatives where JavaScript, etc. is not available. Equinox ◑ 15:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I would have thought that, claiming to be some kind of universal resource of mankind as we do, we have a responsibility to support as many users as possible. We can't be aimed at serving a population of academics and technogeeks with well-funded, high-bandwidth systems, constantly being kept up to date by a staff of adepts, dropping user populations not able to keep up. I don't know exactly how that translates into browser support and script, but keeping some templates which might enable use to reach some population of users seems an easy choice, especially if some users may be counting on its continuation. DCDuring TALK 15:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
However, I just tried it on my IE6. Interestingly, {{Latinx}} and {{unicode}} render Old English as boxes, and only {{IPAchar}} manages to render the characters correctly. So it would seem that our font list is imperfect. -- Liliana • 11:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC) - Would it work if those fonts were just added to {{Latn}}? —CodeCat 12:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe, but I'm not sure in what way that would cause issues for non-IE users. -- Liliana • 12:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like a very useful dictionary appendix... This, that and the other (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC) - Yes delete, formatting and content are both terrible too. Both are fixable, but why fix them if we don't want this in the first place. What would be next Appendix:Common themes in sport? Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- (Just in time for the Olympic hype.) Delete: if anything, convert to a topical category, but I am not enthusiastic. Also, this only deals with a very specific kind of fiction: apparently kids' stories, ghost stories, and myths, despite the large amount of realistic fiction. Equinox ◑ 10:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's interesting for sure, but it's rather encyclopedic and doesn't really belong in a dictionary. Delete. Or turn into a topical category like Equinox suggests, but deleting may be better. What is common in fiction depends on time, fiction a few hundred years ago was quite different. —CodeCat 11:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds like both a bad idea and unworkable as a topical category. Who decides what's common and what's not common? Also, who would want it, and why? Wiktionary doesn't have to do everything, that's where there are sister projects, and non-Wikimedia projects beyond those. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ship it to WP or delete. DCDuring TALK 15:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Seems Wikipedia can't transwiki from us, as lame as that sounds. That would only leave deletion, and I'm all for it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Another bit of old cruft. First definition is SoP. Second def isn't very specific. Third def just doesn't make sense... I really don't get how "fear of intimacy" can be a "type of adult"... it sounds like a bad Chinese translation or something. This, that and the other (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC) - Murder it please. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- To bad we can't return it WP as defective. DCDuring TALK 15:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 11:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
"a measure of magnetic resolution, in particular the number of individual tracks a floppy disk controller can use within a linear one-inch space." In other words, it's tracks per inch. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC) - We could always just delete the entire contents of the Transwiki namespace - it's full of crap. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
-
- No doubt about it, but it's not doing any harm as it's not in the main namespace. Actions of one user in particular moving crappy entries from the transwiki namespace into the main one does annoy me, but crappy transwikis don't annoy me as long as they don't get into the main namespace whilst still crap. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Says it's a warship used as a guard. I assume it can be any type of ship, just a warship is much more suited to the task than a shrimper. Ergo delete, unless guardship is ok, then we kinda can't. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC) - No, it fails WT:COALMINE because it's not significantly more common than guardship, it's significantly less common than it; on Google Books an estimate 441 hits whil guardship gets 25100, more than 50 times more. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- But guardship can also refer to "the state of being a guard/guarded", so a simple Google Books search may not be representative for this particular sense. —CodeCat 18:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- "A guard ship" gets 32900 GBC hits to 3930 for "a guardship". "Guardships"+crew gets 1440, "guard ships"+crew gets 4950 (with some being for "Coast Guard ships"): "the guardships"+crew gets 529, "the guard ships"+crew gets 3480. - -sche (discuss) 16:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Have you noticed how wonky Google search results are? The counts, in particular, seem unreliable. Caution seems required. Sometimes it pays to try to page toward the end of the results. That end may come much sooner than the indicated number would suggest. That might be the result of Google limiting the number of such pages they make available or it might indicate a bad estimate. Heavy use of qualifying terms to reduce the absolute count, possibly even going further than -sche did above, may be desirable to make a page-by-page scan of the results more feasible, without fear of Google-imposed limits. DCDuring TALK 16:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Good point. "Of the guardships" masts crew gets 9 results (though it says it gets 10), "of the guard ships" masts crew gets 12 (though it says it gets 237). "Of the guard ships" boats crew gets 18 (claims 673), "of the guardships" boats crew gets 6 (claims 7). The two-word term seems more common than the one-word term. - -sche (discuss) 17:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
These are proper topics as such, but where does it stop? Category:Fourty-two? Category:Googol? —CodeCat 19:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC) - See also #Category:Three above. It has been closed as kept on 8 August 2012 for no consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Category: One, and Five - delete. Maro 19:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
-
- But not Two, Three and Four? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, only these two. Maro 20:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Is there something special about the numbers 2, 3 and 4 that you are not telling us...? —CodeCat 20:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Category Five has only one page in it and One has two entries. Category:en:Three has 83 entries so someone can find it useful. You've made separate sections for each category here so I suppose we do not consider them collectively but separately. Maro 22:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it doesn't really it make sense to me if we think a category for 'Three' is a good thing to have but a category for 'One' is not. What is important about 3 that it is more deserving of a category of its own than 1 is? —CodeCat 02:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- We do have the option to add things to categories. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I doubt that these are of use to anyone other than their creator. Criteria for existence of and membership in topical category tree are simply the whims of creators, patrollers, and voters. The membership in classes like this ends up being quite Borgesian. DCDuring TALK 13:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- delete and please stay with prefix/suffix categories instead of creating such pseudo-etymology categories. -- Liliana • 16:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have decided to vote keep, as I am unconvinced by the stated arguments for deletion, and as Roget's 1911 thesaurus has entries per several small positive integers: "87. Unity", "89. Duality", "92. Triality", "95. Four", and "98. Five". See for instance "triality" in Roget's Thesaurus, T. Y. Crowell Co., 1911. The categories are not really etymological; they contain words whose meaning contains the particular small number in some way. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- If we do decide to keep this, then we would have to agree where to stop, though. I doubt Category:Forty-two is something we would want to keep. —CodeCat 18:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- We should stop when the category can no longer contain an interesting number of member entries. Have you had a look at Roget 1911? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, thesaurus. I'd support a Wikisaurus:one, Wikisaurus:two etc. without second thought, but surely not this. -- Liliana • 19:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Why do you support thesaurus but not a topical category? Which argument of yours applies to a category but not to thesaurus? What is the negative consequence of having these topical categories? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Categories appear at the bottom of every page. If we have topical categories for everything people can come up with, it will be an utter mess. -- Liliana • 19:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Links to the thesaurus will eventually appear in every member entry of each thesaurus page. So again, how are categories different from thesaurus pages? Furthermore, which of the member entries of the categories proposed for deletion are overcrowded with topical categories? Certainly not trimetallic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- And not to forget, you cannot sort category members by hypernyms, hyponyms, holonyms, meronyms, synonyms, antonyms etc. like you can with a Wikisaurus page. -- Liliana • 20:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- I am the last one in English Wiktionary to fail to appreciate the charms of Wikisaurus over topical categories. But with "triality", "three" or "threeness", the semantic relations that you have mentioned do not find any use. I still do not see why you oppose topical categories while having no objections to thesaurus entries. I also do not see you respond the points I have raised, or admit an error. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete the categories; make and link from entries to an appendix, if desired. - -sche (discuss) 18:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't get the relevance of there being a thesaurus entry in Roget for having a category in Wiktionary. For having a Wikisaurus entry, yes.
- Appendices are great places for laying out thematic relationships with much more detail and richness than a simple listing.
- Delete each and every one. DCDuring TALK 19:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- You have already voted delete, DCDuring. Topical categories classify words by semantics, just like a thesaurus does. (A true thesaurus like the Roget's one, not a dictionary of synonyms.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
For the record, the English variants of the categories now have the following numbers of member entries: The great job of filling the categories seems to have been done by Robin Lionheart (talk • contribs); kudos. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC) - And six has 29, seven has 21, eight has 32, nine 18, ten 25, eleven 20, twelve 18, thirteen 13. There are no categories for fourteen and above yet. —CodeCat 19:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Good. Now what is wrong with these categories? Why do you want them deleted? What is it that you do not like about them? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- As topical categories by themselves I am not sure if there is anything really wrong with them, although I do think there should be less and broader topics rather than more and specific ones. The issue I have with these categories in particular is the precedent they set towards having categories for more and more integers without end. Judging them based on how many entries they (can) contain does not work, because more can always be added. —CodeCat 20:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Only attested entries can be added. I doubt that you can find a meaningful number of memeber entries for Category:en:Thirty-five. I challenge you to find ten candidate entries in Wiktionary for that category. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Explicitly abstain. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Now that some people have been working to create new categories and fill them all, I am leaning towards keep myself. But I do hope we keep the highest at 20 for now. —CodeCat 01:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Strong keep now that they have a lot of entries. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC) - Keep em, they're well populated now. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The symbols in this category are only used in Devanagari script, the other languages and scripts of India use their own symbols with their own encodings. So this category is misnamed. It could be renamed, maybe, but I don't think we have any other categories that group numerals by script, other than Category:Roman numerals (which isn't made up of single symbols alone), Category:Arabic numerals (also misnamed). —CodeCat 19:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Firstly — if we do keep this, it should be named "English blasphemous terms", or "English terms considered blasphemous", or something, because the current name implies that it's supposed to hold English terms on the topic of blasphemy, which does not appear to be the case. Secondly — I don't see that there's any need to split Category:English swear words so finely. It's not a big category. —RuakhTALK 14:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Blasphemous swears are significantly distinct from general swear and are subject to a specific interest that justifies having a category of his own. The "not a big category" argument doesn't seem to stand, as it raises the bar from what is usually expected from categories, that is more than 2 or 3 entries. English terms considered blasphemous sounds better to me.--ShedCorner (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC) - (after edit conflict) It also would need to be integrated into our normal category tree structure. A potential problem with this category is that the determination as to what is blasphemous is a theological question to which different religions may have different answers. Many muslims would consider a lot of our entries blasphemous just by virtue of having images in them. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Current content: Christ, Christ on a bike, goddamn, hell, holy shit, Jesus Christ, Jesus fucking Christ. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Move to Category:English blasphemous terms per Ruakh's alternative suggestion and clarify intent. I would welcome knowing which English words and expressions were considered blasphemous in some religion or other. I wouldn't hurt to have it subdivided by religion. It might even be useful for definers so as to avoid using blasphemous terms in definitions orn usage examples where not necessary or at least useful. A blasphemybot to tag entries using such words for review would be kind of handy. As an example, would it not be good to make sure that definitions ans usage examples tagged {{Judaism}} did not contain the spelled out god rather than having g-d?
- I suppose we might be better off to not get involved in such matters so overtly and systematically, but there are advantages to it. DCDuring TALK 22:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Wiktionary is not censored, so I don't think we should do such things. Besides, if we want to keep a neutral POV, then we would either have to avoid offending all religious sensibilities or offending none of them. Since the former is something I certainly do not want (us) to get into, I think it's better and easier to go for the second option. —CodeCat 22:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Too narrow. bd2412 T 03:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
-
- @Codecat: Yes, I would be interested in avoiding offense to any religion in defining the terms used in that religion, and in determining whether there were patterns of blasphemy-based harassment of any religion. DCDuring TALK 02:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- We already have a tags for ethnic and nationalistic pejoratives and offensive terms. Blasphemy just gives a more precise delineation of one kind of offensiveness. Linguistics does include sociolinguistics, discourse analysis, and pragmatics. I see no reason why we should not include lexical content from those areas in our scope. This category supports such an objective. DCDuring TALK 02:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Delete --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC) - What does the lemming test say? Other dictionaries label terms as offensive, vulgar, and pejorative, but do any other dictionaries label terms as blasphemous? I doubt it, and since the thing about blasphemous terms is that people are offended by them, I say we should just merge this category (and any context template that feeds it) into Category:English offensive terms. —Angr 10:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that other dictionaries are comparable in this regard in two ways:
- They do not have the ability to support as elaborate a system of categories as we do already.
- They do not as much potential for enabling diverse groups to interact with each other in near real time.
- They cannot readily have users provide full information about such matters.
- Other dictionaries have responded to the risk of offense (with its clarifying financial implications for them) by defining terms in ways that studiously avoid giving offense, ie, self-restraint. Most seem to even limit inclusion of terms to avoid giving offense - something I would oppose vigorously. Our population of contributors includes some who seem to lack commitment to the idea of a Wiktionary that serves all, not to mention maturity. Whenever we have a problem we attempt to use technology to solve it unobtrusively. Recording terms that give offense would enable bots or even humans to patrol for the use of such terms in user space so that the use could be reviewed and emended if necessary and possible. DCDuring TALK 13:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm certainly not saying we should restrict the inclusion of offensive terms, or that we shouldn't mark them and categorize them as such. I'm just not sure we really need to classify offensive terms by the specific type of offense they give. Do we have and/or want categories like "English racist terms", "English sexist terms", "English agist terms", "English homophobic terms", etc.? —Angr 15:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Over the course of this conversation, I have come to realize that what I am interested in is how to collect user input on such terms. I had thought that more tags would help, eg, {{blasphemy}}, {{racist}}, etc. But that might cause more problems than it would solve. I suppose that the combination of Feedback, entry talk pages, user edits to entries (including our existing tags) should be sufficient. But how do we ensure the collection of such instances in a useful way? Whatever we collect from users would need to be supplemented by our own researches, too, because we cannot count on users for comprehensive coverage. DCDuring TALK 16:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- This might be better as an Appendix than as a category. Surely an Appendix with explanatory text would be of much more use than a simple category? --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- An Appendix might be a good thing, but it does not help with the process of accumulating such terms. I am open to any thoughts about how to collect terms which might be considered offensive by the wide population of potential users, especially those whose beliefs and sensibilities are not represented by those who contribute to pages like this. DCDuring TALK 15:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Empty category. Previously contained entries which are now correctly spelt, with ǃ, and placed in Category:English terms spelled with ǃ. See also WT:RFM#Click_characters_in_language_names_and_2x_.21Kung. - -sche (discuss) 00:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC) - keep no longer empty -- Liliana • 16:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- O.K., but these categories really need to link to each other. With wordy explanations. And the phone number for a 24-hour hotline to call, for re-explanation. —RuakhTALK 17:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- struck - -sche (discuss) 04:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The bot-updated list at Wiktionary:Index to templates/languages is already more comprehensive. - -sche (discuss) 03:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC) - Redirect --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a paraphyletic grouping according to Wikipedia, so it's not a true language family and has no unique common ancestor. —CodeCat 17:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC) - I'm assuming that you'll kill the category and all the transclusions as well? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think that changing the Superfamily subtemplate on {{etyl:phi}} should take care of most of them. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- The category can probably stay as long as it's made clear in the description and in the way it's categorised that it's just a convenient collection of languages, not a linguistic family. —CodeCat 15:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- The category can't exist without the template though. -- Liliana • 16:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- We can type the contents out manually can't we? —CodeCat 16:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- But the categorization would not work. -- Liliana • 18:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Liliana. The Austronesian and Australian languages are special cases: there are so many of them that we must, practically speaking, use some paraphyletic groupings to sort them. (I used to RFD such groupings myself, but I have since come to see the impossibility of sorting the Austr. languages without them.) - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
A rant in broken English with no usable content. Neither of the given spellings of the word gets any Google Books hits. - -sche (discuss) 22:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC) - I think we're meant to work out the original Korean spelling and move it there. But as pointed out, the English is poor and it fails to actually say what the word means (or hides the meaning well enough that I can't find it) so just delete it. I wouldn't even add it to WT:RE:ko as it's an Internet neologism ergo low priority. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as protologism. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 16:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
All dictionary-appropriate content is already in cadet, or should be moved into cadet as part of this RFD. - -sche (discuss) 22:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC) - There was some info worth saving, which I have assimilated into cadet. Now it can be deleted without regret. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Looks ready to be deleted. DCDuring TALK 12:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 04:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Completely useless category. There are around 17000 potential entries and it's a waste of time to add them. We might as well have a category for English words spelled with 'z'. DTLHS (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC) - Delete, I have been meaning to nominate a few such categories for deletion, but haven't got round to it. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly something that would be better built into an improved search function. Equinox ◑ 09:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Maro 14:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
deleted -- Liliana • 14:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC) Again, Wiktionary doesn't have WikiProjects. If anything, this page is misleading. Some of the links are useful, some are not, but they all aren't the kind of subcommunity that a Wikipedia editor might expect, and for good reason. It has been nominated before, but it was kept as no consensus. C'mon, out with the cruft. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Not sure what to do with this strangely specific category. All I know is that it has a bad title and {{zh-tw}} is also nommed for deletion. If someone has a good idea, feel free to export this to RFM. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC) - Delete, and see #Category:cmn:Variant Pronunciations in traditional script above. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Striking the nomination, as I figured out what to do with it. See WT:RFM#Category:zh-tw:Variant Pronunciations. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Seems to be a very complicated way to achieve something that can be achieved much more easily just by writing it out in a sentence. It does categorize but again, you can write it out as a sentence and add the category at the end, and it would still be simpler than using this template. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC) - I don't see the harm in it. That it categorizes makes it a keeper IMO. (Fwiw, old discussion is at [[Wiktionary:Tea room/Archive 2008/January#Dutch courage pejorative]].)—msh210℠ (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Doremítzwr made extensive use of <span class="plainlinks">, but the only place this template is used is its creator's user page. (See also Wiktionary:Information_desk#plainlinks.) - -sche (discuss) 22:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC) - No strong feelings. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Actually I quite like the idea of replacing all the <span class="plainlinks"> with this template (but renaming it to plainlinks per our norms). That's my feeling. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- It seems detrimental to have large amounts of hard-coding in our entries. It serves to discourage and complicate the job of editing entries. But I don't think it is desirable to have some external links have one appearance and others another unless we have some specific intent (with consensus) and carry through on its implementation. Did Doremitzwr anywhere document or even discuss his intent with the use of <span class="plainlinks">? DCDuring TALK 18:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Good point regarding why would we have some external links appear one way and some appear another way. That is an advantage of a template, that Special:WhatLinksHere allows you to find all uses of any template. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- This can be, and is, used for more than just external links. The software treats any link that uses single [ ] as external, but there are many cases where such links lead to some place on Wiktionary. For example, a link that allows you to edit a page by clicking on it, or one that creates a page and fills it with some pre-set content, would be considered an external link. This CSS class is used in those cases to avoid the special formatting associated with such links, as it would be inappropriate. —CodeCat 23:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Can you diagnose why Doremitzwr used it? Does one have to analyze the dump in order to even find its use efficiently? DCDuring TALK 00:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I have moved all the content I thought dictionary-worthy to [[greaser]]. (If you think I missed anything, move it, too.) - -sche (discuss) 08:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC) - See WT:BP#Speedying merged transwikis.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Background: Chip's Challenge is a (good and fun!) puzzle game released in 1989 on various systems. This appendix page lists the various items in the game, such as "fire boots" that protect from fire, etc. Given that this is really outside our remit to begin with, I would like to propose deletion lest its existence make anybody think that this kind of thing is appropriate here (appendix or otherwise) — it came to mind because of Metaknowledge raising Daniel's fictional-anime-character appendices as comparable to the BASIC programming language one (and thus, erroneously IMO, de facto justifiable). Let's bear in mind that there have been literally thousands of video games both before and after Chip's Challenge, many of them more notable, and virtually all of them have their own characters, objects, and jargon. Should we have a page for the seminal and highly-regarded Doom (we have an entry for Doom, after all! though heaven knows why), with entries like "blue key", "red key", "yellow key", and "plasma gun"? How about for Lemmings, with its amusing characters like the "basher", "bomber", and "athlete"? Basically no, we shouldn't even encourage someone to start on this massive and irrelevant project by permitting a few initial oddities. Equinox ◑ 22:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC) - Note that I have (mostly) changed my opinion on the subject. However... I really don't care if we have these, and they might even be useful, as a place to redirect the useless efforts of video game lexicographers (like what we use WT:LOP for, in redirecting those with protologistic interests). --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Would anyone disagree that WT:LOP is Wiktionary's equivalent of Windows' Recycle Bin? Nobody reads or uses it. It is just easier to push people there than to anger them with outright deletion. Equinox ◑ 00:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- LMAO! Totally true. — Ungoliant (Falai) 00:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting one. Is any fictional universe acceptable for appendices, including all books, movies, video games and so on? My instinct says no, but I don't think we have any rules on this whatsoever. Could we possibly solve this with legislation instead of individual votes? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Appendix:Chip's Challenge does seem excessive (though harmless). If we want a rule of thumb, how about: When gamers often use gameworld terms in general forums without specifying what game they're referring to (ex. Eevee, Tauren, goomba), then that game may be a good candidate for an appendix. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
What's a "basher" in Lemmings? I wish there was a dictionary to look for that word! However, I'm not sure Wiktionary is the place for it. Mind you, I do think it is interesting material; but, in this community, it's too controversial, to say the least. WT:FICTION, at this point, seems permissive enough to allow a wide range of fictional words: - when they are cited out of context, (in books or Google Groups or whatever) they go in the main namespace ("[After finding a glowing blade,] Brian being Brian, his first thought was of a lightsaber.")
