Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others

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

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for deletion/Others

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for verification
add new | history | archives | old index

Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Requests for deletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.

Requests for moves, mergers and splits
add new | history | archives

Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.

{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} -

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5
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.
Oldest tagged RFDOs


June 2013[edit]

Category:ISO 639[edit]

These transwikis aren't actually needed because the information was restored back on Wikipedia (see w:ISO 639:a). And I don't think it's really appropriate for Wiktionary because we have our own list of languages. —CodeCat 11:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted them, noting in my deletion summary that the pages were restored on 'pedia and that we have WT:LOL and Module:languages (and WT:LANGTREAT), so that these copies were just redundant and out-of-sync. I imagine Appendix:List of ISO 369 codes can be deleted, too, now. - -sche (discuss) 23:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
This reminds me that I need to finish working through User:-sche/missing codes. - -sche (discuss) 23:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Lots of templates by User:Sae1962[edit]

Propose deleting the following:

I don't even know where to begin with this...

  • These templates were meant only for Turkish, but instead they were created as general templates, even though they have no use except for Turkish. They are overly specific, which has necessitated creating many of them. For situations like this, a custom template (or {{inflection of}} or {{conjugation of}}) is highly preferred.
  • Even for Turkish, they're not even correctly named. It seems as if they were just created on a whim without any thought whatsoever.
  • All of these template add entries to their own category. This has flooded Special:WantedCategories with lots of categories that really serve no purpose. Why on earth would all these inflected forms need distinct categories, especially for a highly inflected language like Turkish (where a single noun might have dozens of forms)?
  • Barely any of the templates is categorised. Most of them can't be found through normal means, except by looking through his edits. Because {{documentation}} adds a category when the documentation page is missing, none of these show up on Special:UncategorizedTemplates. I removed that from {{documentation}}, so expect that page to be flooded with all of these soon.
  • Barely documentation about their usage or meaning. Intrusive form? What's that?
  • Putting pronunciation details in usage notes. The "suffix usage notes" template is redundant because that applies to all Turkish suffixes, so it's part of the grammar and should be familiar to anyone who knows basic Turkish. (Leaving aside the fact that it's really vague, and doesn't say what variant forms there are of the suffix!)
  • Some aren't even used on any pages. Some were actually errors that were created, then abandoned, and a replacement was created without deleting the error. Like Template:tr-conjugation which should have been Template:tr-conjunction, but was just left there.
  • This isn't even all of them! There are a lot more templates that he created, but have now been "lost" because they have no categories. Maybe someone should make a list of all the templates he created that have no category?

The newest of these was created only a week or two ago, and there have been other disputes with him in the past over the CFI-validity of a lot of his entries. So I've blocked Sae1962 as a form of "damage control". But what are we going to do to fix this mess... —CodeCat 15:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy delete of all templates created by this user, and speedy validation of all entries this user has made. Razorflame 15:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Unblock him immediately. If you feel authorized to prevent him from creating templates, ask him on this talk page to no longer create templates or you will block him. Recall WT:BLOCK, a voted policy: "The block tool should only be used to prevent edits that will, directly or indirectly, hinder or harm the progress of the English Wiktionary. It should not be used unless less drastic means of stopping these edits are, by the assessment of the blocking administrator, highly unlikely to succeed.".

    As for the templates, they seem deletion worthy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

In fairness Dan, I think that text supports the block; we've talked to him plenty so there's good reason to think that more talking won't help. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
This shouldn't be that big of a surprise- see #A Bunch of Inflected-Form Templates, above. I nominated for deletion the nine I new about, but there was only one comment aside from mine and SAE1962's (a Turkish native speaker who argued for deletion) Chuck Entz (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the block (although I would have given a much broader / more encompassing rationale for it). We have to spend a lot of time cleaning up after this contributor: they create a lot of SOP terms, and terms with incorrect definitions (e.g. am Ende), and they make quite a few of the same formatting mistakes repeatedly, such as tagging things as the wrong language, or sometimes as two different wrong languages, as with WT:BJ#aktiven_galaktischen_Kerns. We could be spending that time on other things... - -sche (discuss) 07:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
"less drastic means" have been employed several times in the past with no success. Block should stay. But who has got the time or inclination for such a massive cleanup operation? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Template:Seldom or unused Turkish plurals not is an interesting one. It seems to say that all nouns have plurals, if not attested then hypothetical. I suppose it's okay to link to such plurals but not to create them as everything has to meet WT:CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the most common practice is to create entries for regular formations even if that specific form is not attested. I really doubt whether all of the verb form entries in the various Romance languages actually meet CFI. But we don't have a problem creating entries for them anyway. —CodeCat 20:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record, here are the list of templates and [categories TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:U:tr:first-person singular kept under that new name (it was previously Template:first-person singular usage notes), since it's a useful (and fairly widely used) template. - -sche (discuss) 13:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Is anyone still working on this? There are really few left. Keφr 08:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I've renamed Template:U:tr:homograph pronunciation to fit the usual naming scheme for usage-note templates; it seems useful and is used. I've renamed Template:first-person singular possessive of to Template:tr-first-person singular possessive of since it's Turkish-specific, and kept it since it's widely used and there seems to be no effort to orphan it; I've handled the other templates likewise. I've left the old names as redirects, but they can be deleted once orphaned. It would probably make sense to combine several of them at some point in the future and use a parameter to set whether the first-, second- or third-person was meant. - -sche (discuss) 19:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
It should still be orphaned eventually because it's badly named and it creates a precedent for having many templates like these when this could be handled much more easily with a template parameter than separate templates. Turkish nouns have 6 possessives (1, 2, 3 singular and plural) but possessives can be applied to both singular and plural, and the possessives themselves can also take case endings. The current name doesn't say which case the form is in (presumably nominative), nor does it say whether it's the possessive of a singular or a plural noun. This is the main reason why these templates were RFDO'd... not enough thought was put into their creation and naming and it made a big haphazard mess. —CodeCat 19:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


