Template talk:en-verb2

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.


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)

Trashed. --Æ&Œ (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)