- when the context is explained, they go in appendices ("Finally, a movie reference I understood! Finally, something I could get excited about! "Like C-3PO!" I shouted. "He was a protocol droid!"")
I have reasons to assume the rule #1 is to formally allow uncontroversial words for fictional things in the mainspace: zombie, vampire, mermaid... The rule #2 looks like an experiment, a tentative guideline to be improved somehow. It was voted in a time where most (or all?) appendices like Appendix:Chip's Challenge did not exist yet. Some interesting comments: - "I feel this is the start of something exciting."
- "Please don't make me regret this."
- "After thinking a lot about this, I've decided it's not an ideal solution, but it will allow us to accumulate a bank of words (and citations?) from which we can further refine community opinion."
--Daniel 00:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC) - Since you asked (rhetorically? I don't know), a basher is a Lemming (= controllable green-haired game character capable of, etc.) that can swipe its way horizontally through the landscape, making a tunnel. The correct "dictionary" to look this up in is the Lemmings manual (Psygnosis, 1991; [8] page 17), because the term isn't used in this way outside of Lemmings. Equinox ◑ 00:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
As #Appendix:BASIC (deleted) did, these list terms used in programming languages, not in natural/spoken languages (except as the two happen to share words). Not dictionary material: delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC) - I wouldn't oppose deletion. They don't seem to be language of the kind relevant to a dictionary (i.e. no parts of speech, rarely any consistent pronunciations, no inflections). The APL symbols are cute, and they are in Unicode, but we already voted to delete their entries from mainspace. Appendices should really be useful addenda and not an attic for stuff we just can't bear to delete. Equinox ◑ 22:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
-
- Delete COBOL, but I share Equinox's odd fondness for the APL page. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete them. I was reluctant to raise a finger against Appendix:APL (those arcane symbols pique my interest), but we still have a more complete list at w:APL syntax and symbols to reference. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Appendix:APL and Appendix:COBOL per deletion of #Appendix:BASIC. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete but leave a soft redirect to the Wikipedia page. bd2412 T 02:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Striking COBOL as there is a consensus for deletion. Leaving APL for now. Equinox ◑ 02:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Since all its languages' glossaries are deleted or in the process of being deleted, this seems rather superfluous. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC) - My initial react is to wait for those votes to finish. Appendix:APL looks like it has a slight chance of survival. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- But, you see, if only one of them survives, then there's no point in having the template to navigate to the other ones. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- Even if two survive, we don't need a template to link from one to the other: just include a link in the page. Heck, even if three survive. Delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Good point; delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
This template was used by one editor on <150 pages, usually in conjunction with some of the characters st ff fi fl ffi ffl ƈt (all instances of which I have just changed to st ff fi fl ffi ffl ct), to represent the c-t ligature found in old texts by displaying "c"+zero-width-joiner+"t". Nevertheless, it displays two separately-selectable characters. I do not think we should attempt to reproduce that ligature as anything other than regular "ct", let alone as something as hackish as this. I propose that this template be orphaned and deleted. - -sche (discuss) 21:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC) - Delete. I literally can't tell the difference. I had to click edit to confirm that the template was in place on the entries I checked. I suppose there's some kind of difference that can be seen if you compare the template with c+t side by side, but it's not worth even the miniscule addition to the template load for a page. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Afterthought: it might have something to do with my font or with my browser's treatment of the "zero-width-joiner" type of character. It still seems pointless, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- I notice that if I copypaste conductors (produced using this template) into the search box, it asks me if I meant conductos, and gives me a redlink. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Orphaned and deleted. - -sche (discuss) 07:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Was uploaded to add to [[Cleveland steamer]]. Clearly incorrect and unnecessary besides. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC) - Image is at Commons, not here, so we have no jurisdiction over its deletion. —Angr 13:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
This is part of the hypothetical and controversial Penutian language family, not a proven genetic language family. Should we delete it, or keep it for convenience? - -sche (discuss) 01:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC) - I see no need for convenience here. delete -- Liliana • 07:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) On the one hand, it's much less hypothetical and controversial than the Penutian language family itself. On the other hand, that's not saying much... It wouldn't surprise me to see someone come up with the evidence for genetic relationship, but being able to combine just two independent groups doesn't seem like a big enough convenience to keep the family around in the absence of said evidence. The Penutian hypothesis has gone as far as it has with as little real evidence as it has because it would provide a handy structure for dealing with lots of odds and ends that are left in the bottom of the sorting bin. Yok-Utian would be just one little step towards that very faraway goal. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
"Standard Malay". Redundant to {{ms}}. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC) - Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
"Standard Arabic". Redundant to {{ar}}. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC) - Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Striking as already listed above; please comment above at #Template:arb. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
What's up with this? We're not Wikipedia. Better to get rid of it than to have it mislead people into believing that uses from the web count as citations here. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC) - We do still need references for etymologies and such... —CodeCat 23:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:cite_web, which indicates that the template is used in thousands of pages.
- AFAIK, uses from the web do count as citations for their main purpose, which is illustrating the usage of words. They don't count for RFV/attestation, though, which is a completely separate matter. --Daniel 15:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, because erm, keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't quite agree with your first argument Daniel. The fact that a template is used in thousands of pages is not an argument against deleting it. It only means that we can't delete it yet, but RFD should concern itself with whether things ought to be deleted, not whether they can be. —CodeCat 17:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a reference template (for use in <ref> tags and ===References=== sections), not a quotation template (for use under sense-lines and in ===Quotations=== sections and on Citations: pages). Like most of our general-purpose reference and quotation templates, it's poorly named, poorly conceived, poorly formatted, and poorly written; but I don't think that RFDO is the place to address that. —RuakhTALK 17:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per CodeCat and Ruakh. - -sche (discuss) 19:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept. BTW, RFD tag could have been added to documentation page instead, correct? DAVilla 03:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC) and other 26 categories of this type with their topic cat parent templates, like Category:en:Transliteration of French female given names, Category:Transliteration of Russian male given names. The reason is to remove duplicate categories, as discussed in User talk:EncycloPetey#Categories:Transliteration. This is the solution (2) in the discussion. If the deletion is accepted, I will empty the categories and mark them for deletion. --Makaokalani (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC) - Delete; the categories are arbitrary, being based on the fact that some languages use a different script and so must transcribe names. There is no information about the names themselves encoded in having the category, but rather information about the relative difference of the two languages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, per EncycloPetey. There should be no "Transliterations of ... names" categories. --Yair rand (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't object to these categories really. Apart from Category:en:Transliteration of French female given names which makes no sense as they both use the Latin script. Mglovesfun (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- This discussion request is only about the deletion of the confusing and partly erratic middle categories, all containing the words "Transliteration of (Language) surnames or (fe)male given names". Categories of the Category:lv:Russian male given names type will remain, to be listed (in this example) under Category:Russian male given names and Category:lv:Transliteration of personal names. By emptying the categories I meant mostly changing the parent categories. --Makaokalani (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per Makaokalani. - -sche (discuss) 21:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Tagged with {{d}} by This, that and the other (talk • contribs) with the reasoning as follows: "Non free content not permitted on English Wiktionary". It was uploaded by Robin Lionheart (talk • contribs), who gave a non-free use rationale at the file page. I personally have no opinion and no knowledge about Wiktionary copyright. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC) - Other nonfree images have been kept in the past (e.g. File talk:Far Side 1982-05-28 - Thagomizer.png), so whatever Meta says, in practice, Wiktionary does allow nonfree content. But in order to comply with Foundation regulations, we have to have an exemption doctrine policy. At the moment, we don't have one (AFAIK), so either we have to hammer one out or we have to delete the nonfree images we have. —Angr 09:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- If we are going to allow non-free "image citations" like this one, we would also need a process whereby non-admins could upload (or request upload of) non-free images for use in citation pages. On the whole, though, I don't see pictorial citations as being any more useful than simple text (such as thagomizer#Etymology), and judging by Wikipedia's example, non-free files seem to be more trouble than they are worth. This, that and the other (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that having nonfree images is more trouble than it's worth; I have long been opposed to them at Wikipedia. But I think it will take a community vote to decide whether we want (1) to prohibit nonfree files, or (2) to write an exemption doctrine policy to allow them. As for uploading images, Special:Upload isn't restricted to admins, is it? —Angr 12:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Um, yes... Special:Upload says "Permission denied" for me, a non-admin. This, that and the other (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Unless we are going to have a few people become knowledgeable about applicable copyright law, we are probably better off to delegate such matters to WikiCommons and restrict ourselves to images located there. Why wouldn't someone upload their image there to begin with? DCDuring TALK 13:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Because it's taken from a screen shot of a television program. This image would be deleted at Commons as non-free media. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- As EP says: because it's copyrighted content, which Commons does not allow, but which we have allow and use under fair use rationales, because e.g. the picture of File talk:Far Side 1982-05-28 - Thagomizer.png is what identifies the object being described with that term, whereas merely the text of the comic would not convey that information or cite the use of the word in reference to that thing so clearly. Whether this image is necessary or a transcript could simply note [the screen shows a sign reading "The Ghoti Oeufs Caviar Company"] is not as clear-cut. - -sche (discuss) 15:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, we have allowed a small number of nonfree images under a claim of fair use, but without an exemption doctrine policy, we are in violation of Wikimedia Foundation rules by doing so. AFAICT we currently have four nonfree images here: File:Far Side 1982-05-28 - Thagomizer.png, File:ghoti oeufs sign.png, File:f-word-xxxx.png, and File:khw-superscript.jpg. The first two are being used on citations pages, the last two in discussions in project namespace (note that Wikipedia does not permit nonfree images outside of article namespace). —Angr 16:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Are we really that desperate for attestation and entries that we want to have copyright and licensing expertise or take risk without expertise?
- Is it not quite irresponsible and ungracious of us to violate our generous host's rules? DCDuring TALK 17:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I'm drafting an EDP for us to discuss now... - -sche (discuss) 01:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- See and discuss WT:BP#Non-free_content_criteria. - -sche (discuss) 02:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. All the debate over fair use of non-free images aside, this image adds nothing that the transcribed dialog doesn't already have covered. It's basically a prop used to dress up the entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per Chuck. Of the four files Angr mentions, I see Thagomizer as necessary, and khw-superscript as preferable (but replaceable). I am persuaded that this file is unnecessary, and I have proposed xxxx for deletion. - -sche (discuss) 00:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per Chuck, sche. DAVilla 03:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted, since everyone agrees (even, in the BP discussion, the uploader). - -sche (discuss) 17:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Not a context. Surely words like Noah or Adam and Eve are used outside of biblical usage. -- Liliana • 04:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC) - So what if they are? That doesn't mean they aren't biblical characters. —Angr 21:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Template:biblical displays "(biblical)", which conveys the false information that the terms are only used in biblical texts. If you change it to display "(biblical character)", it'll be even more clearly the sort of thing, like {{mammal}} in [[bear]], which we don't use. The information that Noah is a Biblical character is correctly conveyed by the portion of the definition which says "Old Testament character", and the category Category:en:Biblical characters. - -sche (discuss) 00:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. It displays "(biblical)"; it doesn't display "(only biblical)". Just because all humans are mortal, that doesn't mean all mortals are human. —Angr 21:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- None or almost none of our context templates display "only...", because the context templates aren't present when the context isn't restricted. Why do you think {{biblical}} isn't in [[the]]? "The" is certainly the definite article used in the Bible, in {{anatomy}}, in {{linguistics}}, in {{philosophy}}, in {{historical}} contexts, in the {{UK}}, in {{Canada}}... but none of those templates are used in that entry, because that word isn't restricted to those contexts. "Noah" isn't restricted to usage in Biblical works. - -sche (discuss) 02:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. - -sche (discuss) 00:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't understand the problem. Surely finger is also used outside anatomy. Should a simple and easy template be deleted for some philosophical reason? Who will do all the clean-up work? Typing the category for each entry, adding "Old Testament/ New Testament character" to definitions in all languages? --Makaokalani (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ha, notice that finger's misuse of {{anatomy}} is now the subject of a BP discussion. As for cleanup, it won't be hard; I'll do it. What you describe as "some philosophical reason" is "to have an intelligible dictionary": we use context labels to indicate that the usage of a term is restricted; at the moment, we're wrongly telling people that "Noah" is a term used only by biblical characters, when in fact, you or I could utter the phrase "Noah is said to have built an ark" despite neither of us being a biblical character. In contrast to finger, words like [[adnexa]] actually are mostly only used in the context of anatomy. - -sche (discuss) 17:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Debatably we don't even need to discuss this as Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-03/Context labels in ELE v2 is still active, unless editors really doubt that this label fails this test. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Neither {{anatomy}} nor {{biblical}} suggests any exclusivity. They say that the words are used in those contexts, not that the words are restricted to those contexts. —Angr 21:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- On the contrary, restriction is precisely what the templates convey; it's how context templates are used (misuses like this one being relatively uncommon). Otherwise, what's the point of them? Someone could tag [[book]] with {{anatomy}}, since "book" is the word used for "book" in the context of anatomy — but such an edit would be reverted on sight. Someone could tag [[lion]] and [[man]] with {{biblical character}}, since lions and men are biblical... - -sche (discuss) 22:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- -Sche, that's a pretty far-fetched interpretation! We might as well remove (UK) from aeroplane because it is possible for Americans to pronounce that word. {{biblical character}} displays (biblical), and the phrase "Noah is said to have built an ark" is either directly or indirectly referring to the biblical character Noah. Keep as a handy way of displaying (biblical) (a valid and useful context tag) while categorising as Category:Biblical characters (a valid and useful topical category).
- That said, the issue of this template being used alone for characters who also exist in Jewish/Muslim tradition should be addressed. I don't know how this should be addressed. I'm not familiar with Jewish or Muslim literature. — Ungoliant (Falai) 05:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- I consider it unlikely because our policy is to use context templates when context is restricted. But you don't share that view, so why do you consider it unlikely? More to the point, do you consider it wrong, and if so, why? I've reverted IPs' misguided additions of non-context templates as contexts to general words before, but my rationale for reverting has been that the template in question was "not a context" of the word. Since that rationale isn't applicable in your view, what rationale would you use to oppose the addition of {{anatomy}} to [[book]], if indeed you would oppose that addition? - -sche (discuss) 00:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- There are books for all sorts of things (including anatomy), but John the Baptist is only a biblical character. But suppose "book" was indeed a term used mostly in anatomy; that wouldn't prevent non-anatomists from being able to use the term in reference to anatomy in a non-anatomy text. — Ungoliant (Falai) 01:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know why I didn't think of this sooner, but the obvious solution, according to both policy and standard practice, is simply to move this template to be after the definitions of [[Noah]](and [[lion]]?) rather than before them. Contexts go before definitions (as in [[adnexa]]), glosses and other extra bits of information go after them (as in [[jicho]]). Glosses usually don't link or categorise, but since some editors find using the templates easier than spelling out categories manually, this gloss and other ones certainly could link/categorise. Of course, the problem of "ballooning" remains: other editors may have their own "sacred (cow)" glosses which they want to apply to entries, resulting in entries having indefinitely large numbers of pseudo-glosses... but at least the information will be in the right place. - -sche (discuss) 02:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- If this is kept, I think it should display its full title — (biblical character) — to distinguish it from {{biblical}}. - -sche (discuss) 06:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per Mglovesfun.—msh210℠ (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted per policy. (I have begun to orphan it.)
- I count 4 users voting for deletion: Liliana, myself, msh210 and Mglovesfun. I count 3 users preferring to keep the template: Makaokalani and Ungoliant, who voted explicitly, and Angr.