Seems to have been reconstructed on the basis of a single branch (Indo-Iranian). Slavic *bagu (*bogъ) is usually considered an Iranian borrowing in the literature. Furthermore it contains phoneme */a/ which is of disputed status in the reconstruction of PIE segments. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

a and o merge in Balto-Slavic, so from the evidence of Slavic alone, *bʰogo- is equally valid. And there's nothing against replacing *bʰ with *b or *g with *gʰ either. So this reconstruction isn't really well founded enough to include it. —CodeCat 16:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
They would lengthen by Winter's law which would yield Common Slavic **bagъ. And how you account for aspiration in Sanskrit bh? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
It's always possible it's not a cognate. The meaning is different enough. —CodeCat 19:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Bahuvrihi adjectives *ubogъ and *nebogъ "poor, miserable" and *bogatъ "rich" prove that *bogъ was originally also an adjective, and that it meant meaning something along "earthly wealth/well-being; fortune" and then "dispenser of wealth/fortune" and then "god". Exactly same thing happened in Iranian which according to some is too much of a coincidence to happen in parallel (hence the borrowing theory, postulated even before WL was discovered which on a more formal level implies the same).
However, I've found out that according to Beekes PIE *bʰ(e)h₂g- (LIV: bʰag-) would be the source of ἔφαγον (éphagon, to eat, devour) as well, but how the meanings match to II and Slavic escapes me. At any case, PIE noun *bʰago(s) "god, deity" seems worthy of deletion, because that meaning arose independently in two different subbranches. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Category:Esperanto words suffixed with -a[edit]

Category:Esperanto words suffixed with -e[edit]

Category:Esperanto words suffixed with -i[edit]

Category:Esperanto words suffixed with -o[edit]

These are really just part-of-speech endings, so these categories don't seem terribly useful. "Esperanto words suffixed with -i" is really synonymous with Category:Esperanto verbs. —CodeCat 14:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

These are there as a result of the automatic categorization of {{suffix}}. Is there any way to suppress the category? --Yair rand (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Don't use {{suffix}}. They're not suffixes. -- Liliana 14:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
They're not? Why is that? And what should be used instead? --Yair rand (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, if an adjective is formed by replacing the final -o of a noun with an -a, why not categorize it as such? All of Category:English words suffixed with -ize are going to be verbs, so what? How is that a reason for its deletion? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The difference is, not all English verbs are suffixed with -ize, while all Esperanto verbs are suffixed with -i. I agree with the first part of Liliana's statement ("Don't use {{suffix}}") but not with the second part. They are suffixes, but that doesn't mean we have to use {{suffix}} in their etymology sections. —Angr 20:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
There is |nocat=1. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
We've had this kind of debate about Category:English words suffixed with -s. It's obvious we don't want each and every English plural to end up in here, and it should be the same for other languages as well. -- Liliana 20:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
There was also Category:German words suffixed with -en, although there are also words with -en that are not verbs. In Esperanto, all (polysyllabic) words ending in -i are verbs, and all verbs end in -i, so they are one and the same set of words. —CodeCat 20:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I would argue that not all Esperanto verbs are stem + suffix, pensi is borrowed from Latin penso for example. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
But it's still formed by with the stem pens- + the suffix -i. —CodeCat 19:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
The way to test this concept is to look for Category:Esperanto words suffixed with -as, since that's probably a more widely-attested form than the infinitive. Notice the redlink. These words aren't suffixed with -i, they're converted to verbs, and -i just happens to be the suffix on the lemma. I suppose the lemma's suffix could be used as a stand-in for the whole set of conjugation suffixes in the same way the lemma itself is used as a stand-in for the whole conjugation, but I would argue against it. Having it categorized this way strongly implies that -i is a derivational suffix- something that would be followed by inflectional suffixes, rather than an inflectional suffix itself. We should have some way to indicate verbalization, nominalization, etc. in etymologies, without kluging something up with a framework designed for something else. What do we do in cases where there's no inflectional ending on the lemma- use a "words suffixed with -∅" category? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
That problem happens in Dutch and German as well, and English too. All three of them, like Esperanto, can derive verbs without changing the stem of the word. Only the inflectional endings are changed from those of one PoS to those of another. In Dutch and German, the lemma form of verbs ends in -en while the lemma forms of other parts of speech have no ending. That can give the impression that -en is being suffixed when a verb is created, but that isn't the case because this ending isn't intrinsically part of the verb; only of the infinitive. The same is true of many Esperanto derivations as well. —CodeCat 21:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
And then there's the matter of things like ablaut, umlaut, etc. that have no discrete surface morpheme to point to, e.g. with fall vs. fell and sit vs. set. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
How about "Esperanto verbs derived from (PoS) stems" ? —CodeCat 22:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be better to have "LANGNAME POS-PLURAL derived from POS-PLURAL". Perhaps we could have a template like etyl that would take from-POS to-POS and lang as parameters, and produce something like "from the POS-SINGULAR " followed by the from-word. I'm not sure what we should do where the source is both a different language and a different POS, or where we don't know the exact source POS, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
If we are going to add foreign etymologies to it, then we effectively end up with a template that combines {{term}} and {{etyl}}, along with PoS names. I'm not against that as such, but we have to be aware of this implication. —CodeCat 22:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of the implications, which is why I hesitated to lump the other-language case in with the rest. As for term, I was envisioning a template like etyl, which adds the correct category, but is independent from the term itself and produces a string of text derived from the parameters that goes in front of the term template- sort of like a POS-based counterpart to the language-name based etyl. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