- 2 users (Angr, Ungoliant) explicitly argued for ignoring the policy which this template violates; 3 users (Mglovesfun, me, msh210) explicitly argued for following policy. That represents a 40% minority for changing policy, about 20% short of the 60%-66% majority that is required to overturn previously voted-upon policies. - -sche (discuss) 09:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Not a context, only used to categorize wines as such. -- Liliana • 05:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC) (addendum: for actual scientific usage we have {{oenology}} already) - Redirect or Delete (whoever closes this can decide which is more likely to keep {{context|wine}} from appearing in entries: salting {{wine}} with a redirect which causes it to display oenology, or deleting it which keeps it from being used outside of {{context}}) Template:wine to Template:oenology, partly because it's hard to remember "oenology" and partly to salt Template:wine. - -sche (discuss) 01:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC) - -sche (discuss) 09:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. A redirect is also OK. — Ungoliant (Falai) 01:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, why do you support {{biblical character}} as a tag for [[Noah]], but not {{wine}} as a tag for [[cabernet]]? {{wine}} saves you from having to type [[Category:xx:Wines]]. Seems inconsistent to me... - -sche (discuss) 23:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
-
- Sure, redirect but also clean up the transclusions (red, white and rosé aren't "oenology" words for example). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
This has almost been orphaned now, replaced by {{etyl}} and {{recons}}. There are 7 transclusions left, which are for proto-languages that have no code yet. If they are fixed (and codes created for them) then this template can be deleted. —CodeCat 16:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC) - Delete. — Ungoliant (Falai) 01:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
-
- Why was {{proto}} replaced? What was wrong with it? --Pereru (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- See this. — Ungoliant (Falai) 13:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Keep, more efficient to use proto than to use etyl followed by recons. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see how. Unless you mean it's less typing... which is a really bad argument. —CodeCat 11:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- I did mean typing, however it's also possible to get the languages wrong using etyl and recons by having them not match, not so with proto. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- So you are arguing that we should do the same with all other uses of {{etyl}}? Replace it with a proto-like template that includes both in one? The idea behind deleting {{proto}} is to have a single common format for all etymologies, instead of one for proto-languages and another for all the others. If you somehow believe they should be different that is fine, but I really don't see any benefit from that. —CodeCat 16:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- I would support merging etyl with term in some kind of new template. I agree with the deletion of {{proto}} but I think we should have gone in the opposite direction. DTLHS (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep as long as there are still those 7 transclusions. —Angr 19:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC) See updated vote below. —Angr 15:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC) - They can be easily orphaned by creating language codes for them. It's not really a big issue. —CodeCat 19:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- But there will be more- or at least the need for them. What do I do when I want to reference, say, Proto-Taxic, or Proto-Cupan, or maybe even Proto-Northern-Uto-Aztecan in an etymology? Should I just start making up codes? Or is there a procedure for getting them created? Is it something the average editor would know about? Chuck Entz (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Building on work Daniel did, I've done my best to document our language code system at WT:LANGCODES. We certainly could create codes for all these proto-languages, and we probably should. I imagine it won't even be that difficult, because we should already have (or should create) codes for families like Northern-Uto-Aztecan, which would make creating the code for Proto-Northern-Uto-Aztecan a cinch. If a proto language doesn't have a corresponding family, it should be looked at closely anyway (but can still get a code in the end). - -sche (discuss) 00:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Do you think it would be desirable to have a kind of approval process for families? We've already rejected the Altaic languages, but there are a lot of other families out there that are of very doubtful status. We should probably look at the proto-languages of those families in the same instance. A family that has no proto-language by Wiktionary convention is West Germanic, and we call Proto-North Germanic Proto-Norse while Proto-Romance is Vulgar Latin on Wiktionary. So not all families will automatically have proto-languages by definition. —CodeCat 00:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that not all families have proto-languages; I'm only saying that most proto-languages should have families.
- Penutian was also rejected. I suppose we should have a review process, yes. - -sche (discuss) 01:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Strong keep. By all means deprecate if that's better (I've read the above and don't understand why it is), but it's been in use for a long time so that editors will still want to use it. There is not even a mention in WT:N4E (which seems not to have been updated since about April) - the only reason I knew about this at all was browsing my contributions history. Maybe after it has been deprecated a couple of years it can be deleted, but until then you'll just end up with redlinks and frustrated editors. Thryduulf (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
This template has now been orphaned. It can be safely deleted. —CodeCat 14:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC) - Keep but mark as deprecated (in particular, it should no longer say "the use of this template is required by policy"!), per Thryduulf. The template could be edited to display a note along the lines of "this template is deprecated; please use {{etyl}} instead" if anyone tries to use it. —Angr 15:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)See updated vote below. —Angr 10:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't understand. If it's not being used and we do not want people to use it, why would we keep it? —CodeCat 17:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Because as Thryduulf says, it's been around for a long time and indeed its use was policy for a long time. There are doubtless plenty of editors who are unaware that it's been deprecated, and will try to use it. If they see a note saying "this template has been deprecated; please use {{etyl}} and {{recons}} instead", they'll know what to do. If they just see a redlink, they won't know what's going on, or what they're supposed to do instead. —Angr 17:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- We could just mention what to do in the deletion message, though. If they click on the red link, they'll see that. —CodeCat 17:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- But how will people know that they need to click on a redlink to find out what to do? Most people will just see a redlink and think that something has broken. I certainly wouldn't think to look for instructions like this in a deletion message and I'd be surprised if others did too - most likely they'll either save with a red link or not make the edit - neither of which helps either content or editor retention. The point of deprecation is that it provides a period of transition to avoid breaking things, and in environments like this it also serves to avoid pissing off people and losing editors. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, so what do you suggest we change the template into? Currently, it just transcludes {{etyl}} and {{recons}}, and is fully substable. —CodeCat 12:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- How about replacing the content with: <span style="font-weight: bold; color: red">This template has been deprecated. Please use {{temp|etyl}} and {{temp|recons}} instead.</span>, rendering as: "This template has been deprecated. Please use {{etyl}} and {{recons}} instead." —Angr 16:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think "This template ({{proto}})..." would be better, but that's the only improvement on your suggestion I can think of. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's been almost six months, so I no longer have any objection to the template's being deleted. I have already replaced the documentation subpage with the deprecation notice I mentioned above. —Angr 10:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Deprecate and eventually delete. CodeCat's talk above of "a single common format for all etymologies, instead of one for proto-languages and another for all the others" almost makes me want to keep it — we treat proto-languages fundamentally differently from attested languages, and that applies here as much as anywhere else — but fortunately the plan really is to continue distinguishing them, by using {{recons}} instead of {{term}}. —RuakhTALK 00:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
-
- I feel like this is like rfding {{feminine of}} as redundant to {{form of|feminine}}. It's a regressive move, trying to replace a template with two templates. What next? Replacing it with four templates, or just saying 'redundant to writing it out in wikisyntax'? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Only used to categorize companies. Completely redundant to Template:space science. -- Liliana • 09:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC) - Well, it could be a context, just a very narrow one. Too narrow for my liking, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Inherent POV. There is no definition on what a "basic color" is, so this can never be neutral. -- Liliana • 12:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC) - True, but it is a useful list. Can anyone think of a more neutral name? — Ungoliant (Falai) 05:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Some things aren't inherently neutral, we just keep editing them until we're happy with them. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well then, why is purple a "basic color" but not brown or pink? -- Liliana • 11:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Because nobody added brown and pink to the list yet?
- Also, the template could be renamed to Template:list:colors/en, for example, if people think it should.
- --Daniel 12:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- It is one of those things where you could legitimately add and remove things forever. Undoubtedly some color names are more well known than others, but where do you draw the line? But... is that enough of a reason to delete it? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- I would consider a colour basic when it belongs to the core vocabulary and is morphologically simple. Something like 'sky-blue' clearly isn't basic. This can differ by language, too. In many languages, the term for 'blue' is not a basic colour, instead they use grue. —CodeCat 13:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- So you'd have red, magenta and fuchsia all as basic colors? -- Liliana • 13:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- I would consider red a basic colour. But magenta and fuchsia are more rare and they're not the kind of colour every speaker (particularly, every child) is expected to know, so they are not core vocabulary. —CodeCat 13:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- If we wanted more neutral lists of colours... well, there's the RYB primary and secondary subtractive colours: red, yellow, blue, orange, purple, green, which are what people (at least in the West) will usually think of as the basic colours - black, white, grey and perhaps brown would be uncontroversial additions to the list. There'd be a few problems with translating that to other languages - famously, lots of Asian languages use the same word for what we'd call blue and green - but it's a reasonable start. Alternatively, if we don't want to make any decision about what "basic" means, we can use the standard anthropological list of "basic colours", from Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution - for English, that's black, white, grey, red, yellow, green, blue, brown, orange, pink and purple. There are scientific papers examining the basic colour terms in lots of languages, so it wouldn't be too hard to adapt for other languages. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Template:list:basic colors/ja (for instance) doesn't have to be a word-for-word translation of Template:list:basic colors/en, does it? If a language has the same word for blue and green, just leave that word.
- Also, "black, blue, brown, gray, green, orange, pink, purple, red, white, yellow" looks perfect. (I added pink and brown to the template now) Are there any colors whose presence or absence in a "basic list" in English would be controversial, really? I'm not thinking of any. --Daniel 11:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
nothing of use here —This comment was unsigned. - Deleted. The only term on that page which we lack an entry for is "neven" : Nev"en (?), v. t. [Icel. nefna. 267.] To name; to mention; to utter. [Obs.] As oft I heard my lord them neven. Chaucer.
- - -sche (discuss) 20:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Because {{zh}} has failed the deletion process, I've changed this to use {{cmn}}. Now of course, it's a bad copy of {{User cmn}}. Delete? Or what is the other option? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC) - Orphan and delete. But can we be sure that all those users intended Mandarin? —CodeCat 18:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. It's obvious they meant Mandarin because the template's output was always in standard Mandarin AFAICT. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I've orphaned and deleted the first two templates, but there are a few more that are still redirects. —CodeCat 17:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Redundant to Template:kv. —CodeCat 18:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC) - Sure. Do delete. -- Liliana • 19:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- I just did some researching on this. It seems that kv is the code for w:Komi language while kpv and koi are codes for two subdivisions of that, w:Komi-Zyrian language and w:Komi-Permyak language. I'm not quite sure what the difference is, but the articles about the subdivisions state that Komi is pluricentric and that kpv and koi are two standards based on different dialects of the same "language". This sounds very familiar somehow... —CodeCat 17:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, we only keep these around because they're not unused and for linking to the Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian Wikipedias. Both of these are eminently solvable. See Category talk:Bosnian language for some background (there's a lot more background than that if you look hard enough, the debate predates my presence on Wiktionary). Mglovesfun (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC) - I'm OK with this. the templates could be converted to redirects to {{sh}}. Otherwise, the new translations into bs, hr, sr, will keep coming. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Template redirects don't work for language codes, though. But the translation adder can be made to automatically substitute one code for another, so that when users type any of those codes, it is automatically changed to sh. —CodeCat 00:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh and for the record, if the consensus and current practice is to treat these as one language, and we always merge them whenever they do crop up, I see no reason to keep these codes. However, we may want to creation protect them, you never know who will disagree... —CodeCat 23:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, finish up with the merger already. Oh, and any {{attention}}s or {{trreq}}s that call these templates ought to be dealt with as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- What about the Babel templates though? Are we going to force people to state they speak Serbo-Croatian? —CodeCat 02:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose those might be helpful, but we don't let users specify a dialect of English (well, except for me). If necessary, I'd rather we directly modify {{User sr}} etc than keep these templates. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- It seems that if you subst the template {{User lang}} inside {{User sr}}, it leaves only a single transclusion of {{sr}}, and a rather inconspicuous one at that. So it should be easy to do. —CodeCat 02:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Instead of modifying {{User sr}}, I have removed the single language template transclusion from {{User lang}}. So we can now safely remove any language template without worrying about that. —CodeCat 02:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- {{wikimedia language name}} now recognizes bs, hr and sr to be Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- {{wikipedia}} still uses the old codes, as on Zagreb. —CodeCat 19:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but it can; that's what {{wikimedia language name}} does. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Previous discussion: Wiktionary:Beer parlour#en-verb2.
Ruakh doesn't want it.… --Æ&Œ (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC) - Delete. To be honest I think listing the archaic forms would be great, but this makes the headword line too long, so an inflection table would be better. — Ungoliant (Falai) 22:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- keep Ruakh has never been a reason for doing anything, let alone deleting a template. -- Liliana • 22:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- I hope I'm not your sole reason for voting "keep", because that would make your comment false! (See w:Liar paradox.) —RuakhTALK 14:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, I think. The only use I could see for this would be a word that is mostly used with the archaic endings and rarely with themodern ones (e.g., it died out when the modern endings came into vogue) — but even for such a word (and can we identify any?) I doubt this is the way to do it.—msh210℠ (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, I guess? I'm kind of confused. Æ&Œ, as the creator and sole contributor, can request speedy-deletion if he wants it deleted; and if he doesn't want it deleted, then why is he nominating it? There's currently a discussion about it at Wiktionary:Beer parlour#en-verb2; I don't see why we need an RFDO discussion at the same time. —RuakhTALK 14:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Re "Æ&Œ, as the creator and sole contributor, can request speedy-deletion": in this case, likely, but not in general. If I'm the creator and sole editor of a template that others use (especially if many others use it over some time), it shouldn't be speedied IMO.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
-
- That's true. I'd considered writing "creator, sole contributor, and sole user", but then that ran into the problem that even he hasn't used it — he (quite properly) raised it for discussion first — and I ended up deciding not to bother figuring out how to word what I meant. :-P —RuakhTALK 17:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think that is what "sole contributor" meant. —CodeCat 15:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ruakh, that is not true: I requested a speedy deletion for sæculier, an entry of which only I contributed to with the exception of one robot modification, but it became rejected. I am nominating the template because you wanted it deleted. My own feelings are irrelevant. And the 'Beer Parlour' discussion looks dead to me. --Æ&Œ (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Re: [[sæculier]]: I imagine that's because you requested it deleted on the grounds of "not enough citations" rather than on the grounds of "I'm the sole contributor, and I've changed my mind, I don't think this should exist." Re: {{en-verb2}}: Why are your own feelings irrelevant? —RuakhTALK 18:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- That I may think that something 'shouldn't exist' is hardly a good enough justification to delete something. People will demand reasoning, and a critic shortage of citations seem to be sufficient to speedy‐delete nonsense. And, I contend, that, your intelligence is superior to mine, and you possess a greater sense of caution compared to the reckless risk‐taking I pursue, thus your feelings are of higher value. And of course you are an administrator and a bureaucrat here as you know, the positions which are always earned by superior people. --Æ&Œ (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Re: "the positions which are always earned by superior people": I dunno. The only editor here that I've ever sincerely disliked was a CheckUser, which is considered a much higher position of trust (you even have to submit documentation to the Foundation); and I certainly wouldn't consider him a "superior person". People with privs are generally perceived as more-authoritative by people outside the community, so ideally they would be superior people, but in practice that's not how it works out. Once you're a member of the community, as you are, you have to apply your own judgment: judge people by what you see them do, not by the privs that others have awarded them. (And while I definitely agree that I "possess a greater sense of caution" than other editors, not everyone would agree that that's a good thing. CodeCat, for example, has a different philosophy of wiki-ing. Obviously I prefer my own philosophy, but that doesn't mean you have to substitute my judgment for your own.) —RuakhTALK 20:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Nomination: This template does more harm than good, IMHO. People should be taught to extract lists of translation tables that lack a translation for a particular language from the dump. For those who cannot or will not, there should be a wiki page filled from the dump once in a while. See also Wiktionary:BP#.7B.7Btrreq.7D.7D, October 2012. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC) - Unless someone can convince me that this is useful (and you need some really good arguments for that), I say delete. -- Liliana • 22:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. I fail to see how it does harm:
- Saltmarsh said "actual translations are difficult to find". I just disagree, I didn't find translations harder to find. It just requires a little more scrolling, which is also necessary when there are many translations. Furthermore, targeted translations solve the problem.
- Dan Polansky said "Such a list can be automatically extracted from a dump". But a list of all terms without translations in a language would be way too big to be workable. It also defeats the point of allowing users to request that a translation be added to an entry.
- Dan Polansky also said "we have almost no contributors in most of the languages tagged". That's true, but if someone who speaks a certain contributor-less language joins, he will have a nice, concise list of requested translations to start with, instead of behemoth list with every translation-less entry.
- Liliana-60 said "I have not seen {{trreq}} make a translation appear somehow faster." Lo Ximiendo's addition of Mirandese translation requests caused me to add a bunch of them. I plan on going through her more recent Mirandese translation requests and also all the Asturian and Extremaduran requests when I have time. So, thanks to her and to {{trreq}}, we have some Mirandese translations we would otherwise not have.