I am unable to assess the consensus here. Is there an agreement to delete? Keφr 09:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

  • RFDO kept: no consensus to delete. Not a single boldfaced delete, except the implied one by the nominator. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:romanization of Hebrew[edit]

This seems like a template that goes back to earlier days, when multilingual support wasn't as neatly standardised as it is nowadays, and editors for each language had to make up their own things. I don't think it's really needed anymore. —CodeCat 23:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, ACCEL still relies on this template, AFAIK. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Which is an argument for updating it, right? And deleting this when it's safe to do so. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Most of these entries are left over from mistakes made during the orphaning of {{he-link}}. I think we should fix them, and once this is orphaned we should delete it; however, for the record, I think we should not bot-orphan this in the obvious way. The template is useful for finding the entries to fix, and a bot should be used only if it will really fix them. —RuakhTALK 07:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, there are 76 main-namespace uses of this tmeplate which remain to be addressed. - -sche (discuss) 13:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


I notice that since this edit in 2008, the template automatically adds the entry to Category:Romanian terms needing attention. Presumably because it doesn't have a function not already covered by {{past participle of}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've changed it to add the entry to Category:Romanian entries using Template:ro-past instead, since there were a lot of these; they made up more than 75% of the entries in Category:Romanian terms needing attention. —RuakhTALK 07:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Although it's clearly intended to be a headword template, some entries use it as a form-of template. —RuakhTALK 07:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Template:en-verb form[edit]

The categorization should always be done by the definition-line template like {{en-past of}} or {{present participle of}}. This template serves to double-categorize entries by Category:English verb forms as well as the more specific category. Replace with {{head|en}} and delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this template adds much value, so I agree with deleting it. But why do we have categories for all of the individual verb form types? Are those really useful or necessary? —CodeCat 17:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think they're either more or less useful than Category:English verb forms. Categories that are very small or very big aren't generally useful to human users. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete, there are similar templates for other languages, they should be deleted as well. --Z 06:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nom. (I'm not sure if all "similar templates" should go, but this one should.) —RuakhTALK 07:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Not all form-of templates categorise. In fact a lot of those used for languages other than English don't. {{inflection of}} and {{conjugation of}} don't, nor do {{feminine of}}, {{masculine plural of}} and such. I was hoping that we could make this more consistent by adopting a rule that the headword template always categorises, and the form-of template never does, but I don't know how realistic that is. —CodeCat 12:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that's a reason to keep this template though; it might justify {{en-past}}, {{en-simple past}} and so on as headword templates, but not one template to cover all different cases. 12:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


Too much trouble for too little benefit. Too little benefit because it's not that urgent to link to "English" section, as the section is usually the first one, and specifying lang="en" is not needed in 99% of cases (we can use {{l}} for the rest). Too much trouble because it complicates wikicode and 'adds to mental burden of editing.' If {{l/en|...}} is an improvement, we should replace all wikilinks ([[...]]) with {{l/en|...}} in the main namespace (I don't think anyone would support this?), otherwise all of its usages should be replaced with [[...]], because it causes inconsistency. Currently we are using [[...]], {{l/en|...}} (and even {{l|en|...}}), sometimes at the same time in a single page, what a mess. --Z 06:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment. ==English== is actually not always the first section: it follows ==Translingual==. Also, for those of us using Tabbed Languages, the gadget remembers the language section we last visited, and sends us there when we visit a language-unspecified link. As for your other comments . . . for some reason, we deleted the meaningful {{onym}} in favor of the meaningless {{l}}, so I'm no longer sure. I used to think it made sense to explicitly language-tag all mentions, but since we're no longer explicitly tagging them as mentions, I guess it might not make sense anymore. —RuakhTALK 06:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the idea was anything useful from {{onym}} could be incorporated into {{l}} rather than having them as rival, very very similar templates. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep While it often isn't necessary to link to the English section, explicitly linking to it tells us that the link isn't to a "foreign"/non-English word. You don't need to tell that, but it would be nice if you allowed other to tell it. -- 22:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete. --Vahag (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I prefer to delete all of these l/ templates. I think the best 'low cost' way of doing it is either [[foo]] or [[foo#English|foo]]. It depends how low cost you want to go. This is somewhere in the middle where {{l}} is at the top of the range, but hopefully improved by Lua and other changes. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep for the reasons I posted here. — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep, as per Ungoliant. Linking to the proper section may be not so important for the longer words (which are less likely to be available in more than one language), but comes very handy for the shorter ones (as in: a.) The importance of the proper xml:lang= coding may currently be low, but I’d expect it to steadly rise as time goes by. (And why, aren’t w:Word processors of today use that information for spell-checking?) — Ivan Shmakov (dc) 14:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

I think the situation may have changed sufficiently to warrant starting the discussion again. Keφr 12:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Kephir: I'm not aware of how the situation might have changed, but I find myself inclined to vote to keep this template, especially on the strength of Ungoliant's arguments. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 @Acronym: The thing is, everything that {{l/en}} does can be accomplished by {{l|en}}, which Ungoliant's argument does not address. The latter template also supports |gloss= and |pos= parameters, while the former does not. Of course we could either extend {{l/en}} or switch to {{l}} every time we need them, but this increases the tedium of Wiktionary maintenance. I think I should ask a more general question here: do we still need to keep the "high-performance" language-specific templates, and then laboriously maintain feature parity (or not maintain it, adding to the cognitive load of editing)? (I failed to get a ping for some reason. Will investigate.) Keφr 16:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
@Keφr: I was under the impression that using the specific l/… templates was prefered to using {{l}} + the |lang= parameter at |2=; however, if that is not the case, I would be perfectly happy to switch from using a slash to using a pipe. I was going to say that we should keep {{l/grc}} because it doesn't autotransliterate, but I've recently discovered that {{l|tr=-}} suppresses autotransliteration, so I see no need to keep that one. There are some templates, like {{ja-l}} and {{ja-r}}, that AFAICT still need to be kept, but I should think that they are fairly few in number. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I have been under the impression for some time that the introduction of Lua has meant that the language specific "l/xx" templates are no longer necessary, because {{l}} no longer consumes as many resources as it did before Lua. I have therefore been replacing "l/xx" with "l|xx" wherever I encounter it. However, I still see other editors doing the exact opposite. Is my impression correct? Has Lua made all the "l/xx" templates unnecessary? If so, then get a bot to replace them all, and then delete them all. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
When the language-specific templates were created, they were intended to be used only in the rare cases where page load was so high that we had no other option. Other people have then started to use the templates generally but I never agreed with that. I can't say whether the new version of {{l}} is faster than the old one, but it's likely that there are still a few pages where it's too slow and we will need the shortcut templates. —CodeCat 19:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The l/xx templates are still needed for index and frequency list pages, where there are thousands of transclusions. Lua may be far more efficient, but we make it do far more: script detection, transliteration, linking of parts in multiword terms, etc.- all impossible or impractical with templates. When you have 5,000 transclusions that have to be finished in 10 seconds, that gives you less then 2 ms per transclusion to do all that stuff. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
The current implementation of Lua is pretty inefficient though. I'm not sure but I wouldn't be surprised if every module invocation is done "from scratch", importing all the modules all over again. —CodeCat 20:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Indeed this is the case. Keφr 21:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm guessing this also applies to modules imported by other modules? If that's the case then using {{l}} 5000 times also imports Module:links, Module:languages, Module:scripts, Module:script utilities etc. 5000 times as well. When Scribunto was first introduced I actually asked if this had been optimised and they assured us it wasn't necessary... —CodeCat 22:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I no longer care about it. Abstain. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • RFDO kept: no consensus to delete after more than a year. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:list:moons of Mars/en[edit]

A template for a two-item list. Looks like overkill to me. — Ungoliant (Falai) 00:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Why aren't we using the Appendix: namespace for lists like these? Pages there can still be transcluded, if that's why templates were being used. - dcljr (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Because these aren't intended to be appendices. Not sure what else to say, it's a bit like asking why the entry house isn't Appendix:house. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Not really. More like asking why {{types of houses}} isn't at Appendix:Houses. In any case, now that I've looked through the list of "list:" templates more carefully, I guess I see the difference. Still, there is potentially much overlap in the kinds of topics covered by the two methods... (And note, BTW, that some "appendices" are in fact simply bare lists, as well.) - dcljr (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
One notable example of the "overlap" I was referring to: Appendix:Days of the week vs. Template:list:days of the week/*. - dcljr (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Because it's intended to function as a template, so the template namespace is somewhat unsurprisingly the best choice. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]


Any ideas? --ElisaVan (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Whatlinkshere has some, but I don't understand them.​—msh210 (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Category:Serbo-Croatian imperfective forms and Category:Serbo-Croatian perfective forms[edit]