- — Ungoliant (Falai) 23:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Ungoliant. Err on the side of using it sparingly rather than overusing it, but keep it. It separates "entries for which someone specifically wants a translation" from "entries which simply lack a translation". Like Ungoliant, I've been inspired to add translations to entries which have this... whereas a list of all entries which lacked German translations would be unmanageably huge; I expect it would include >50% of our entries—and German is among the languages most often found in our trans tables! - -sche (discuss) 00:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep. Having the dump for each language doesn't necessary add a good translation for another direction. People working on foreign language entries may consider adding translation on English entries, so they avoid having {{trreq}} on the English words, which already have English entries. I do pay attention to translation requests, so do a few others, e.g. Finnish, Georgian, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Khmer, etc. requests are currently regularly filled. I don't see harm in having requests apart from the interference with other languages when they are added via the assisted method. I don't see much use for languages, which are very unlikely to be filled in the near future but I agree with Ungoliant. If we get some, they know what's more urgent. As a side-note, I actually think this tool could be used to request translations for basic and very common English words (or even important words, which are translation targets only), so that a foreign language contributor knew to add basic words needed for daily communication. As an example, we have quite a lot of translations of nouns into Macedonian but lacking very common verbs and adjectives, it's similar to other languages. Wiktionary fails to provide basic words for a number of languages because input from random users is not organised in a meaningful way. So, if a native Lao speaker were willing to add translations, he/she wouldn't have a clue where to start. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC) - Why would we use this template for basic words? Why not make a list of basic words and point translators to them?--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep per Ungoliant.—msh210℠ (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Keep as a very useful template that focuses my attention on commoner words that need a translation in a language I'm working in. @Dan/Liliana, you don't seem to realize that I can't and won't translate everything, but what has been requested by humans tends to correlate to what is actually most needed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Keep. Anything can be used to excess- if someone decided to wikilink every single word in every entry, would that be justification for getting rid of wikilinking? If you look at the contributions of this user, you'll notice that at least 2/3 of them consist of adding 7 characters-{{rfe}}. is that a reason to delete that template? Chuck Entz (talk) 07:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Keep. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 10:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Keep. Is it a joke? It's one of the most needful and useful templates. Maro 18:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC) As a response to all those keeps: What you are looking for is not the list of all English terms and translations glosses lacking a translation for a language but rather the list of most common English terms and translation glosses lacking a translation for a language. This list can be had automatically, by inspecting the dump in conjunction with one of the frequency lists from Wiktionary:FREQ#English, Category:1000 English basic words, or a manually created list of most translation-worthy English terms. Haphazardly added ttreq template does not keep up with this systematic approach. Furthermore, the appearance of new translators for rare languages is very hypothetical; it is very likely that hosts of ttreqs are going to sit in translation tables for ages, unless someone kindly removes them. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC) - Your point about rare languages is correct but the templates is added by humans, not bots, so we can just ask them to slow down and not request translations, which are unlikely to be filled. What words to request is up to people who request, they can request words they urgently need for something, interesting words, or essential words they may need any time for any language to communicate in this language. Pointing new-starters to lists is a good thing, it will help direct their efforts adding the most common words first (even though words by frequency will differ largely from language to language) but I see no problem with duplication. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Not at all. The template is added, like other request templates ({{rfquote}}, {{rfv}}), when users want particular information. The words which users want translations of are not necessarily common: Fennicize, for example, is quite rare. But someone wanted to know the German and French words for the concept, so I found them. - -sche (discuss) 04:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
These aren't parts of speech, so there should not be PoS templates for them. -- Liliana • 20:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC) - I'm not sure I buy that argument. The POS templates are (only?) used after derived terms, related terms, etc., to indicate their POS; that makes them analogous to one use of the gender templates, {{m}} and {{f}} and so on, which some editors also use in those contexts, even though we treat ===Noun=== as a single POS regardless of gender. And I could definitely imagine someone getting mileage out of {{pos vi}} and {{pos vt}} in cases where there are two related verbs, one active/transitive and one middle/mediopassive/reflexive/intransitive. (I mean, personally I don't use any of the POS templates, nor gender templates in POS-template contexts; but unless you're suggesting jettisoning the whole lot, it's not obvious to me that these three are any more worthy of jettisoning than the others.) —RuakhTALK 20:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wouldn't {{qualifier|transitive}} and {{qualifier|intransitive}} be more sensible for these cases? -- Liliana • 20:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes — but so would {{qualifier|verb}} and {{qualifier|noun}} and so on, for the (relatively rare) cases that those are genuinely useful. (To be clear: I'm not voting 'keep'. I'm just not convinced that it makes sense to delete these while keeping the rest of the POS templates.) —RuakhTALK 21:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
- There's kind of a difference - the meanings of v and n are rather obvious, even if you've never seen them before. But you'll never know what vt or vi mean without looking them up somewhere. -- Liliana • 04:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- I did. After all, many dictionaries/glossaries use them.—msh210℠ (talk) 05:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- One man's "rather obvious" is another man's . . . not. Even the same man's "obvious" can vary from day to day. I remember once consulting a dictionary that marked various words as vb. My reaction: "I'm familiar with vt and vi, but what the heck is vb? 'Bitransitive'? Does it mean it can be used either way?" Turns out, it just meant "verb". (And v and n, of course, have other uses; v means "see", and n means "neuter". In this respect vt and vi are arguably more obvious!) —RuakhTALK 02:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Re "The POS templates are (only?) used after derived terms, related terms, etc.": no, not only. {{term}} uses them in (e.g.) {{term|foo|pos=n}} (which displays foo (n)).—msh210℠ (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- These are in use and I see no reason to get rid of them. They are POSes, albeit not ones that we use as headers, and I fully subscribe to Ruakh's "I could definitely imagine someone getting mileage out of {{pos vi}} and {{pos vt}} in cases where there are two related verbs". Keep.—msh210℠ (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
For the same reasons as Category_talk:Sony, which led to deletion (though Category_talk:Microsoft, which is similar to both, was kept.) Equinox ◑ 20:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC) D —Michael Z. 2013-02-02 23:02 z - Delete. — Ungoliant (Falai) 07:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
We treat Kurdish as a single language written in two scripts. These seem to be only used in translations, and {{wikimedia language}} now handles these so they both point to ku: (as ku: exists and the other two do not). Mglovesfun (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC) - {{wikimedia language}} should not point to ku. w:ckb: is an own Wikipedia. -- Liliana • 17:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- But no Wiktionary, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Not yet. But that template is also responsible for the link in the {{wikipedia}} template. -- Liliana • 09:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
The Esperanto entry for each word already mentions if it came from Latin. I can't think of a reason this list would be useful as a reference in itself. —This unsigned comment was added by 128.193.8.116 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 9 November 2012. - Delete, the appendix is very, very incomplete. And if it were complete it would be absolutely enormous. Category:Esperanto terms derived from Latin has 274 entries, but should be much, much more than that because we either lack an Esperanto entry or we have an entry that lacks an etymology, or {{etyl|la|eo}} in that etymology. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete this for being redundant. --Æ&Œ (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. These are labeled cognates, but Esperanto isn't descended from a common ancestor with Latin, so that's wrong. The "language relations" appendices in general seem to be a magnet for etymological sloppiness: they're very inconsistent about words that are borrowed or inherited from other languages that also have appendices. For instance, why is abrupta in the Esperanto-German appendix, but not in the English or Latin ones? Most of them also have no information at all beyond word pairings. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC) - Three days after nomination is too soon for deletion. At least seven days should pass from the nomination, or even more. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but, you see, seven days is not especially speedy for a speedy delete. When the community voices their approval and the page is undeniably crappy, then I think that immediate destruction is not out of the question. If suddenly an uncharacteristi quantity of keeps pop up, it can always be undeleted to boost the Appendix's crap percentage. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
What are you going to say to someone who asks for a list of words that are similar in Esperanto and Latin? "Sorry, Wiktionary had that but we deleted it"? That person will be disappointed. --Gilward Kukel (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC) - That's a terrible argument. It's a bit like saying what happens if someone asks for examples vandalism and we says "sorry, Wiktionary deletes all its vandalism". Mglovesfun (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
-
- Nobody asks for vandalism, and Wiktionary is not a place for vandalism but a place for information about words. --Gilward Kukel (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Nobody is asking for a list of words that are similar in Esperanto and Latin either. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I am asking for it. And an administrator of the Esperanto wiktionary found the list good enough to copy it to the Esperanto wiktionary. And concerning all the other people in the world: if you don't ask them you cannot know if they are interested in this. Your interests are not the only interests people may have. --Gilward Kukel (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
- See also: Category:Esperanto terms derived from Latin. --WikiTiki89 13:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly. Gilward, that's what I'd point them to, although it is woefully incomplete as well. Personally, as a Latin speaker who finds Esperanto interesting, this appendix should appeal to me, but I think that quality is better served by expanding the category in question (and thus, simultaneously, Esperanto etymologies). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Yes, that's a good category. Some of the Esperanto words and etymologies were contributed by me. But there are disadvantages:
- it only shows the Esperanto words. To see the Latin word, you have to click on the Esperanto word and look for it.
- you have to click on "next 200"
- it can only contain Esperanto words that have an entry
- it is more difficult to add an Esperanto-Latin word pair to the category than to the list, especially when the Esperanto word has no entry yet
- you can't group the words. For example, the list had a section for words that have the same spelling (like apud, sed, tamen). The category does not inform us about that.
- you can't add extra information to an Esperanto-Latin word pair (on the category page)
--Gilward Kukel (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC) -
-
-
-
-
- Tell you what Gilward Kukel, ask all the 7 billion people on Earth and then reply. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, this template is completely useless and visually very annoying. There seems to have already been discussion about it in the past at Template talk:phrasebook. --WikiTiki89 15:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC) - It is one of the relics of the most recent effort to pull together a phrasebook. As if a template would substitute for the lack of consensus on criteria for inclusion, goals, target user, etc.
- In addition, it is visually ugly. Delete. DCDuring TALK 18:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, to visually distinguish phrasebook entries from regular entries. (Note that much of the previous discussion was about a different template named "phrasebook", that did nothing but add a category.) --Yair rand (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep because it's also used to categorise pages. However, the appearance should be made less intrusive, maybe something more like {{LDL}}? —CodeCat 23:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. The look and feel can be tweaked but I don't think it's ugly or intrusive. Also per Yair rand (distinction) and CodeCat (categorisation). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Also a comment to DCDuring's reply: If a CFI could be set up for phrasebook entries, I would support it (as long as the criteria make sense of course). The primary characteristic of a phrasebook entry is that we sacrifice the idiomaticity requirement, but substitute it with the requirement that the phrase should be basic, common and useful (we would still need to establish who they'd be useful for, but I imagine it includes tourists). —CodeCat 00:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- As the template is now, it misleadingly wikilinks to WT:CFI, leading any user who made the mistake of taking it seriously on a wild-goose chase, as "phrasebook" or "phrase book" are not mentioned on the page. The text in the banner presupposes something that (predictably) hasn't come into existence in the more than two years since the template was created. DCDuring TALK 00:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Are you sure? What about this bit? —CodeCat 01:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Phrasebook entries are very common expressions that are considered useful to non-native speakers. Although these are included as entries in the dictionary (in the main namespace), they are not usually considered in these terms. For instance, What's your name? is clearly a summation of its parts.
- Sigh. Sorry. I let FF's search do it but had Match case selected and the lowercase form. DCDuring TALK 14:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to take this discussion to Wiktionary talk:Phrasebook though. —CodeCat 01:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- If I can mention one more point, there is another thing that is really annoying about this template if we are to use it to distinguish entries that would otherwise not meet CFI. Some entries that are useful for a phrasebook do otherwise meet CFI and it can be misleading to have this template on that page. What if we changed it to explicitly state that this entry only meets CFI because it is part of the phrasebook and only use it on such entries? The other entries could be simply put in the category. --WikiTiki89 07:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep and reform as necessary. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- I believe you are talking about thank you, good morning and whatnot. They are part of the phrasebook even though they definitely meet CFI otherwise, aren't they? That's why they are members of Category:English phrasebook. (but, of these two, only good morning has Template:phrasebook, at the moment) --Daniel 10:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well if this template is to be used for only SOP entries, then the template should specify that. --WikiTiki89 10:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- But using the template only for SOP entries would be a bad idea in the first place... Don't you think so? --Daniel 10:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Why is that? --WikiTiki89 11:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Because good morning is part of the phrasebook but is not SOP and Template:phrasebook is used in the front-end to let readers know which entries are part of the phrasebook, categorize them and link them to appendices. I'm not saying anything about whether this system is a great idea, but as long as we have it... It'd better be complete and accurate.
- Which is different from having a list of "entries that are SOP but part of the phrasebook", which could be helpful to editors, but definitely not to casual readers. I believe it would, more accurately, be a list of "entries that are currently ignoring the rule that says SOP is forbidden here in order to incubate the controversial phrasebook project". That's the only purpose of such a list that I think of, and if it's correct, then it should be hidden from viewers; as an alternative idea, maybe the talk pages of the affected entries should have a similar template with categorization... --Daniel 12:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- My opinion is that we should have some way of identifying whether or not an entry is a "phrasebook-only entry" (something we would not include if not for the phrasebook). Whether that's a category, a gloss, or whatever, I don't mind. Equinox ◑ 12:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I'm referring to. I now think we should modify this template to be displayed as a box on the side rather than a banner up top and add a parameter that differentiates phrasebook-only entries and makes this visible somehow. --WikiTiki89 12:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think a banner at the bottom in the style of {{LDL}} would be better, though. You can fit more text into it. Instead of using a parameter, we could have two near-identical templates. One would be for phrasebook entries that claim exemption to the idiomaticity criterium of CFI, the other for entries that do not. If we prefer, we could decide that the latter does not include any banner, just a category. —CodeCat 13:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
This template does literally nothing when it is transcluded; it transcludes to blank text and does not add any categories. It is somewhat widely transcluded, though. Shouldn't those pages use {{attention|cmn}} or some variety instead? —CodeCat 19:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC) - Orphan (via attention|cmn) and delete —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- It seems that it is used for more than just Mandarin. I found it in a few Wu sections as well. So blindly replacing it may not be a good idea. —CodeCat 02:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have no objection to this template. We may not use the ==Chinese== header but that doesn't mean that all references to Chinese on Wiktionary have to be removed from everywhere! Mglovesfun (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's not the point though. This template is used mostly where {{attention}} should be used instead, and the template also does nothing at all. It currently isn't being used to call attention to anything "Chinese", rather it is used for individual Chinese languages. —CodeCat 13:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Good point, delete, maybe allow zh as an exception in {{attention}} though? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- When would that be used, though? If it's for a Translingual/Chinese character entry, maybe we can allow {{attention|Hani}} instead? —CodeCat 14:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- zh will be more familiar though, and we still have Category:Chinese terms needing attention. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- That category is currently populated only by {{liushu}}, which itself is only transcluded in Translingual sections for Han characters. No language-specific templates place entries in that category. zh may be more familiar, but thanks to the way Wikipedia uses it, it will be more familiar as a synonym of Mandarin. And people commonly treat Chinese and Mandarin as synonyms, too. So as long as a code like "zh" and a name like "Chinese" exists, there will always be people who think they mean "cmn" and "Mandarin", while others will treat them as "zhx" (the family). I believe the best way to avoid ambiguity is to allow no room for it, so I would personally prefer that we remove anything called "zh" or "Chinese" and change it to "cmn", "Mandarin", or "Chinese Character", "Han(i)" whenever possible. —CodeCat 17:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've orphaned this template by hand, now. I didn't come across any uses that concerned more than one language. So I don't think the concerns about anyone wanting to ask for attention for all Chinese languages at once, or for a Han script entry, are necessary. —CodeCat 20:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: If anyone has questions about an entry in an unknown Chinese lect, they can always ask in the Tea Room or at the Information Desk. Anyone savvy enough to know about {{zh-attention}} or {{attention|zh}} should know about [[WT:TR]] and [[WT:ID]]. (So, weak delete per CodeCat.) - -sche (discuss) 21:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. —CodeCat 17:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC) The MediaWiki Foundation is explicit about this: meta:EDP#Wiktionary. We can't host non-free content here and we are. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC) - Well... that page is editable, we could just change it from 'no' to 'yes'. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Lol, exactly. Speedy keep because it was previously kept and the circumstances have not changed since the previous nomination (in fact, the nominator has not changed since the previous nomination). It was kept before because the illustration is useful and the use is a textbook example of fair use. - -sche (discuss) 10:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think our gracious host, WMF, which would be stuck with the cost of defending our position, would rather that we had an explicit fair-use policy and linked to it from the page Justin cites. Which other English wiki's policy can we borrow? Or is the draft Wiktionary:Non-free content criteria good enough for a vote to adopt it. DCDuring TALK 13:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be nice to have a criterium that every non-free image should be approved first before use? That would certainly help with the "minimum" part. —CodeCat 13:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- But we can't actually prevent such use, can we? Is it easy to detect when files other than from Commons are used? How can such files be marked as "approved" in a way that can't be easily subverted? DCDuring TALK 16:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe by making a list of approved files, that only sysops can edit? Actually protecting it may not even be necessary as long as enough people have it on their watch list. With such a list, any files that are not approved can be speedied on sight. —CodeCat 16:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Only admins can upload files anyway. Here's a list of all the pages with the prefix File:. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oh well in that case I don't think we need to be that formal about it, as long as we make it clear that uploads of non-free content should have consensus first. —CodeCat 18:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- The value of the formal policy has more to do with being polite guests of our host or good citizens of the WMF community than with the current frequency of use. DCDuring TALK 22:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- No I meant being formal with how we keep track of non-free content. We'll still need a non-free content policy. —CodeCat 22:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
This is kind of a final holdover from our efforts to unify Serbo-Croatian. I would have speedied this, but there is a lot of information there so I think I should discuss first. —CodeCat 14:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC) - If you read the introduction, it describes itself as the official list of Serbo-Croatian words used in Montenegro, according to the Montenegrin Government. Maybe only the title is wrong, as I don't think we'd allow Index:Canadian French, but Appendix:Canadian French would be fine. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- But all the links use the code {{zls-mon}}, which was apparently intended for Montenegrin language sections, but never used outside of this index. —CodeCat 17:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well we can change that, and very quickly, too! Mglovesfun (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Move to Appendix:Montenegrin vocabulary (or something similar if you think of a better name, maybe Appendix:Serbo-Croatian terms used in Montenegro?). Then link to it from Index:Serbo-Croatian, fix the zls-mon links, and I think we're done. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC) We do not allow (and I think never have allowed) Montegrin as and individual language. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC) - Speedy delete if the problem above has been solved. —CodeCat 18:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Should really have been included in the bs/hr/sr debate above, but I didn't know it existed. Not sure it has to be speedily deleted just because bs, hr and sr all failed. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- It would be very inconsistent (and POV!) if we didn't delete it. —CodeCat 19:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sadly, that's democracy for you! Mglovesfun (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. - -sche (discuss) 20:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. —CodeCat 17:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC) The overwhelming scholarly consensus is that w:Malayo-Polynesian originated from within the w:Formosan languages, so that some of the main branches of the Formosan languages are no more closely-related to the other main branches than they are to non-Formosan w:Austronesian languages. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC) - So you mean that the Formosan languages and the Austronesian languages are really the same thing? In that case, delete. —CodeCat 01:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
-
- Not quite. He means that "Formosan" is a paraphyletic grouping, consisting of Austronesian minus Malayo-Polynesian; sort of like if we had a "Mainland Scandinavian" branch that consisted of the North Germanic languages minus Icelandic. (Though it's true that a few scholars have recently sought to address this supposed problem by re-defining "Formosan" as a synonym for "Austronesian".) —RuakhTALK 21:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- delete if possible. No valid branch in linguistics -- Liliana • 09:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Quite possible. It was used in only a few places, so it was easy to orphan. All of the Formosan language templates now have family subtemplates reflecting the status of the branches as basal to Austronesian (If memory serves, Atayalic is the only Formosan branch with its own template). There are a couple of instances that can be taken care of once the decision to delete is formal. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
WT:AYI says, and practice is, that Yiddish is treated as one language. That being the case, Template:ydd and Template:yih should be deleted (like Template:hbo). - -sche (discuss) 09:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC) - First of all: WT:AYI is just me rambling on, and "practice" is just me and about three other editors, none of whom speak better Yiddish than Wikitiki89 (who is yi-1). If someone comes up with evidence I haven't seen, I'll be glad to consider it. However, in the mean time I'd advocate deletion of these, because the vast majority of our entries are in standard Litvish Yiddish, and I don't know the extent of dialectal variation, but I think it can't be too great (considering that Poylish dialect speakers don't seem to far off standard, at least in writing). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- "Practice" is that neither of these templates are used, which is probably an indicator that deletion is the best option. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Note that there is only one Yiddish Wikipedia and only one Wiktionary, both using the code {{yi}}. - -sche (discuss) 18:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well that's because there is only one standard orthography and the non-standard orthographies don't depend on dialect. Regardless, unless we want to split English into American and British, then there is no reason to split Yiddish. Delete. --WikiTiki89 19:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if these are wanted. --Adding quotes (talk) 11:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC) - The entries yes, but certainly not the category. We are not Wikipedia, and we don't need categories like Category:en:Cities in Germany, Category:en:Cities in the United States, etc. -- Liliana • 12:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. An organizational system cannot be encyclopedic, only an entry can. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep and make more like it. Category:en:Cities is huge and unnavigable. Just today I created Category:en:Cities in Burma and Category:my:Cities in Burma. —Angr 19:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I noticed some time ago that we have categories for all kinds of subdivisions of Bangladesh, most of them (almost) empty. I disagree with Metaknowledge; an organizational system can be encyclopedic because Wiktionary is about words, so to categorise words based on what they refer to (rather than how they are used) is encyclopedic. It would be no different from categorising Einstein in Category:en:Physicists. So delete. —CodeCat 19:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Wiktionary is about words, and this kind of category is very useful when you try to find a word you know but you cannot remember. This is a major use of topical categories. It's not the same as Einstein: we define town names as towns names, we don't define surnames as Physicist... etc. Lmaltier (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. --Yair rand (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- D Lexicographical = about terms; encyclopedic = about referents. We'd be better off adding Wiktionary links in the many well-categorized encyclopedia articles in Wikipedia than we are expending energy watering down the dictionary by incorporating an inevitably poorer version of Wikipedia into it. —Michael Z. 2013-02-02 22:58 z
See discussion on {{etyl:fox}}. This has never been valid. -- Liliana • 19:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC) The only category that uses {{etyl:fox}}. As stated in the nomination for that template, the Formosan languages aren't a linguistically-valid family. The only reasons to keep this would be for convenience or historical interest. There aren't however, a lot of entries on Wiktionary (as yet) to be categorized, and {{famcatboiler}} makes it look too much like a real language family. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Sum of parts -- Liliana • 19:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC) - Also applies to the parent and child nodes I suppose. -- Liliana • 19:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
See nomination for {{etyl:pqw}}, above. Apparently not used, and the proto-language would be a reconstruction of something that probably never existed. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC) As Liliana put it in an earlier discussion, if you know Germanic languages, this code is a joke. As Purodha explained on Meta, it "collects, or seems to collect, languages from three different groups by describing an area of use", for which reason (as Angr pointed out) the request for a vmf / East Franconian WP is on hold. The only use of the code on Wiktionary was in a Hessisch (lol!) translation of [[cider]]. Since the code doesn't stand for a valid language — it waves its hand ambiguously at several separate lects — I propose we delete it. - -sche (discuss) 02:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC) - Delete by merging into {{de}}. —CodeCat 03:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- There's nothing to merge. - -sche (discuss) 06:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete, I have no idea, but I believe you. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 09:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Historical interest? For a template? Really??? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC) - Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- Abstain. I don't care either way. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Portuguese noun augmentative forms. Putting a "pos=noun" parameter into the {{augmentative of}} template in its 4 members was all that was needed to switch them to the other category. The alternative to deletion would be to create {{poscatboiler/augmentatives}} to make {{poscatboiler}} happy, but these are all nouns, and all augmentatives- so why bother? Chuck Entz (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC) - Unless Category:Portuguese augmentatives were a parent to Category:Portuguese noun augmentative forms. If not, delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- Is an augmentative really a form of a noun in the same way that a plural is a form? I think usually augmentatives and diminutives are nouns in their own right, and may (as in Dutch and German) have different inflection and gender from the base noun. So maybe Category:Portuguese augmentative nouns? —CodeCat 13:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is also so in Portuguese. In addition, adjectives also have augmentatives, so the RFDed category would be a mess if it contained entries. — Ungoliant (Falai) 13:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, so delete. But should the replacement drop 'forms' from the name? Should I bring this up in WT:RFM so that we can apply it consistently across languages? —CodeCat 14:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- The kept category gets its name from the poscatboiler subtemplate, so it would seem to apply across languages already (though I haven't checked to see what categories exist in other languages). I would think an rfm might be a good idea- for both the category and the poscatboiler subcategory. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- On second thought, the poscatboiler subcategory is dependent on the wording used by {{augmentative of}}, so that needs to be considered at the same time. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- There are 18 transclusions for {{augmentative of}}, and not all of them are categorizing- but I don't see any parameter explicitly responsible for the difference. Odd. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
This, and all the other templates created by User:YellowPegasus. Seem to have been imported from Wikipedia, and don't seem to apply here. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC) - Delete all. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- From the name I thought it was a request for deletion template. Anyway delete, cannot see how this can be used here. An entry that needs de-wikifying (and I can't think of one) probably needs other cleanup too, so {{rfc}} is a better template, such as {{rfc|too many wikilinks}}. But even that's hypothetical, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- All deleted. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be a unused copy of {{unreferenced}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Seems to be a unused copy of {{unreferenced}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Whether or not this was its raison d'être, {{etyl:gmw-lge}} was in practice used to copy from dictionaries which don't distinguish Middle Low German from modern Low German. It displayed the same name and put entries in the same category as {{nds}}, which was confusing and in most cases wrong: when CodeCat and I stumbled onto it during this RFM, it turned out most uses could be replaced with {{gml}}. {{etyl:gmw-hge}} was apparently designed to be used similarly, but I'm not aware of a time it was ever in use. Both templates are now orphans. The rename of {{nds}} means that {{etyl:gmw-lge}} now does have a distinctive name and category, like {{etyl:gmw-hge}}, so both could be used in the etymologies of words whose era of borrowing isn't clear, and they wouldn't conflict with other templates anymore—but it still seems clearer just to specify "from {{etyl|gmh}} or {{etyl|de}}" in those cases. - -sche (discuss) 19:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC) - I think we could keep these templates for cases when the time of borrowing is unknown or unclear, but we should treat their uses as needing cleanup. On the other hand, these templates are so obscure that very few editors will even think to use them, so they will probably not. Slight delete. —CodeCat 17:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'll orphan and delete these soon if no-one beats me to it. - -sche (discuss) 10:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 00:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Image is on Commons and protected there. It evidently only exists here to be in a category, which makes no real sense to me. Wiktionary doesn't host files, so there's no point in having much of any except possibly the requisite File:Wiki.png, but I really don't see why we should host a local version of the logo to a different project. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC) - Your premises are wrong: this file is in use in templates on a number of userpages, it isn't identical to commons:File:Wikipedia-logo-en.png (though it differs from commons:File:WikipediaLogo.PNG only by having less whitespace around it, apparently so that it displays correctly in the templates), and Wiktionary does host files. However, I support moving this file to Commons. - -sche (discuss) 16:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
-
- "Wiktionary doesn't host files" yes it does, and you know this, just you pretend not to know this. As for why you do that, only you can possibly know. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. This image is really not needed here. If it is somehow of special value, it can go on Commons. Otherwise, it is just not required at all. In my view, files hosted locally should be limited to local tests, etc, and (until/unless the community decides otherwise) non-free media. This, that and the other (talk) 11:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
This is an exact duplicate of Image:Wikipedia-logo.png anyway, so why keep it? -- Liliana • 12:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC) - Ah, good find! Delete this, then (and redirect it to that?). - -sche (discuss) 18:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
This template tries to create uniform inflection lines using tons of complicated logic, when it's so much easier to just write '''{{PAGENAME}}''' in your inflection template. Therefore, I don't think this is needed at all. -- Liliana • 07:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC) - Well technically it should be {{Latn|{{PAGENAME}}|lang=xx|face=head}}. But I agree, orphan and delete. —CodeCat 14:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- That doesn't actually appear to be what the template does. It appears to just add an appropriate category and documentation to the template. It also appears to have documentation for an entire category of templates. Nothing in it adds any content to be used in entries to the template, and it's not transcluded anywhere in the main namespace. --Yair rand (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, see ex. Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:headtempboiler:suffix. -- Liliana • 19:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's a different template — one that you have not nominated for deletion. —RuakhTALK 20:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't it implied, because it's a sub-template of the above? -- Liliana • 21:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, it's not implied, because no, it's not a sub-template of the above. {{headtempboiler}} is a utility-template used by two headword-line-boiler-templates. The deletion of the former would not entail the deletion of the latter, any more than the deletion of {{Xyzy}} would entail the deletion of {{term}} and {{t}} and {{l}}. —RuakhTALK 21:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm? I don't get you. If {{Xyzy}} were a subtemplate of {{term}} (as in, {{term/Xyzy}}), deleting term would very much imply that Xyzy be deleted as well. -- Liliana • 17:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Right, but it's not, so it wouldn't. As I said. —RuakhTALK 17:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- As Yair says, it doesn't occur anywhere in the main namespace, so the nomination is mistaken. Nonetheless, orphan and delete: the template is merely defined as {{documentation}}<includeonly>[[Category:{{languagex|{{{lang|}}}}} headword-line templates|{{ucfirst:{{{current}}}}}]]</includeonly>, which, in addition to not being useful, also is not what its name implies. —RuakhTALK 20:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- 'Delete, not every bit of code needs to be included via a template. It is ok just to write something out, sometimes, especially in the template namespace. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
This is meant to be used as an error script template by {{Xyzy}}, when it can't determine the correct script. It's not actually transcluded by any entries, and changes to {{Xyzy}} are being discussed that will eliminate the need for this template altogether, with some speed gains too. —CodeCat 15:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC) - Re: "not actually transcluded by any entries": Well, it's not currently transcluded by any entries. A number of editors, including yourself, have done yeoman's work to get it to that point, concluding with -sche (talk • contribs)'s edit to [[walirang]] a few hours ago. But that is likely to be a temporary situation. Note that we don't delete [[Category:____ nouns lacking gender]] every time it becomes empty. Re: "changes to {{Xyzy}}": If those changes become a reality, they'll actually eliminate the need for all script templates (except insofar as we might sometimes want to call script templates directly from entries, which admittedly is never the case for {{Eror}}; but then, the same is true of {{Latn}} and {{None}}).
So — keep for now. If we wait a while, and find that it's quite rare that it gets newly added to entries, then we might decide that it's O.K. for {{Xyzy}} to simply break in those rare cases; but I don't think we can make that determination until we actually have some sense of how often that happens.
—RuakhTALK 20:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
-
- I'm not sure if the proposed changes would actually make script templates entirely obsolete just yet. However, {{Xyzy}} is intended to be called many times in an entry, yet it uses the rather inefficient {{does-template-exist}}. My change attempted to remove the call to that template from {{Xyzy}}, which then automatically left {{Eror}} without a use. But there is another reason why I think this template should go: common practice elsewhere. While we do have many templates that do error checking and add words to cleanup categories, none are so widely used and resource-sensitive as {{Xyzy}} is. We don't do this kind of error checking on language codes, so why do we do it on script codes? And to add on to that, we already have {{None}}, which is also an error if it's used, so do we need two error templates? —CodeCat 20:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Is {{does-template-exist}} "rather inefficient" in this case? I actually designed it for exactly this purpose; my understanding of MediaWiki efficiency was, and is, less than perfect, but I actually don't think it should be so bad. Has someone determined otherwise? Re: removing {{does-template-exist}} entailing removing {{Eror}}: Well, technically there's also the {{urlencode:...}} check. Re: why error-checking here but not elsewhere: One difference is that if we don't check for and handle this case, then the resulting output is (e.g.) "{{ Template:foo/script |bar|face=term|lang=foo}}", and it's not so easy for people to figure out what the problem is and how to fix it. There is no analogous problem with bad language-codes, much as they suck, in other contexts. Re: {{Eror}} vs. {{None}}: The latter isn't really an error; it just means that lang= wasn't specified. Personally, I agree with you that language always should be specified, but I don't think there's ever been consensus for the view that lang=en should be required; in the absence of such a consensus, we can't treat Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:None as a clean-up list in the way that we can Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Eror. —RuakhTALK 20:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
- There is a way to make sure that the script always exists as long as the language code does. We can make it default to some language, perhaps {{und}}. Rather than using dedicated error checking as we do now, we could just use transclusions of {{und/script}} in the same way we currently use {{Eror}}. —CodeCat 21:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Sorry, I'm not sure I follow. :-/ Are you saying that instead of this logic: IF {{he/script}} exists THEN use {{ {{he/script}} }} ELSE use {{Eror}} END, you suggest this logic: IF {{he/script}} exists THEN use lang="he" and {{ {{he/script}} }} ELSE use lang="und" and {{ {{und/script}} }} END ? In other words, move our error-checking "up" a level, so to speak, so that it affects the language-code in the HTML as well as the choice of script template? —RuakhTALK 21:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Not if you point it to {{None}}, which just returns the contents unmodified. You'd have to invent a new code then, like {{qqx}} which MediaWiki already uses for testing purposes. We could do the same. -- Liliana • 21:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I was thinking more of the way {{Xyzy}} is used. The templates that use it are always templates that take a language code. The problem with {{Eror}} only arises when they are provided with an invalid language code, but that is not something {{Xyzy}} should check for, I think; it should assume the provided code is correct, and that every language code has a valid script code (which is true, as far as I know). So we can either: 1. rewrite them so that they provide the code und when calling {{Xyzy}} and they have not been provide a code themselves, or 2. change {{Xyzy}} so that it uses {{und/script}} if {{{lang|}}} is empty (i.e. use {{{lang|und}}} or a variety). —CodeCat 21:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I still don't get it. Originally you wrote "we could just use transclusions of {{und/script}} in the same way we currently use {{Eror}}" (which has to do with invalid language-codes, or at least, language-codes without script templates), but now it seems like you're talking about missing language codes, i.e. {{None}} (in which case I don't see how it's relevant to this discussion). What am I missing? —RuakhTALK 20:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I don't believe {{Xyzy}} should catch invalid language codes. Rather, the "surrounding" template should do that. So from my point of view, missing and invalid are the same thing; both should be ignored by {{Xyzy}} as "not my problem". —CodeCat 21:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I don't follow. No matter how and where we detect invalid language codes, aren't they still fundamentally different from missing and explicitly-blank ones? More broadly . . . it seems like you're proposing much broader changes than what truly belongs in an RFDO discussion for the template {{Eror}}. —RuakhTALK 21:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, CodeCat's argument of 'something better may come along later' is a really, really poor one. No deletion rationale given. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Ruakh. - -sche (discuss) 18:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Not a context, only used to categorize logical fallacies as such. -- Liliana • 11:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC) - Delete DCDuring TALK 12:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- This doesn't even merit discussion (unless that discussion is a general policy reconsideration) since it violates policy. - -sche (discuss) 20:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sometimes it's best to be cautious to avoid potential conflict with editors. This may not be a good instance of when it's good to be cautious. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
A terrible mess, and not even dictionary material. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC) - Delete. — Ungoliant (Falai) 03:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Empty page, awkward title. - -sche (discuss) 04:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC) - No need to discuss this, just delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
A while ago this was simplified a lot, to the point that it no longer really has any value over just manually transcluding the list template. It has now been subst:ed everywhere so it has no more transclusions. —CodeCat 23:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC) - Delete, but make sure to fix the documentation. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. - -sche (discuss) 00:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. And thank you. DCDuring TALK 02:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- No objection, I know this template has been so problematic that editors from other projects have come here to our Grease Pit to complain about it. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well actually, there's nothing wrong with this template, apart from that it just doesn't do much. It is {{list helper}} that has been the real culprit. —CodeCat 20:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted —CodeCat 19:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Redundant to Appendix:Serbo-Croatian Swadesh list, which already has a column for Latin script forms (i.e. "Croatian"). Should be redirected, IMO. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC) - Check for [[Ekavian]]/Ijekavian forms presence, if nothing else missing, then delete. Certain Serbo-Croatian Swadesh lists, entries, translations miss either Cyrillic or one of Ekavian/Ijekavian forms, depending on the source used and the author. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- crijeva is the only red link, which Ivan Stambuk created in 2007 and deleted with no deletion summary in 2009. I wonder why. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
As well as Category:User tmr-1, Template:User tmr-1, and Template:User tmr-2. {{tmr}} was deleted as being a dialect of Aramaic, so can't we use {{arc}} here too? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC) - Del per nom. - -sche (discuss) 19:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Old Wonderfool alias. His Polish inflected-form creation bot will never be run again, so the pages are unneeded. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC) - Why request this? Just delete them, I will put something in WT:USERPAGE to cover this sort of deletion. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
This term is not widely used and makes Wiktionary seem to be directed at other than normal folks. See ambitransitive at OneLook Dictionary Search. I suppose we could keep the template and change what it displayed. DCDuring TALK 22:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC) - Or, we could assume our users aren't total idiots and will think to click on the word to get to its definition if they don't know what it means. —Angr 22:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- You'd be amazed how many editors reject the "assume our users aren't total idiots" idea. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think we should sincerely not treat folks who happen on our site, but aren't particularly good computer users, as unworthy of the extra effort it would take us to make Wiktionary work for them.
- I assume that our users are in the top 20% or so of all humanity in terms of computer usage capability. What would be a better assumption?
- I think it is a truly bad idea to design our entries with the assumption that users will be willing to click through to get an explanation. We have plenty of instances where users ask questions or make complaints that suggest they have some trouble clicking through or don't think they should have to.
- Would it be so hard for us to say "may take two objects" or something more elegantly worded that used words that almost all users would understand? Often enough we talk about how we are trying to make things simple for the user. Here we have what seems like an open-and-shut case in which we are choosing to use a word that:
- no other online dictionary seems to find common enough to include;
- does not appear in COCA or BNC;
- appears in no work outside the field of linguistics.