These seem redundant to Category:Serbo-Croatian imperfective verbs and Category:Serbo-Croatian perfective verbs. Apparently those categories were never created, which is strange as most other Slavic languages do have them. Compare Category:Slovene imperfective verbs and Category:Russian imperfective verbs. Also note that the categories up for deletion are categorised as lexical, meaning they are considered by their meaning/connotation rather than grammar. I think that's a bit strange. —CodeCat 23:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I think they should they be moved, rather than deleted and entries formatted accordingly, if it makes it any easier. We should invite Ivan Štambuk (talkcontribs). Category:Imperfective forms by language (and perfective) are only used by Serbo-Croatian, Category:Imperfective verbs by language used by other Slavic languages + Georgian (Ukrainian and Belarusian were modeled from Russian, anyway). Bulgarian and Macedonian verbs could also be categorised by imperfective/perfective, nobody bothered, though. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Perfective/imperfective distinction is lexical (i.e. meaning-based), but I don't see how is that relevant. Those categories are supposed to contain alternative forms only, i.e. not full-blown entries, but those that have {{perfective form of}} and {{imperfective form of}} as their definition lines. Yes They should also categorize in Category:Serbo-Croatian imperfective verbs and Category:Serbo-Croatian perfective verbs but it's useful to have them as well. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
IMO, it's a grammatical difference, not lexical, even if Serbian or Croatian grammarians haven't describe it yet (I really don't know). There are substantial differences in usage and forms between perfective and imperfective, which are similar but not the same across Slavic languages, e.g. absence of present tense for perfective verbs, e.g. написа́ть (napisátʹ) has no present but писа́ть (pisátʹ) does, future tense for imperfective is made using auxiliary verbs (e.g. бу́ду писа́ть) but perfectives are solid (e.g. напишу́) (Ukrainian has a unique alternative future for imperfective - e.g. писа́тиму).
Admittedly, perfective forms (and sometimes the other way around) often add to the original meaning (start an action, end an action, semelfactive verbs, etc.) and it can be at times difficult to determine what perfective verb is an equivalent of an imperfective one, e.g. цвести́ (cvestí, to bloom) has various perfective equivalents, which substantially change the original meaning of "to bloom" but for majority of verbs it's easy. Perfective and imperfective verbs are in separate entries and any lexical difference can ALSO be defined. Both писа́ть (pisátʹ) and написа́ть (napisátʹ) mean "to write", the variations are implied by the aspect itself - "на-" in this case implies completed action. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
When you say that the difference is grammatical, it means that there are some specific grammatical markers (prefixes, suffixes, ablaut) that ensure that the verb is perfective or imperfective based on its form (present and infinitive stem), regardless of its meaning. Since there are both perfective and imperfective verbs belonging to the same inflectional class in Russian, it is the meaning which dictates whether the verb is perfective or imperfective, and which possible slots in the entire hypothetical paradigm "make sense". E.g. you cannot guess that цвес-ти/цвет- is "inherently" imperfective, whereas сес-ть/ся́д- is "inherenty" perfective, on the basis of their spelling. In SC in some verbs the only difference is tone (e.g. poglédati impf. vs. pògledati pf. - the entire paradigm is identical, the only difference is accent).
Regarding the soft-redirection: it's for pragmatic reasons. SC has the problem of two scripts, Ijekavian/Ekavian pairs, and in the worst cases you get 6-8 entries which should then duplicate all of the definitions, usage samples....keeping them in sync is painful and time-wasting for editors, and probably confusing to readers. Note that only the verbs where there is no difference in meaning other than perfectiveness/imperfectiveness of action are redirected this way, All forms built through prefixation such as pisati - napisati are treated as separate entries with different definitions because all of those prefixes such as na- can create several subtle variations in meaning of the base verb. Same goes semantically marked suffixation (e.g. creating pejorative or diminutive verbs) or generally changing the meaning (e.g. iterative forms built through various suffixes) - they all have separate entries. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Ivan here. --WikiTiki89 23:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Can you elaborate, please? Does that mean that all Russian/Polish/Czech, etc. verbs are formatted/categorised incorrectly, in your opinion or one of the forms doesn't need definitions? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The way I understood it is that Ivan is not saying that Category:Serbo-Croatian imperfective verbs and Category:Serbo-Croatian perfective verbs are wrong and Category:Serbo-Croatian imperfective forms and Category:Serbo-Croatian perfective forms are right. He is saying that they mean two different things and therefore should be created and kept, respectively. --WikiTiki89 02:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I see. Do we really need both categories, though? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Currently SC verbs are not categorized by perfectiveness, and {{sh-verb}} has no parameter for it that would enable autosort. My reasoning behind the categorization introduced by {{perfective form of}} and {{imperfective form of}} was that all soft-redirect templates ({{alternative form of}}, {{abbreviation of}}, {{diminutive of}} etc.) autocategorize on the basis of their function. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Not all of them do. {{inflection of}} and {{conjugation of}} don't, nor do {{feminine of}} or {{definite of}}. —CodeCat 21:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
But those are all for inflected forms. Entries redirected by {{perfective form of}} and {{imperfective form of}} are lemma entries, and only definition lines are missing. Soft-redirected lemmas always categorize according to the criteria of redirection. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Even so, is it useful to have these categories in preference to Category:Serbo-Croatian imperfective verbs and the like? In the current categorisation, at most half of all verbs will be appropriately categorised for perfective/imperfective, which doesn't seem useful at all. —CodeCat 03:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I never said it wouldn't. Reread my answers above. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to reiterate my vote to delete these categories. I really don't understand why they're needed. From what I've understood, Ivan wants them to contain, specifically, all imperfective or perfective verbs that are the less-common of each pair of imperfective and perfective verbs. He hasn't yet expressed any intention to create a category for the more-common of each pair, nor a category for all imperfective and one for all perfective verbs. So it seems like this is more a case of categorising for the sake of categorising, without any real purpose in mind. If we have both Category:Serbo-Croatian imperfective verbs and Category:Serbo-Croatian imperfective forms side by side, what is the value of the latter over the former? What use does it add, even if the contents are different? Not to mention the names are confusingly similar, and "imperfective forms" doesn't do much to clarify the real purpose (whatever it is). —CodeCat 22:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The more common form is used as a lemma, the less common as a redirect. They mean exactly the same thing, apart from being modified for perfectiveness. There is no need to categorize the unmarked form (the more common one). It is done for practical purposes, to reduce content duplication due to SC being written in two scripts, and often having Ijekavian/Ekavian pairs. As I've expressed above, I have nothing against creating the category of all perfective or imperfective verbs - though I find it less useful. It's exactly one of those categories for the sake of categorizing that you mention. (Like categorizing nouns by gender, verbal meanings by transitivity and so on). The value of the latter is that it would contain only verbs who have perfective base lemma. All alternative forms lemmas for all language categorize into their own special categories so I don't see why these shouldn't as well. The usage criterion is used by paper dictionaries and not made up by me - that's how in most of the cases user lands on an entry that has definition lines (as opposed to our American/British spellings which soft-redirect randomly). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