- This is one of those things that makes me wonder whether we are qualified to attempt to make a resource for anyone other than ourselves. DCDuring TALK 00:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that we should not design Wiktionary for people who don't know how to click. On the other hand, {{ambitransitive}} is much more confusing than {{transitive|or|intransitive}}. --WikiTiki89 00:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as a shortcut, but change the display to "transitive, intransitive" or "transitive or intransitive", i.e. delete the current state of the template. Whether you assume readers are brilliant or ignorant, "ambitransitive" is unnecessarily arcane and few other dictionaries even contain the term, let alone use it. Hopefully someone will link to the prior discussions. - -sche (discuss) 01:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- The display was changed in these edits. That resolves this as far as I'm concerned. - -sche (discuss) 19:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
This category is empty. Should it be filled, or deleted? - -sche (discuss) 16:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC) - It probably should be filled because English does have some inflectional suffixes, like -s or -ed. —CodeCat 17:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, no longer empty. —Angr 17:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for filling it! I rather suspected English had inflectional suffixes, lol. - -sche (discuss) 17:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- The other categories need filling too. I have done some but there are so many suffixes. It's sometimes hard to keep apart the suffixes that just "exist" due to borrowing, and those that are actually used productively to form English words. —CodeCat 18:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this template exists because visitors from Wikipedia expect it to, but our verification processes are structured so differently from Wikipedia's that uses go unnoticed before ultimately being corrected to {{rfv-sense}} or {{rfv-etymology}} six to twelve or eighteen months later. (Every once in a while, someone uses it in some other inventive way, where they should use {{rft}}. People also use {{rfv-sense}} in such inventive ways.) I propose we redirect the template to {{rfv-sense}}, or delete it. - -sche (discuss) 18:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC) - Regarding "this template exists because visitors from Wikipedia expect it to" yep I confirm this. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Oppose redirecting to {{rfv-sense}}, because people add this to things other than definitions. — Ungoliant (Falai) 18:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- People also add {{rfv-sense}} to things other than definitions, and the people who do that apparently don't know and/or care that RFV is only for verifying senses, whereas the sort of people (visitors from WP) who use {{fact}} on etymologies and the like might actually click through to WT:RFV and realise that they should use another template... and if they don't, well, it's no worse than explicitly using {{rfv-sense}} on etymologies, is it? And keeping a redirect to our main verification template from the name Wikipedians are used to would help them find our template. But I'm just playing redirect's advocate. - -sche (discuss) 19:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- But they might not click the link and assume the template is being used correctly, while a red link to {{fact}} would be universally recognised as incorrect. — Ungoliant (Falai) 19:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- -- Liliana • 19:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes thank you for making sure it works Liliana. :p —CodeCat 19:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- That, by the way, seems to be the other major use of this template: to dispute comments in discussions. I know many of us are fond of using the template in that way, but I think stopping Wikipedians' rampant misuse of it is more important than preserving the possibility of such (jocular?) use of it in our discussions. Perhaps we could have a template with a non-WP name for such discussion-room uses. - -sche (discuss) 19:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- Someone said the noun sense of red link is in use[9]. — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- You're forgetting the other possibility, which is that some template-literate Wikipedian will import it from Wikipedia to introduce the ways of Wikipedia to this poor, ignorant backwater that knows them not... Chuck Entz (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- Template:fact can be protected, if that becomes a problem. — Ungoliant (Falai) 22:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think it deserves a vote. We could certainly use a mechanism whereby "passers-by" can request proof of something without being regular Wiktionarians. Dunno how best to do it. Equinox ◑ 21:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think we should create an edit filter to prevent its use in mainspace, with a message that directs them to something like WT:WFW. If we let people use it, the main result is that we'll be deceiving them- most won't realize their error, since there aren't nearly enough that actually take the time to look at or troubleshoot the results of their edits. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- Iff we can display a custom warning when people are blocked from using it, I think that's a great idea. But we've had trouble getting filters to display custom text (e.g. the filter than warns people about <ref>s without <references/> doesn't display the custom text it should). - -sche (discuss) 22:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- Probably delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. Someone just added it to an entry in the Wikipedia style when they should have used {{rfv-sense}}. As long as this template exists there will always be people who think it does the same as it does on Wikipedia, not knowing that Wiktionary works different. —CodeCat 20:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- After removing it from the few content pages it was still used on, I redirected this template to {{rfv-sense}}, as I note Dictabeard also suggested on Template talk:fact. If you think it must be deleted instead, OK (but leave an explanation / link to Template:rfv-sense in the deletion summary, please). - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've added a note to the documentation.—msh210℠ (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
This lect, usually called Hawaiian Creole English (HCE) or Pidgin, is theoretically an English-based creole. However, I have studied Pacific English-based creoles and I find that this is nothing like them. It's actually closer to the gangsta slang that I hear in the poorer parts of New York City and Los Angeles, except the Spanish borrowings are replaced with Hawaiian words thrown in for emphasis (with English pronunciation, of course, so initial glottal stops and other difficult features of Hawaiian are usually dropped). Unlike real creoles, this can be read without any prior training. For example, take this magazine article in HCE, titled "Da Muddah Tongue". Although occasional words like wahine ("woman") might prove difficult, it's not too hard to understand. Or take this HCE Bible, which has an introduction that's easy to read if you just sound out phonetically spelled words as if they were English. There are almost no Hawaiian borrowings in that text. Compare a text from a real creole, like Bislama (from Vanuatu), in which the following line was written: "Hem i kavremap gud long kaliko, nao i putum hem i slip long wan bokis we oltaim ol man ol i stap putum gras long hem, blong ol anamol ol i kakae." Were you able to tell that was a selection from the Bible describing the birth of Jesus? In contrast, HCE seems quite simply to be an extreme dialect of English, but not its own language. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC) - I agree. Strong delete (merge into {{en}}). As you noted there, I'm after mentioning on RFM that even though the kind of English that's spoken in Hawai'i and the kind that's spoken in Ireland have a gwall of differences in pronunciation and orthography, and even grammar and vocabulary, they're not different languages. Even knawvshawling amadans, alannas, and run-of-the-mill British and American English speakers who don't know what Hiberno-English speakers mean by "gwall", "knawvshawling amadans" and "alannas" ought to have no problem understanding so-called 'Hawai'ian Creole'. It's not a separate language. - -sche (discuss) 07:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
-
- PS: I think the existing entries should all be tagged with {{context|Hawaii|slang}} so that they can be correctly categorised once under the English L2 header. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. I've been bothered by this, too. The pidgin spoken in Hawaii in the 19th century might have been different, but apparently it was never written down. The present "pidgin" is just a form of English. --Makaokalani (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Seems rather redundant to Category:Portuguese terms derived from Germanic languages and its subcategories, and not really any more useful either. —CodeCat 20:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC) - There are some red links that if not errors should have entries (also we lack pub, it's on the cover of a book which is literally in front of me now) but because the formatting is hilariously bad, it should be in a different namespace. Maybe a user namespace, like User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV/sandbox (chose User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV as he's a native speaker). Am not a fan of keeping it as it is, absolutely not. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, delete and move to any subpage of my userpage. — Ungoliant (Falai) 18:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- I've moved it to User:Ungoliant/Portuguese words of Germanic origin. —CodeCat 01:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Not used. No proper content? SemperBlotto (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC) - Oh it doesn't work. It's totally wrong (but in good faith) so it could either be speedily deleted or made to work. pt:agredir does seem to suggest the verb needs its own conjugation template. But I don't know. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Move to {{pt-verb/agredir}}. — Ungoliant (Falai) 18:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Moved. The conjugation of agredir is working now. — Ungoliant (Falai) 23:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Outdated, no longer needed. MG, if you want to add in something like you did for permablocked users and then delete 'em all, feel free. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC) - Well it's a userpage, so debatably it doesn't matter how outdated it is. Also the user in question is deceased so cannot comment. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. If Robert's sister Rose wants us to delete his userpages, she knows where to find us. (Likewise, I imagine, some of his other family members.) He was a respected, dedicated, and extremely valuable contributor until his illness became severe, and I don't see any reason to start deleting the record of that. The comparison between his old userpages and those of permablocked users is rather offensive IMHO. (Yes, I know that usually you're the one criticizing offensive comparisons and I'm the one defending them; but what can I say, I liked Robert. Offensive comparisons are all well and good when they're abstract, but this is too personal.) —RuakhTALK 22:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not advocating we delete his main userpage, but this is excessive sentimentality, because these kinds of lists are not the "record" of his excellent contributions. The lists were created for pragmatic purposes, which they no longer serve. Rose et al don't care about our clutter, and expecting them to is not likely to bear fruit any time soon. I see where you're coming from, but it just seems too purposeless for me. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I guess I just don't see user-subpages as "clutter" (except perhaps one's own, when they get in one's own way; but that's a different matter). I thought our reason for deleting userpages of permanently-blocked users was w:WP:DENY (together with a general "Wiktionary is not a free wiki host or webspace provider" approach to userpages). —RuakhTALK 03:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
So, we have this template... because 'pedia does? I think we could just remove it on the few pages that use it and not much would change. Unless, of course, I'm missing something really obvious here... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC) - I didn't realize it stood for transliteration not translation. For our purposes it's really useless because all our major linking templates allow transliteration along with everything else. Delete. Probably only used in transwikis and talk pages. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- The only mainspace page it's used on is چ, and I'm not really sure why. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Update: orphaned in the mainspace. I think some (all?) of the current uses could just be converted to plaintext, see WT:ETHI as an example. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Same as above. Heavily used at Wikipedia, honestly not sure why we'd need it here. If we really need to talk about an entry without linking it... we can just write it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC) - Indeed, it's been surpassed by a long way by stuff like {{l}} and {{term}}. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. This template specifically does not replace {{l}} and {{term}}. The purpose of this template is to provide language and script support without making a link. There is a difference between writing ombudsman and writing {{lang|sv|ombudsman}}. The former is English, the latter is Swedish! —CodeCat 20:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Um... that really doesn't make any sense. Can you actually tell the difference between ombudsman and ombudsman, or for that matter between those two and ombudsman? I doubt you can predict which one uses which language/template combination to generate its output. But perhaps you might want to have script support, say, for a word in Yiddish, but you don't want to link to it. We already have script templates which serve that purpose. I can write {{Hebr|ייִדיש}} and get the script support without making a link, which is exactly what this template seems to attempt to do. I think the reason this is so underused is that it serves no purpose that we haven't already filled. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- And yet it's true. And {{Cyrl|да}} is also different from {{lang|ru|да}}. Try it out and then look at the HTML code. :) —CodeCat 21:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
delete. It is already possible to do this with the term template; writing {{term||test|lang=sv}} yields test. -- Liliana • 21:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC) - Iff {{term}} can do for screen-readers all the things this does, delete it. But it is useful to be able to mention, without linking, a term in such a way that a good screen-reader will pronounce it in the correct language. - -sche (discuss) 21:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is also useful for things that are not terms, like citations or usage examples. That is something term can't do and shouldn't do. —CodeCat 22:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- For example: {{lang|nl|Dit is een test.}} > Dit is een test. but {{term||Dit is een test|lang=nl}} > Dit is een test. —CodeCat 22:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Fair enough. There are indeed cases where a usage example isn't in the language of the section it's in, and I'm not referring only to the English translations that should always be given; there are also things like [[pochotl]], which has a Spanish usex in a ==Nahuatl== section. Weak keep. - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- The sections don't really matter. It really comes down to this: every word on Wiktionary that is not English should be wrapped in a HTML tag with a lang= attribute to specify the language. Every word on Wiktionary that is not English and is not in Latin script needs this too, but also needs special support for the script. Some time ago I proposed unifying these two things into one so that we would never have to worry about scripts anymore. —CodeCat 22:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Umm... {{Latn}} does take a lang= parameter. Just do {{Latn|this is a test|lang=sv}} to get this is a test. -- Liliana • 23:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes I'm aware of that. This is just another way to do it, really, but it was specifically intended to be used when we phase out script templates. —CodeCat 23:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- CodeCat sort of has a point, but it's kind of an insane one. "every word on Wiktionary that is not English should be wrapped in a HTML tag with a lang= attribute to specify the language". Um, we have trouble defining stuff like in in English. Also, there comes a point where you're putting computers ahead of human users. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- This doesn't affect human users in the slightest, neither positively not negatively. But just because editors don't know or care doesn't mean that something shouldn't be done. There's quite a distinction between not actively pursuing a certain style of writing entries, and actively prohibiting them which this nomination seems to do. —CodeCat 23:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- There are human users who it should affect; screenreaders can switch voices based on the language tag. If French is marked as French, blind users are much more likely to get a correct pronunciation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Actually it will make pages larger and hence load more slowly, and as you concede, with no counterbalancing positive effects. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Just barely, though, because it's a very simple template. —CodeCat 14:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. If people were using it, I'd say sure, keep it, but it seems that no one is, and there's no advantage to (e.g.) {{lang|el|φύ|sc=Grek}} over {{Grek|φύ|lang=el}}. —RuakhTALK 18:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- That is true but how many people would add {{Latn|cantar|lang=es}} to anything? —CodeCat 18:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- I actually think this is pretty useful. The only reason I never used this is because I didn't know about it. --WikiTiki89 18:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Re: "how many people would add {{Latn|cantar|lang=es}} to anything?": About the same number, I imagine, as would add {{lang|es|cantar|sc=Latn}}. —RuakhTALK 19:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
- According to the standards, languages' default script codes are unnecessary and shouldn't be added (these are the ones labelled
Suppress-Script in the subtag registry). So the shorter {{lang|el|φύ}} and {{lang|es|cantar}} are correct. The script codes should only be used in cases where more than one script is possible, like {{lang|sr-Cyrl|инверзија}} and {{lang|sr-Latn|inverzija}}, or in unusual cases, like transliterated text {{lang|uk-Latn-alalc97|pereklad}} —Michael Z. 2013-02-02 19:54 z
-
-
-
-
- What does that have to do with anything? —RuakhTALK 20:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Somewhat heavily used in our appendices, but I can't fathom why. Isn't this the same thing as {{lx}}, but with slightly different parameter names? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC) - Not quite. {{lx}} and {{termx}} both have a serious shortcoming: they don't work for reconstructed terms in attested languages. We have {{recons}} as a counterpart to {{term}}, which solves this problem. But {{l}} has no such counterpart yet. I've been wanting to create it but I don't know what name to use. {{lr}} is still free, though. —CodeCat 15:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- {{lr}} could potentially conflict with a future language code. --WikiTiki89 15:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think any new two-letter codes are being created, are they? —Angr 15:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Right. I think a lot of the uses of {{apdx-l}} currently could be {{lx}} just as easily, but there might be a few that in fact ought to be {{lr}}. If you create {{lr}}, then we'll really have no reason to keep this. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think using {{lr}} and {{recons}} is more desirable than {{lx}} and {{termx}} because the latter are a bit more complicated. —CodeCat 18:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, new two-letter templates are still created, for languages that don't have any kind of code yet, like {{cg}} for Montenegrin. -- Liliana • 18:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I was referring to ISO 639 codes, not to Wiktionary templates. Of course {{lr}} can be used for whatever Wiktionarians want it to be used for, but I don't think
lr will ever be an ISO 639-1 code, nor will cg. There hasn't been a new 2-letter ISO 639-1 code in almost 10 years, and I'm pretty sure they aren't assigning any new ones. —Angr 18:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC) - That's what I was just talking about... They could request it, if they wanted. -- Liliana • 19:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- We'll cross that bridge when we come to it, I think. There are many potential ISO codes but not that many are actually used or are ever going to be used. —CodeCat 19:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Like WT:RFDO#Template:Ibrn, this code is not in Unicode's list of ISO 15924 script codes. Unlike Ibrn, it represents characters which have been encoded into Unicode. So: is it OK as-is, or should be be renamed in case the ISO assigns Renc to something else? Note that I have no preference. - -sche (discuss) 04:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC) - Unicode claims it's the same as {{Rjng}}... -- Liliana • 10:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Duly merged. - -sche (discuss) 09:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Not a context. Orphan and replace with explicit categorization. DTLHS (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC) - Mineralogy is a context, and that's what this template displays. See the Spanish entry for alcohol to see where this becomes relevant. Sometimes a sense is found only in mineralogy, but the word itself refers to a mineral. --EncycloPetey (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, let's keep this! Out behind the shed, with {{animal}} and {{vegetable}}. —Michael Z. 2013-02-02 19:29 z Delete. Redundant to {{rare}}. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC) I now see the template is used as {{rarely|productive}} at ac-, so it is not the same thing as {{rare}}. Don't we have a way of making this up without a new template? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC) - Most of the handful of places people wrote {{context|rarely}} before this template was created should indeed be {{rare}} for consistency. (One of them was my fault; I fixed it.) "rarely productive" could be coded {{context|rarely|_|productive}} or just {{context|rarely productive}}. Are there other phrases that need to be preceded by "rarely" not "rare"? Other phrases I can think of could (and for consistency should) all be "rare," : e.g. {{rare|of a|woman}} not {{rarely|of a|woman}}, {{rare|outside of|_|dialects}} not {{rarely|outside of|_|dialects}}, etc. - -sche (discuss) 20:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
-
- Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- Keep unless, we can find a way of getting the meaning across as rare does not work in the productive context, and there are other times that I ran across the need for the use of rarely instead of rare. The amount of overhead required to keep an near but not quite redundant template alive is minimal, and with proper documentation on the template pages, we can alleviate possible confusion. Speednat (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
-
-
-
- {{context|rarely productive}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep or delete, not sure which: but do not redirect to template:rare. That would prevent use of
{{context|rarely|_|adjective}}.—msh210℠ (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC) - Wait, the nomination says "Redundant to {{rare}}" but that's false, in fact: This template does not categorize the entry as rare. And that's a good thing IMO. So the only thing this template does is make it easier on people to use {{context|rarely|_|productive}} or the like: they can use {{rarely|productive}} instead. Keep then!—msh210℠ (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
K This member of Category:Qualifier context labels is completely different from {{rare}}, of Category:Usage context labels (which could be more finely categorized in Category:Frequency context labels). —Michael Z. 2013-02-02 19:28 z This was just created. I have two problems with it... The first is about the way it is right now; it doesn't seem to add any value over Category:Hungarian terms derived from Uralic languages or Category:Hungarian terms derived from Proto-Uralic (whichever etymology was actually intended). The second is more in principle. Hungarian is a Uralic language, therefore a large majority of its basic vocabulary will be Uralic in origin, and there is really nothing "special" about those words. Compare this to Category:English terms derived from Proto-Germanic, which has over 2000 entries, and Category:English terms derived from Proto-Indo-European which also has over 2000 (but the latter probably contains many French, Latin and Greek loans). That means that in potential, the appendix could become unmanageably large. —CodeCat 01:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC) - Delete. — Ungoliant (Falai) 03:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, this would be a bit like Appendix:Spanish words of Romance origin. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
By definition, if it were 4chan slang, it would be inherently uncitable. This seems like mixing up part of speech and etymology, and we really shouldn't do that. -- Liliana • 02:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC) - Obviously not true. 4channers have historically used Usenet (especially to troll alt.religion.scientology) and a couple books and magazine articles have been written about their culture, resulting in most of their lexicon being just barely citable. I have no idea how you seem to think that this is either part of speech or etymology, as it transcends both of those. It's about in-group terms that see heavy use on 4chan. Keep (as creator). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Many of the terms there may have originated as 4chan slang, but have since spread far beyond 4chan. It would be misleading to still consider them "4chan slang". It would be better to call it "slang originating on 4chan" or something. --WikiTiki89 03:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Do you think it should be moved under Category:English etymologies? (Which, by the way, has a rather bad name!) —CodeCat 03:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I guess so, but only if both are renamed. --WikiTiki89 03:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Like Wikitiki89 pointed out, terms that originate on 4chan and other online communities can enter broader usage (consider rickroll), and once they do, they may become citable. And the fact that these terms originated on 4chan can usually be verified by independent sources, because there've been books and articles written about the site, as Meta pointed out. I think it's useful from an etymological standpoint to categorize entries based on common origin, even if the shared origin is an online community, not a language. We have things like Category:Simpsons derivations or Category:Star Trek derivations. Though a rename to something along the lines of Wikitiki89's suggestion might not hurt, given some of the points raised above. Astral (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't doubt that a better name for the category could be found. That said, these are not necessarily terms whose first use was on 4chan, and I think verifying that is inherently impossible. Some had noticeable use before 4chan, like fap, but have become the predominant term there despite the existence of various other synonymous slang terms. I think there is value in keeping these terms together, however. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC) - We don't currently have a good naming scheme for terms derived from anything that is not a language. We still use the old naming for them, like Category:en:Fictional derivations. We should probably change that...? —CodeCat 17:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Following on WT:RFD#fasque... —CodeCat 04:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC) - I've deleted it (as creator), since it's clear it's not needed. - -sche (discuss) 05:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Rastafarian English should not be in this category; instead it should be emptied and deleted, with the entries labeled with the context tag {{Jamaica}} to categorise them in Category:Jamaican English and Category:en:Rastafarian should appended to it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC) - Side note, what kind of definition is (of i-) "Used to transform English words into words used by Rastafarians"? If I append i- to something, does it become used by Rastafarians? - -sche (discuss) 06:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
-
- Good lord, man, don't you know what this means?? Suddenly, Apple's branding strategy makes so much more sense! :-P -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I really don't why anyone would ever search for "LANG form of verbs ending in -foo" instead of more specific categories like "LANG third-person singular subjunctive present verb forms". — Ungoliant (Falai) 00:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC) - I'd tend to say delete. I cannot see how these would be useful for anyone, not for human users directly or for computer analysis. It's a a bit like Category:English plurals which contain the letter "I". Sure it's possible, but why do it, and for who? Mglovesfun (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete.I can see the logic behind it, but differentiating conjugations seems more like something to do with the lemma, not all the conjugated forms. Of course, to depopulate these requires going down the Daniel-Carrero-template rabbithole... Chuck Entz (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
This hasn't been updated in five years. Unless it is updated and kept up to date regularly with a bot, I don't think there is any reason to keep it. —CodeCat 14:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - I would delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I think this is just meaningless clutter from 2007. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC) - We don't know the process by which this is supposed to have been generated. The title doesn't exactly explain it very well. Is this supposed to be requests that were filled shortly before 2007-01-08? It's hard to believe that it could have any value. DCDuring TALK 13:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Here is the only discussion of it. It seems like a one-shot experiment. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. CM didn't edit the page for two years before he left. Delete DCDuring TALK 14:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 01:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Is that an old leftover or something? We do have Category:Korean hanja... -- Liliana • 16:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC) - I don't know. Maybe it is a category for words instead of characters? I still think it would need "Korean" in the name though. —CodeCat 17:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'd've just shot it on sight, delete, old duplicate and misnamed. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
These don't seem to be used for anything, and I'm not sure what they should be used for or why there are categories for each month. —CodeCat 17:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC) - Delete. — Ungoliant (Falai) 17:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think this was somehow connected to the use of {{notenglish}}. DCDuring TALK 18:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Is, not was. Strong keep the categories as used and useful, and the template as linking among them.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Who has used {{notenglish}}? When was the last time? I cannot find the template transcluded in N0, nor the words "not written in English". I strongly suspect that the volumes of items does not now require twelves separate pages and that it will not require it in the next ten years or more. A simple single category that displayed the oldest and newest additions to the category should cover it. DCDuring TALK 21:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I use it occasionally. I mean, five or six times a year. Usually I either speedy delete whatever it is or fix it myself. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I use it occasionally. I mean, perhaps five or six times a year. (To paraphrase a wise man.) Anyway, I agree that, volume-wise, it's not worth twelve categories. But because the pages are up for deletion after a month, we need separate categories to go through to spot distantly-tagged entries. I suppose with the volume we have now, one could instead inspect the page history to see when the page was tagged, but, hey, whom do the categories hurt? I still say strong keep.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- We have the ability to display category additions by date with great ease. I am not sure what the limit is on the number of items that can be so displayed, but it well exceeds a dozen. DCDuring TALK 23:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- That seems like a sufficient substitute, if we can display that order in the category page itself.—msh210℠ (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have inserted the tables to display the 10 oldest and newest additions to the main category as best I can. Some wikiknowledge might improve the appearance. I haven't tested it, but I have used the tables before in other categories, at least those not rendered overly complicated by Daniel.. DCDuring TALK 04:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Same as above... —CodeCat 17:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC) - Delete. — Ungoliant (Falai) 17:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Strong keep: used in {{nolanguage}} and useful.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Same as preceding. Text and template not found in N0. DCDuring TALK 22:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- "[P]receding" being the section [[#Template:pages needing translation and the 12 month pages it links to]] (eventually, I suppose, to be archived at [[template talk: pages needing translation]]). Please see there for my further comments, which apply here also.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Pointless nowadays. Hasn't been updated for years, and honestly not a good use of anyone's time. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC) - Very delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Indeed not a good use of time. — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Title is wrong on both counts. —Angr 18:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. bd2412 T 20:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 Delete per Metaknowledge. Particularly interesting new entries would better be nominated for WotD. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
This is the "old" helper template... the slow and complex one. It hasn't been orphaned completely yet, but most uses have been transferred to the new User:CodeCat/list helper template. So this can't be deleted yet. However, if it does fail deletion, I'm hoping that others will help with converting the last 80 or so templates that still use it: [10]. Once deleted, User:CodeCat/list helper will be moved over to replace it. —CodeCat 23:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC) - Support. Your template is much more efficient. — Ungoliant (Falai) 23:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. The template aids creation of new list templates, and the performance will be improved once Lua is deployed. --Yair rand (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see how it provides more "aid" than its replacement, and I don't think waiting for Lua is an option. —CodeCat 23:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, and reject the idea that we should wait for Lua or Scribunto or any of the other updates we've been promised which haven't materialised on time, and that we shouldn't use the infrastructure we already have in place ([[User:CodeCat/list helper]]) to improve things in the meantime. - -sche (discuss) 01:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- I believe they have a developer assigned exclusively to getting Lua and Scribunto up and running on en.Wiktionary. What was his name... oh, I remember now: Godot... Chuck Entz (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete aka Support per -sche's excellent reasoning. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Orphan and delete with prejudice. Or at the very least, we should rename it to something less misleading, like {{list monster}}. —RuakhTALK 05:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's an overwhelming delete. So this fails. Yay! But it still has about 70 transclusions in the Template namespace, which will need to be replaced. —CodeCat 15:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm trying to help, but some of the existing templates, like Template:list:Hebrew script letter names/en and Template:list:chess pieces/en have multiple hypernyms and synonyms and so forth. Your replacement template apparently permits only one hypernym and no synonyms, AFAICT. —Angr 16:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- It does, actually. It doesn't create a link to the words listed under
list= or hypernym=, it treats it as normal text. So you can just put something like "{{l-self|en|aleph}}/{{l-self|en|alef}}" as one of the items. The same works for hypernyms as well. —CodeCat 17:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Lua is being deployed in five days. I don't suppose we could rethink this decision? --Yair rand (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- With Lua, the template would have to be completely redone anyway, so there is no value in keeping it in its current form. —CodeCat 18:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- FWIW, I voted "delete" because I disagreed with your statement that "the template aids creation of new list templates", not because of performance considerations. No matter how well this template might someday perform, I still think we're better off without it. —RuakhTALK 01:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Not just {{inactive}}; wholly replaced by Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-03/ELE text about wikifying language names, which ruled that no language names are to be wikified, now enforced by format bots. This is misleading and useless. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC) - Delete. — Ungoliant (Falai) 06:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is of historical interest. And if we ever decide to wikify language names, the history of this page will be of use. I therefore recommending converting it to hard redirect to that vote.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'd delete it actually and put the link to the vote in the deletion summary. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Suppose, one day, we decide to wikify language names. Obviously, we'll look at the vote. We'll also try to think what page had the old list of languages to be linked, so we can think whether to do it the same way, etc. If the latter links to the former, then whatlinkshere will help us. If only its deletion summary links to the vote, then whatlinkshere will tell us nothing. Moreover, even if we do know where the old list was, once it's deleted, only an admin will be able to see it, whereas others might wish to. These are reasons to redirect rather than delete. What are the reasons to delete rather than redirect?—msh210℠ (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Redirect per msh210. - -sche (discuss) 22:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
This does not seem like a useful topic to categorize entries into. There is only one member of the category—an appendix page—and not a whole lot of potential for more. Dominic·t 07:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC) - (Well, outside of sci-fi, there's Tiamat.) I can't see any compelling use for this outside of the rather contentious and specialist appendix space. Equinox ◑ 10:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- What about Pluto? (Yeah, delete.)—msh210℠ (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- There is Nibiru as well. — Ungoliant (Falai) 15:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Vulcan. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Planet X, although there is likely some distinction to be made between a "fictional" planet and a "hypothetical" planet. Note, however, that "Planet X" is used in fiction from time to time. bd2412 T 21:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Kolob. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Is that a planet? Our definition doesn't say so. And anyway, we had a debate in the past about calling things from various religions "fictional" and decided (IIRC) against it.—msh210℠ (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Joseph Smith implied it to be a planet when he wrote, captioning an image in The Book of Abraham, "Stands next to Kolob, called by the Egyptians Oliblish, which is the next grand governing creation near to the celestial or the place where God resides; holding the key of power also, pertaining to other planets; as revealed from God to Abraham, as he offered sacrifice upon an altar, which he had built unto the Lord." But some Mormons think it may be a star instead. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- If Appendix pages are fair game, I could whip up a few for famous SFnal planets like Pern, Riverworld, Solaris, etc. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, Appendix pages are always fair game. Well, not always, but often. Come to think of it, do we even have guidelines for what should go into appendices? bd2412 T 01:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- (On a side note, I have just created Appendix:Appendices, because it's about time we had some kind of directory of what is in these pages). bd2412 T 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think the issue here is not so much whether we can think of more fictional planets, but whether this is a useful topic with which to categorize words in a dictionary. I can (barely) see the linguistic merit of a category to designate words whose referents are fictional, but I'm not sure what the purpose is of calling out the fictional planets, of all things. Dominic·t 01:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. But I propose renaming it to something more inclusive, like Category:en:Fictional and theoretical celestial bodies. — Ungoliant (Falai) 04:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 Keep, and I also support Ungoliant's renaming proposal, except I think it should be "hypothetical" rather than "theoretical". ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete Fictional is an attribute of the referrent, not a lexical quality. Let's make an excellent dictionary instead of a crappy Wikipedia clone. —Michael Z. 2013-02-02 18:53 z - Nor is any other topical category. — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Topical categories are 1. a search tool, 2. a way to learn new words about a topic. They don't make the project encyclopedic. Lmaltier (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- So let's better integrate topical wiki projects. For example, add wiktionary links to Wikipedia articles and categories, which will serve both of these purposes, while promoting our dictionary to people who could use it. —Michael Z. 2013-02-20 15:43 z
- That would not work for all topical categories. Frex, not every occupational term in Category:en:Occupations will have a Wikipedia article. Also, Wikipedia article titles tend to be nouns, while our topical categories may include other parts of speech. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
An incomplete attempt to replicate WT:Index to appendices. Whatever this page has that ought to be on the index and isn't already there should be added. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC) - Since they contain, at this point, virtually exclusive sets of information, the optimal solution would be to merge and redirect. I was unable to find this index because I looked for it in the most logical place, that being appendix space. bd2412 T 04:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Speedily merged and redirected. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Striking. Thanks. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
This may have been intended for a bigger purpose, but right now it's almost empty. —CodeCat 04:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC) - Speedy, empty page. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Deleted. —CodeCat 13:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
An incomplete, messy attempt to reproduce Category:English terms derived from Persian. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC) - Delete. — Ungoliant (Falai) 02:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Could "Persian origin" include languages other than Persian (e.g. Sanskrit, Kurdish)? Even so, better to automate this kind of thing if we can. Equinox ◑ 02:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that "Persian" means "Persian". If it doesn't, then there's even more wrong with this appendix than I thought. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Even if it did, it's still redundant to Category:English terms derived from Indo-Iranian languages. — Ungoliant (Falai) 04:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, it's a list of words which a category can do, and the two words which have explanations put the Persian in the Latin alphabet. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep until no more legitimate redlinks remain. All the ones I've looked at so far have some legitimacy as alternative forms or proper nouns, though not all of the proper nouns would necessarily warrant inclusion and few of the proper nouns would be included were I Supreme Lexicographer. DCDuring TALK 14:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- WT:REE? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
These are context labels and widely used. But are they actually contexts? Or are they really odd substitutes for a definition? Surely, if an adjective is defined as seventh, such a label isn't even necessary? —CodeCat 19:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC) - I'm tempted to say yes cardinal and ordinal are contexts, in the same way that 'idiomatic' isn't a context in the strictest sense of a context, but it is a context in terms of what Wiktionary context labels do. They perhaps provide useful information in a neat, concise format and should therefore be kept. I will wait for replies before saying anything more. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
This is used for a few Finnish verbs. However, in Finnish, frequentative is a property of a whole verb, not just of certain senses, so it doesn't belong as a context. —CodeCat 19:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Defectiveness is a property of an inflection paradigm, not of a specific sense and therefore not a context. —CodeCat 19:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC) - Even if there are verbs where some senses are defective and some aren't, {{context|defective}} should be good enough, right? After all the other senses will be using {{context|not defective}} and not {{not defective}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- But a verb might in one sense be conjugated defectively and in another not.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes it's possible, not sure if such a verb exists and with the same etymology. {{context|defective}} should be good enough if we're talking about very few verbs (so far, we have zero). Mglovesfun (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Used in one entry. We have a separate ===Determiner=== header, so this isn't necessary. —CodeCat 19:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC) - Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Reason is I cannot see a way to use this. If a language has determiners, use the determiner header. If it doesn't, you can't use the 'determiner'. Hence can only be used incorrectly. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
No no no. Redundant to {{arc}}, and we have a history of deleting dialects of Aramaic (compare Template talk:tmr). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC) This doesn't fit our usual category structure and (given that -bar is an adjective-forming suffix) is redundant to the category that does, Category:German words suffixed with -bar. - -sche (discuss) 06:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC) - I think {{suffix}} does have a pos= parameter, but I don't think this is a good way of using it, since -bar is a suffix that forms adjectives. It would be a bit like Category:English adverbs suffixed with -ly, which we don't have. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- But there are also many adjectives with -ly. That isn't important though. Personally I don't mind this category, I only object to having two, so I'd say delete whichever one is used less. —CodeCat 15:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what this context is actually meant to convey. Everything made out of several punctuation-separated parts on Wiktionary is considered idiomatic, because it's part of our CFI. So that label seems rather redundant; it could be added to just about anything made out of multiple parts. It would be more noteworthy if a sense were literal ({{&lit}}). Of course, certain senses may be more easily derived from the parts than others, but it does still seem like a rather vague description. —CodeCat 15:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC) - Disagree, there's a difference between what we call idiomatic in terms of WT:CFI and 'idiomatic' in the lexical sense. We use a special sense of idiomatic in WT:CFI that's Wiktionary-only. Keep. Will provide more reasons if necessary. Out of interest, do you actually think this has a chance of failing or is it more about raising awareness about the issue? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's a part of both. Even if it is kept, I still hope that we can clarify somewhat when we consider something an "idiom" and when not. I mean, would give up be considered an idiom, and why or why not? —CodeCat
- Keep —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
This is kind of the same as {{defective}} above. It's also not used very widely, only 6 transclusions. —CodeCat 15:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC) - If it makes sense as a context template and someone saw fit to create it and it has six actual uses, keep. But I think it's displayed form should link to the glossary definition (or entry) for deponent.—msh210℠ (talk) 06:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I wonder what this would be used for. It has no transclusions at all, so I can't find out from example uses either. —CodeCat 15:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC) - Benedictive says what is it. If it's a mood, we'd normally mark that in the definition (first-person singular present indicative of...) which may be why it isn't used. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
While this label may have uses, I'm not sure if it needs its own template. From what I could see, several of the transclusions are not very good uses, either (like nemmine which uses it on the headword line!). —CodeCat 15:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC) I'm ok with things like {{HEchar}} redirecting to {{Hebr}}, but Kurdish uses two scripts, so my first thought was that {{KUchar}} redirects to {{Latn}} but it actually redirects to {{ku-Arab}}, which is confusing. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC) - Even {{HEchar}} has no transclusions except in discussion pages. I think both can be deleted. While redirects can be convenient, they also add a bit to the mental burden of remembering "what everything does" on Wiktionary. —CodeCat 16:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Orphan and delete both. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
-
- D —Michael Z. 2013-02-12 18:47 z
These have been redirected to {{unicode}} for three and a half years. Now orphaned except for a couple of links. They were used for transliteration text. Previous discussion. —Michael Z. 2013-02-09 19:50 z - Is there a technical reason for using some kind of markup (other than a generic "unicode" template) to indicate transliteration? There are some discussions about this right now. In any case, I don't think this is useful if it's only a redirect, so delete. —CodeCat 21:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Same as CodeCat really, these are confusing redirects because they're not what you'd expect. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Moved to {{enPR}} and {{enPRchar}} in 2007. Orphaned. —Michael Z. 2013-02-09 21:01 z - Delete —CodeCat 21:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- No objections. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The "tag" subcategories don't really have anything to do with headword-line templates. So assuming we can remove those from this category, and also the Wiktionary pages (which don't strictly belong here), the only thing that actually belongs in this category is {{head}} and Category:Headword-line templates by language, because that is the only non-language-specific headword-line template that exists. That doesn't seem like much to dedicate a whole category to? —CodeCat 00:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC) We use WT:VIP for this purpose nowadays. No point in keeping this as an inactive page or archive, per w:WP:DENY. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC) - Delete. Not per DENY, but because it's better to centralise vandalism reports, instead of having a different page for this or that type of vandalism. — Ungoliant (Falai) 22:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. And perhaps, afterward, recreate as redirect. Though I'm not sure if WT:VIP or WT:NPOV would be the better redirect target. —RuakhTALK 05:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
WT:AJA includes a section about #Non-lemma_forms that looks obsolete and sorely in need of reworking/removal. This section advocates various editing techniques that have been obsoleted for a while, such as manually formatted headlines and non-standard headers. {{ja-kanji reading}} is part of this confusion that needs cleaning up. This template has no purpose given our current standards, to wit: to classify each JA term under the appropriate part of speech, in line with all other language entries (at least, that I'm aware of). Doing so also does away with at least some the problem of Japanese entries listed under Category:Entries with non-standard headers. I therefore propose orphaning {{ja-kanji reading}} and deleting it. We should rework all entries that use this template to instead place each term under the correct POS. I have already started this process, such as with these two edits. If any other JA editors have objections, I'm all ears. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC) - D —Michael Z. 2013-02-12 18:42 z
- I have no objections. It's true that those entries are all old and they have been dead for a long time. It would be kind of cool to be able to find kanji by readings on here, but that can all be done automatically using data already on entries with Kanji sections. That's another project for another day, not one for humans, and not really what WT is about right now. --Haplology (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
-
-
- Haplology, how do you mean "It would be kind of cool to be able to find kanji by readings on here"? If you mean looking up a reading for an individual character, and finding all the characters with that reading listed and linked to from a single entry, that's actually one of my goals too -- and part of the background to why I nominated this template for deletion. If all single kanji are also referred to from the appropriate hira (and possibly rom?) entries for each reading, would that fulfill your comment? Eg, you'd find links to 道 from the じ, ち, どう, and みち pages, while the みち page would also link to the 海驢, 満, 充, 路, 途, 未知, 美知, 美智, and 蜜 pages (and any others that I've left out), etc. etc. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
-
- I'm confused. What I think you mean to propose is that under every ==Japanese== header, there appear only subheaders which are a part of speech, Romanization, or Kanji, which would mean that every ===Kanji reading=== subsection would disappear. In that case, unless I'm mistaken, you couldn't find 開 in かい. Clever people can just go to Special:WhatLinksHere/かい of course. --Haplology (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Re:
===Kanji reading=== disappearing, yes, I would like to see that disappear. - Re: 開, my thought is that, yes, actually, that should be listed under かい. The POS would presumably be
===Affix===, as this is not used in isolation, but as prefix, suffix, or infix. See たく for an example of how that might work. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC) - I think we're in agreement on the proposal, which I take to be removing the template ja-kanji reading and the section ===Kanji reading. I am still confused about the rest. Maybe 開 was a bad example. My point was that there are some kanji readings which cannot be listed under a part of speech. Many of the kanji entries here lack definitions completely, including lot of other kanji entries that list たく as a reading, like 杔. There are many other kanji that can be read たく, so are they not affixes? How can you tell the difference? I have never heard of infixes in Japanese before. I thought that many words were borrowed straight from China, not first borrowed as affixes and then assembled. In any case I'm more interested in working on plain old nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. and generally in words which are widely used by people living today. If "Kanji readings" is to be replaced by something, that's another discussion for another page. --Haplology (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Apologies, I did not mean to suggest that the たく entry is complete, so yes, 杔 should be added there. I'll do so later today, time allowing. The lack of the 杔 kanji on the たく page is no indication that I think 杔 should not be included there, and is instead simply an indication that I didn't get around to listing every kanji that can be read as たく. I may do so tonight or later this week when I have my copy of Nelson's to hand.