I am unable to assess consensus here. Is there an agreement to delete? Keφr 09:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

  • RFDO kept: no consensus for deletion after more than a year. The main opposer is Ivan Štambuk, while WikiTiki89 seems to agree with him; this would need 4 supporters for there to be a supermajority for deletion, and I do not see these. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Template:ko-form of[edit]

We don't really need it anymore, we can use {{form of}}. —CodeCat 18:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The italicisation isn't an issue because {{form of}} only italicises the English. The bolding debatably is. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
That is done by CSS, not by the template. —CodeCat 14:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
It's bold by default though, or else why would I be seeing it as bold? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. I don't know what this is for, we already have {{accent:Brazil}} so it's not that. Documentation is empty too. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Apparently for {{place}} (abandoned project?). — Ungoliant (falai) 23:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it may have been created as a context label type template, so that we can distinguish terms used in Brazil from terms related to Brazil. Our current labels don't distinguish these, and place names are normally considered dialect specifiers rather than topical labels. So if we ever wanted a label to specify "when talking about (place)", we'd have to devise a workaround. —CodeCat 23:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
The documentation says it’s for definitions of placenames. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


"created for standardisation of appendix links" -- Guess it never gained traction. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete: not used; I don't see any value in this. The template code: The appendix on [[Appendix:{{{1}}}|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}]]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


Along with Module:math. Imported by User:Mxn for the sake of having a two-line rounding function (which does not even depend on most of this code) for his archive navigation module. I doubt we will ever need this in the dictionary proper. Not nominating Module:yesno, but we seem to have managed without it until now, so it might go as well. Keφr 14:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say keep, but remove what we don't really need. I think it would be nice to be able to avoid the constant "if x == "" then x = nil end" on all parameters, it does get tedious. I've thought of writing a module like this before. There's also something else I've wanted to add, which is checking arguments for usage, and a global category tracking system.
Checking arguments for usage would mean that each argument that gets used by the module is marked "used", and at the end if any arguments remain unused, this adds a category or error or something like that. That would allow us to find out easily which pages are using modules with mis-typed parameter names, or parameters that aren't actually recognised or supported by the template.
Tracking categories globally would make it much easier for any module to add tracking categories and such. In templates, you can just put a category anywhere and it works, but in modules you can't do that, which is a limitation. —CodeCat 14:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I cannot imagine why we would ever write something that would require Module:math. It mostly wraps basic mathematical functions so that templates can use them: we would probably do most of the work inside modules, making the wrappers unnecessary.
As for Module:arguments… I am unsure what that thing actually does. Looks like some kind of input sanitisation. For now I would prefer to do it directly in the modules which receive a frame. I actually do have one idea for a module for tracking argument usage, categories and errors, but this module would not be of much help there. Keφr 18:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Some at the WMF apparently want to integrate this… thing into Scribunto. Either way, we need not keep it here. Keφr 11:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]




Created last November, but never used since then it seems. —CodeCat 23:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Appendix:Latin suffixes[edit]

This doesn't add anything beyond Category:Latin suffixes. —CodeCat 18:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Not correct. It shows that there are some Latin inflectional endings that we have and some that we lack.
  • Keep or use before deleting. If we delete all of the Latin inflectional endings, then we should probably use use to start the Latin inflectional endings appendix. DCDuring TALK 19:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Inflectional endings aren't suffixes, though, and shouldn't be in either this Appendix or the identically named Category. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:English metaphors[edit]

Delete. This is largely superflous to Category:English idioms, IMHO. Currently has 7 entries: angels dancing on the head of a pin, bite, fox in the henhouse, god, one's marbles, piss more than one drinks, raised by wolves. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:English live metaphors[edit]

I think this is also relevant, so might as well add. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete Category:English live metaphors as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

{{hangulization of}}[edit]

I suggest to move {{hangulization of}} to normal {{etyl}}. Hangulization is not a very common term, Korean loanwords are no different from others, Hangeul is the only current writing system in both Koreas (with occasional Hanja) and Cyrillic based loanwords are not called "cyrillization of", we don't have arabization, katakanization, etc.

The spelling "hangul" is based on McCune–Reischauer romanisation of 한글 (hangeul) "hangŭl", the official spelling in South Korea is "hangeul", so is the more modern spelling. North Korea uses the term "Chosŏn'gŭl" - 조선글 (joseongeul). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but "Hangul" is by far the more common spelling in English. But either way, I agree the template should be deleted. (This is more of an WT:RFDO thing, but I personally don't really care which page the discussion is on.) --WikiTiki89 04:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, I moved the page here, since it's not simply a deletion, {{hangulization of}} should be orphaned first. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Well it is simply a deletion. We always orphan templates before deleting them. It's not a move, because we're not moving the template. --WikiTiki89 08:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:imperative of[edit]

An old Sae1962 creation. This template is redundant to {{conjugation of|...||imp|lang=xyz}}, and it categorizes forms into "Category:Foobar imperative forms" even though no such category exists for any language (even Category:Imperative forms by language doesn't exist). It's utterly unnecessary. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It's also used for Danish, Swedish and Norwegian. It's not really necessary, but then again we also have many other form-of templates, some very common like {{plural of}} or {{feminine of}}, that could also be "converted" into {{inflection of}}. So the question is really if we want to do that. —CodeCat 18:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Keep: Well, typing {{imperative of|keep|lang=en}} is easier or typing {{conjugation of|keep||imp|lang=en}} is easier? If they have the same function, isn't it better to type less? --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Only if the template is edited so that it doesn't automatically sort things into nonexistent and unwanted categories. Also, a large number of languages (though not English) distinguish between singular and plural imperative forms, and many also have 1st and 3rd person imperatives in addition to 2nd person imperatives, and this template doesn't accommodate any of that. It just labels things "imperative" without specifying person and number. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with that, but it's likely that removing the category will orphan many entries. We'd have to make sure that all of them add a part-of speech category through some other means first, like with {{plural of}}. —CodeCat 19:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Why don't we just have it redirect to {{conjugation of|...||imp|...}}? (I don't mean a hard redirect, but just have {{imperative of}} call {{conjugation of}}.) --WikiTiki89 16:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
There's not much benefit in that over just having it call Module:form of directly and tell it to display "imperative". —CodeCat 16:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The benefit would be if we ever change how {{conjugation of}} categorizes, then we won't have to also change {{imperative of}}. --WikiTiki89 16:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Still doesn't solve the problem of the template's not specifying which imperative form the term is. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it does solve that problem. If you do this the right way, {{imperative of}} will support any arguments that {{conjugation of}} supports. --WikiTiki89 17:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Three redirects to be deleted[edit]




NB that it is the redirects that are being requested to be deleted, not the templates themselves. --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Eight template redirects: Special:PrefixIndex/Template:de-noun-[edit]









--kc_kennylau (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

@CodeCat, Phol, Atitarev, The Evil IP address, SemperBlotto: Pinging you guys because you guys have edited at least one of the aforementioned pages. --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

@CodeCat, Phol, Atitarev, The Evil IP address, SemperBlotto: Pinging you guys again for there is no answer. --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Dejamenpaz. — [Ric Laurent] — 19:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
¿Que? Keφr 06:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Nadie salvo ti te puedes dar paz. --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep all How is anybody being harmed by template redirects? Template redirects are useful and should be kept Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Redirects do cause harm; they cause confusion for the users who have to learn them and what they point to. It adds to the mental load of editing Wiktionary, which is already quite high. —CodeCat 21:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
That's a straw-man argument, and anyway, it makes viewing easier Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Template redirects don't affect viewing a page at all, they only affect editing. —CodeCat 21:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
@Kc kennylau: Thanks for inviting but I have no strong opinion on this. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, I guess, for the sake of consistency with other declension templates. Keφr 06:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
These redirects are named as if they were headword-line templates, but they are not; therefore, they should be deleted. - -sche (discuss) 17:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
These names are common practice. Compare Category:Russian noun inflection-table templates. --WikiTiki89 18:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