- My thought is that all kanji under a given reading that are used as prefixes, such as 不 (fu, "un-, not"), would be listed as prefixes, while all kanji under a given reading that are used as suffixes, such as 前 (ze, honorific suffix attached to nouns describing persons), would be listed as suffixes. Some kanji are never used in isolation for a given reading, like 拓 (taku, "open (soil), clear (land)"), and are variously used either at the start of a compound as in 拓殖 (takushoku, "develop new land, colonize"), or at the end of a compound as in 開拓 (kaitaku, "break new ground; open new territory"). Such kanji have inherent meaning, but as they are never standalone, I settled on the
===Affix=== header. This is partly influenced by the Kokugo Dai Jiten's use in some entries of the 語素 (goso, "morpheme") POS marker. If you or anyone else has a better idea for POS header, I'm open to suggestions.
- Re: infixes, you're right about kanji, in that compounds are constructed in units of one or two kanji, so there's never anything to be in the middle of. I misspoke (miswrote?) in the context of my post above. Looking more broadly at Japanese as a whole, whether an element is an infix depends on your point of view in analysis. By some analyses, the れ (re) or られ (rare) that appear in passive verb forms, or the せ (se) or させ (sase) that appear in causative verb forms, could all be considered as infixes, followed by る (ru) in the plain form or ます (masu) in the polite form. Others take the view that the entire passive endings れる (reru) and られる (rareru) or causative endings せる (seru) and させる (saseru) are integral units that then inflect to take the ます (masu) ending. I lean toward the former view, in part as all the JA<>JA dictionaries I've looked at treat ます (masu) as an auxiliary verb.
- Re: assembling new words from kanji, that happens from time to time. The term 電話 (denwa, "telephone") is one such example. Even kanji words we think of as basic and common, such as 会社 (kaisha, "company") or 経済 (keizai, "economy"), were coined in Japan (in these specific cases, as part of the 蘭学 (rangaku, "Dutch studies, Holland-ology") movement in the 1700-1800s, where Japanese scholars worked to translate western texts into Japanese). Putting kanji together in new ways allows for all kinds of fun productive word formation. We see tons of that in manga; some of our more eager IP anons have been known to pepper our lists of new entries with such creative neologisms. Whether these stick around long enough to meet WT:CFI is another matter. :) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining it. I think I understand now. I'll follow your lead on this one. It seems like a massive project and this is an area I'm not familiar with so for the time being I'll focus on other parts of speech at least until there's a certain amount of stability in how to write these sections. If a complete dictionary has 200,000 entries, WT is 25% complete with respect to Japanese, and I'd like to focus on that 75% for now and get widespread coverage with an acceptable level of quality, and then drill down deeper following that. This is an interesting project though so please keep me posted.
- This makes me think: perhaps definitions of kanji should go under a similar Affix section, rather than right under the Kanji section? For some time I have been removing the defn tag under kanji when there is a definition in any part of speech, but I have been wondering if that was the wrong thing to do. Perhaps every Kanji section should include glosses, and the defn template was a placeholder or those. Or should none of them have glosses, and all of them have an Affix section? --Haplology (talk) 05:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Isn't this redundant to Category:Terms derived from other languages? —CodeCat 17:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC) - No. English has lots of terms derived from Old English, but very few terms borrowed from it (witenagemot springs to mind). The problem is that we don't use {{borrowing}} nearly enough. —Angr 17:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, as no deletion rationale is given. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm with Angr on this, we need to replace instances of Borrowed from {{etyl|foo|bar}} with {{borrowing|foo|lang=bar}} which adds the extra category [[Category:bar borrowed terms]]. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Replaced with {{IPAchar}}, orphaned except for links on two talk pages. —Michael Z. 2013-02-17 00:11 z - Delete, though I'm not too fussed about deleting redirects unless they're misleading. I would expect this to redirect to {{IPA}} not {{IPAchar}}, so delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
To quote Ethnologue, "90% intelligibility of Chakma [ccp]". Looks like a dialect to me; I can't get any data on whether it's written in the same idiosyncratic script, though. If not, it might be easier in the future to separate them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC) - Are you proposing deletion of the template only or a change in how we treat the lect? If the former, how would that work technically? And if the latter, it should be in the BP, not here. (Same for Shelta, above.)—msh210℠ (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- A dedicated page for "Requests to change the treatment of lects" page might be useful... I have noticed that our discussions are spread out across three pages. When I want to merge lects+codes+templates, I usually post on WT:RFM (the page for merging things), which there's precedent for. Metaknowledge posts here on WT:RFDO (the page for deleting templates), which there's precedent for. On occasion, people post in the BP. The majority of discussions take place on WT:RFM, in part because I am the most prolific starter of them. - -sche (discuss) 20:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please see further conversation on this topic below at [[#Template:pld]].—msh210℠ (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Per precedent case {{hwc}} -- Liliana • 17:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC) - Are you proposing deletion of the template only or a change in how we treat the lect? If the former, how would that work technically? And if the latter, it should be in the BP, not here.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- The lect, obviously. And this actually is right place to do it. Lurk moar.
- Anyway, delete. I can't believe that we actually have a code for this, it's really an embarrassment to the project to have a code for every random cool slang lexicon (I mean, this one is pretty cool, although I somehow doubt that very much of it is citable). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- I lurk on this page some, and have noticed such nominations in the past, and always meant to protest, but never did until now for some reason unknown to even me. (Fwiw, the earliest still on this page dates to June 2011 ([[#Template:del]]); there may possibly have been an earlier one already archived (though I doubt it). So) I'll grant you there's precedent for discussing it here: but I still think it's the improper place. This page is for deletion of pages, not for how to handle languages, which is a policy issue and thus belongs in the BP.—msh210℠ (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry for my rudeness above (and happy Purim). I strongly disagree, because putting more stuff that most of the community doesn't care about in the BP and clogging it up is the wrong way to handle this, IMO. I think (did -sche suggest this already? I think so) that a new page for treatment of lects would be welcome, but using RFM works fine, and I'm willing to switch my posts over there, not that it makes any difference. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- You weren't overly rude, and apology accepted. And a happy Purim to you, too, if you celebrate it. (Otherwise, just a happy day.) I actually have no objection to having the discussions here, or at RFM, or wherever, if that's what the community decides, but since unless and until that happens they should be at the default place for policy discussions, which is BP (or languages' About pages). How about this: I'll (or you can) head on over to the BP now and post "People have been, for some time now, posting requests for language mergers to RFM and RFDO even though they're technically policy requests. This post is to notify BP-watchers of that fact and to make sure there's no objection. In order to consolidate the requests, they will henceforth be only at" — and finish that sentence with "RFM", "RFDO", or a reference to some new page. Sound reasonable? How shall we finish the sentence?—msh210℠ (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really care enough; you can post if you so wish and feel free to finish the sentence with "RFM", just because I think perhaps a new page isn't a good idea. It's a bit shady to have a special, less-frequented page for lect splitting and merging, which if nothing else could gain us bad press. But -sche really ought to get the final word. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- I use RFM because that one page can handle all types of language-treatment change requests: (a) it handles mergers, which result in the deletion of a language code, but unlike RFD it requires people to think about what L2 foo's entries will come to use (be merged into) when Template:foo is deleted, (b) it handles rename requests, if a lect we call Fooian should be called Fooic, or a template we call aus-syd newly has an ISO code xdk, and (c) it handles splits of language/dialect clusters into separate lects.
- I would still use, and have used, the BP for potentially controversial language changes: things like the merger of Romanian and Moldavian, which is at least politically (though not linguistically) controversial, as distinct from things like the rename of Dharug, where if a majority of other users had favoured Dharuk the result would have been "OK, let's not rename it", with no long or acrimonious debate. But as Metaknowledge noted, most of the many discussions that take place are of no interest to the community at large, and would only clutter the BP. - -sche (discuss) 21:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, folks. I've posted [[WT:Beer parlour/2013/February#Notice of language-merger discussion at RFM]].—msh210℠ (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
And possibly also {{fr-noun-inv}}. These are really idiosyncratic workarounds to what we normally use extra parameters in a template for (see e.g. the second parameter in {{es-noun}} and how it reacts when you feed it -). They are so illogical and different from our normal method that Category:Entries in which fr-noun is misused had to be created to collect the resultant errors. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC) - I think I nominated this as WT:RFM but whatever; delete, functionality has been at {{fr-noun}} for a while, and is used, just not yet used in every entry. I'd imagine with Scribunto this sort of deletion could soon be trivial, but since it isn't right now, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I can't tell, actually. Can you update the documentation, then? As I noted the above, the {{es-noun}} solution seems to me to be the most logical and graceful. Also, what about {{fr-noun-inv}}? Should that be deleted too? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think someone should write Module:fr-noun and then definitely delete these two. fr-noun doesn't currently accept type=inv, of course it should do, but if it's going to be 'modulated' then I don't want to add it just to have it deleted a few days later. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
A category for only two entries, with the addition of any more being unlikely? Doesn't seem too useful. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Unneeded template-itis. We don't need templates for each and every word. Note also the lack of a {{disagree}}. -- Liliana • 20:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC) - It seems less silly than many. It would be useful if one is not voting on an explicit proposal but on some statement. It could help make clear the direction of sometimes cryptic comments. I don't see why would wouldn't have {{disagree}}, too. DCDuring TALK 20:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Also, I think you might mean hypertemplatism, or did you find this template inflammatory? DCDuring TALK 20:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've always thought that we had too many templatomas leading to gigantotemplatism and bradytemplatism. DCDuring TALK 20:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- ... - -sche (discuss) 16:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
-
 Agree Mglovesfun (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC), delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems redundant of {{support}}, which would better be given a text parameter like {{vote keep}}. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I intended to use this in polls. When the question read like "I prefer option A over option B", "support" sounded wrong, yet I wanted the agreement to be formally graphically marked up, like in {{support}}. "Disagree" was not needed, as "I prefer option A over option B" was complemented with "I prefer option B over option A" or the like. Admittedly, the template is not used much, and almost no one creates polls anyway. Whatever the case, the wording of deletion rationale seems to be an instance of pure rhetoric: "each and every word"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Agree {{subst:#ifeq:+|-|{{{sig}}}|~~~~}} I think having a bold counter on votes is convenient, but the template is a practical failure. The appended signature is out of place if the editor chooses to comment, as we are encouraged to do, and it is incompatible with the custom signature feature in Special:Preferences. Fix or delete. —Michael Z. 2013-03-15 18:54 z
- Aaaand, this is a new kind of failure. Usually it enters a redundant sig for me. —Michael Z. 2013-03-15 18:56 z
- Because you didn't subst:. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
-
- Agree —Michael Z. 2013-03-15 20:36 z 20:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Ah. Don't recall substing it before, though. Add lack of documentation and unhelpful failure state to this template's deficiencies. —Michael Z. 2013-03-15 20:36 z
[edit] template redirects A few old Spanish template redirects - http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=es%3A&namespace=10 —This comment was unsigned. Wonderfool sock - Seems uncontroversial. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems we have agreed to delete this template and replace it with CodeCat's version (or / in addition with my own two versions). Or haven't we? Is the template going to be deleted? --Pereru (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC) - Lua has changed a lot of things. The problem with the old list helper was that it contained a lot of intricate code that was necessary because of how templates work. In particular, templates don't support loops, so each parameter out of 60 (!) had to be addressed individually. Lua on the other hand supports loops, so it could easily iterate over all the parameters individually with only a small amount of code. Another advantage is that Lua can do string operations, so it would be possible to enter a list item with alternatives, like "Antarctic Ocean/Southern Ocean", and the Lua module could be written so that it automatically splits where the slash is. On the other hand, the new list template as it is now is rather simple and straightforward, and flexible at the same time, so it may not really be necessary to change much about how it works for now. —CodeCat 13:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- We could even have the template split by commas, so that it wouldn't require any template-y stuff at all. It might even be faster than using the l template repeatedly like in CodeCat/list helper. --Yair rand (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- It is probably better to let Lua do the linking, yes. But we can still decide on whether to split the words by passing multiple parameters, or split them with commas and let Lua split it. I don't know which would be faster. —CodeCat 01:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Unused in mainspace, which makes sense, because I really don't know what it would be used for. (No, it's not a headword-line template for Tajik suffixes. No such luck.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC) - It's clear enough what it's intended to be: a shortcut for {{suffix|lang=tg}} to be used in Etymology sections, but I'm unaware of any precedent for this. So delete unless someone wants to turn it into a headword-line template for Tajik suffixes. —Angr 09:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- It seems to have no advantages over {{suffix|lang=tg}}, in fact it seems to have some disadvantages, so delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
A template for formatting links to modules. Very misleading, because its output is basically identical to {{temp}}. I would like to keep this, but only if it looks different. Then again, do we really need it? Can't we just type Module:foo? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC) - Misleading indeed. Something like {{invoke}} might make more sense but even then, how often would that actually be needed? —CodeCat 00:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Personally, I'd like there to be a {{temp}}-like template for linking to modules. If that's what this is, I don't understand why {{invoke}} would be a better title. - -sche (discuss) 04:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well ok, let's say we use {{module}}. Then you'd type: {{module|nl-verb}}. Now replace the { } with [ ] and the | with :, and you have Module:nl-verb. I really don't see the advantage in having a template just for that... —CodeCat 14:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Fair point. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Entries in this category are by definition uncitable. They should be deleted and this category should be removed. -- Liliana • 23:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC) - To be honest I was not aware of the existence of ghost kanji until it was brought up here, but your logic is irrefutable. It would be like a category of "unused English words." It sounds like a task for a different type of project. A simple search over a large corpus would do it, and WT is many things, but a large corpus it is not. --Haplology (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- I would think the entries have a right to an RFV.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed, we need to check these aren't used before any deletion. That doesn't apply to the category, just the entries in it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Just poking around some, I found that at least some of these might be used in names. Looking at the corresponding JA WP article ja:w:幽霊文字, they define these as:
幽霊文字（ゆうれいもじ）とは、JIS基本漢字に含まれる、典拠不明の文字の総称。幽霊漢字（ゆうれいかんじ）、幽霊字（ゆうれいじ）とも呼び、英語ではghost charactersと訳される。 Ghost characters is the general term for characters included in the list of JIS basic kanji that are of uncertain source. These are also called ghost kanji or ghost letters, and in English, this label is translated as ghost characters. - I just found that the EN WP article on w:JIS X 0208 has a section about just this, at w:JIS_X_0208#Kanji_from_unknown_sources.
 In light of these descriptions, it looks like these characters are not uncitable, so much as unsourceable. Given the background, I'm also not sure that we should remove this category. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC) - But what exactly is the difference? Are they in use, or have they eve been in use, or not? That's what matters really. I would think that unsourceable implies uncitable, because if citations existed then they would have a source (at least, presuming that JIS is better at finding citations than we are). —CodeCat 00:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
This site has pretty much settled on not including these. In dictionaries where they are included, it is party as an aid to learners, because they can often be translated into adjectives. For people unfamiliar with Japanese grammar that can be a big help, but in reality they are a noun plus the particle -no, which makes them a predictable sum of their parts. Nearly any noun could be made into a so-called "-no adjective" and any "-no adjective" can be broken down into a noun plus a particle. --Haplology (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC) - I don't know much about Japanese, but isn't -no the genitive ending? We include genitives of other languages, why not Japanese? —CodeCat 15:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think, based purely on other people's comments, it's analogous to calling cat's and cats' English genitives. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 A genitive case usually involves some sort of morphological change in the term, and possibly in other terms dependent on that term. For instance, English he becomes his and she becomes her; German das Haus becomes des Hauses. Meanwhile, Japanese 彼 (kare, "he") and 彼女 (kanojo, "she") become just 彼 or 彼女 + の (no, possessive particle), and 住宅 (jūtaku, "house, residence") becomes just 住宅 + の (no, possessive particle), with no changes to either the terms themselves or other terms in the sentence.
- What are sometimes called "case particles" in Japanese are effectively separate little words, a bit like the little words the or a or to in English, that help give grammatical structure to a sentence. So any [term] + [particle] is essentially SOP, unless it's evolved some kind of specific idiomatic meaning, such as いつも (itsumo, itsu mo, "always, whenever; usually"). This decomposes to いつ (itsu, "when") + particle も (mo, "even, also, too"), but idiomatically behaves in modern Japanese as a single unit with some uses that are not SOP.
- So with the exception of idiomatically distinct combinations like いつも (itsumo, itsu mo), I would generally oppose including [term] + [particle] for Japanese, much as I'm sure others would oppose including non-idiomatic [article] + [term] or [preposition] + [article] + [term] as lemmata for English.
- Ok, I understand, I think I agree with deleting it. But just to note, there is certainly not always a morphological change. In Finnish for example, the situation is a bit like Japanese where you just attach an ending to a word: talo + -n. There are sometimes changes in the stem, but it's still the same principle. —CodeCat 17:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting about Finnish. Does the pronunciation of the suffixed syllable or word change at all? Like maybe /ˈtɑlo̞/ > /taˈlɔn/?
-
- No, it stays the same. Other endings are attached in the same way. And let's not forget about Esperanto, which also works the same way but even more regularly than Finnish because it has no stem changes whatsoever anywhere in the language, only direct suffixation. —CodeCat 17:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
This vote was created by Dan Polansky (talk • contribs) after consensus had been achieved by all active Japanese editors (and some non-Japanese active editors) in the Beer Parlour to change the format of romaji entries. This vote is excessive and simply adds to the bureaucratic wasteland that we have sought to avoid by having discussions. Several editors have commented at Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2013-03/Japanese Romaji romanization - format and content that this vote is unwanted, so I am posting it here per MG's suggestion. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC) - I naturally oppose and say keep. Apparent consensus by editors of Japanese entries (whether these editors are Japanese or not) is not enough. If German editors find an agreement to get rid of German compounds, while the native English speakers do not want to get rid of them in this English Wiktionary, the consensus of German editors should not matter. Moreover, changes that involve removal of content from a large set of entries should require a formal evidence of consensus, which a Beer parlour discussion cannot provide. --Dan Polansky (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't fault you for wanting to keep your own vote, but it looks like you don't understand what consensus is. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- I guess I should not have expected you to actually address any of the points I've raised. --Dan Polansky (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 |  |