This mutation template for Welsh shows that nothing happens. That's right, every cell just displays unchanged. Angr (talkcontribs) and I have agreed that it can go. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the information that a word does not mutate needs to be conveyed somehow; simple absence of a mutation table is far too ambiguous (considering that it is also what results from someone neglecting to add a table). Of course, a table that displays "unchanged" in all its fields is an unnecessarily bulky way of conveying that information... what if all the entries that currently use it were modified to have a templatised usage note "This term does not mutate" or an even shorter comment on the headword line, "does not mutate"? - -sche (discuss) 03:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Why should that be given, though? It's predictable — certain initial consonants just don't have mutated forms. And if someone doesn't know that, then our mutation tables in general will be useless to them, because they won't know what the mutations entail and when to use them, which is fairly complex. So it's not like people are going to be misled by removing these, because only people who can be expected to already understand this fact will even look at mutation tables and comprehend them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
On further reflection, this template may be useful for unmutatable loanwords and proper nouns that begin with sounds that are normally mutatable. Cdhaptomos, a native speaker who unfortunately seems to have left the project, added it to albwm and its plural albymau presumably to show that these words do not have aspirate-mutation forms *halbwm and *halbymau, and it could be used at, say, Manceinion to show that that word does not have a soft-mutation form *Fanceinion. On the other hand, it may need to be made more flexible since some loanwords like gêm are immune to soft mutation but not to nasal mutation. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
See also the previous discussion at Template talk:cy-mut-o. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
For indeclinable nouns in Russian (such as пианино (pianino)) and probably many other languages, we just display (indeclinable) in the headword line and omit the declension table. A declension table would be silly for indeclinable nouns. Why can't we do a similar thing here? --WikiTiki89 17:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Because mutation is not a form of declension. It's a grammaticalised sandhi effect and it depends on the preceding word, not the current one. Any word at all can be mutated if there is a mutation-triggering word before it. —CodeCat 17:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Then maybe I misunderstood something. I thought this discussion was about how to handle words that don't mutate. --WikiTiki89 18:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
There are words that don't mutate even when there is a mutation-triggering word in front of them. Sometimes this is natural (the initial consonant of the word just has no distinct mutated form) but it can also be lexical (the word just doesn't happen to mutate, even if its first consonant has a mutated form in other words beginning with it). But this is complicated further in that there are several types of mutation, where different preceding words can trigger different types. Irish for example has leniting (aka aspirating/soft) mutation and nasalising mutation on its nouns, as well as more limited types of mutation like the t-mutation that's only triggered by the definite article. It's entirely possible that a specific noun could allow only some of these types of mutation but not others. So it is still necessary to be able to show "does not mutate" in some of the table cells in those cases. And at that point it's more consistent if we just use a table regardless. —CodeCat 18:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I still don't see how this would be different from displaying a declension table with the same form for all cases, just to be consistent. --WikiTiki89 18:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't disagree with that idea either, to be honest. —CodeCat 18:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Template:hot sense[edit]

I disagree with this. Let this thing created on 6 March 2014‎ be deleted unless there is consensus to keep it: no consensus => status quo ante. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

There was a large amount of consensus for it and very little opposition at the BP discussion. --WikiTiki89 20:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep: Also, no consensus defaults to keep, Dan, so you can't really demand that no consensus default to delete for this particular article Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker)
  • RFDO kept: no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:hot word[edit]

I disagree with this. Let this thing created on 6 March 2014‎ be deleted unless there is consensus to keep it: no consensus => status quo ante. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

As above, there was a large amount of consensus for it and very little opposition at the BP discussion. --WikiTiki89 20:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep both. If we are to include widely publicised protologisms, as has been the consensus at WT:RFD and WT:RFV, we should tag them as such instead of pretending they are in clearly widespread use. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the RFD nomination from the template. It's very clear that this is being discussed in the BP, so RFDing it is only going to annoy people and serves no purpose other than to be obstructive. —CodeCat 21:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with CodeCat's action; let's keep discussion in one forum (in this case, the BP). - -sche (discuss) 22:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep, at least for now. DCDuring TALK 22:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, but reduce to a tiny, barely noticeable sliver of its current form, per the BP proposal. bd2412 T 16:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, but only in reduced form as in User:Cloudcuckoolander's flamelet version. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    For reference, here is the User:Cloudcuckoolander flamelet version posted to Beer parlour:
    FireIcon.svg This English term is a hot word. Its inclusion on Wiktionary is provisional.
    --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I've stricken these nominations as they can't be addressed as long as there is still a discussion about it on the BP. See also my statement above. In any case, judging from this discussion, the current one on the BP, and also the one last month, it appears there is no consensus for anything but keeping the templates, and the current discussion is only about what they look like, which is not a matter for RFDO. —CodeCat 19:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • And if anyone doesn't like nominations being stricken like that, then I'll just say I'm closing this debate with a clear keep as the result. —CodeCat 19:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Unstriking as pending resolution of BP. No apparent consensus to keep. Excessively interested party ought not to closing this matter. DCDuring TALK 21:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Then where are the delete votes? Where are the objections to the template when it was created last month? I see none, except Dan Polansky's. That's a pretty clear snowball "keep" in my eyes. If you dispute that, I'd really love to know what arguments there are for that. —CodeCat 21:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete in their current forms. That's one. I viewed BD's "Keep" as the same. Clearly the author of a template can have impaired judgment when it comes to the author's own creation, hence the good practice of not having such a person close out such matters. DCDuring TALK 21:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm going to invoke WT:NPA here. I feel you're doing this more to annoy me and/or be obstructive to make a point, than because it is actually reasonable to. —CodeCat 21:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I can't accept responsibility for your feelings. Perhaps you might consider lying down until the feeling goes away. DCDuring TALK 19:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Ugliness of the template is addressed by editing it, not by deleting it. You really are being obstructive to make a point here. (Although I agree that it is not CodeCat who should be closing this vote.) Keφr 05:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I am concerned about misconstrual of the closing of such a vote, which misconstrual has some precedents. DCDuring TALK 13:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: per discussion at the BP discussion Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 18:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, but only if we come up with some less vague criteria about which terms are eligible for "hot word" status. Two recently started WT:RFVs suggest that we might be too eager to grant this status to neologisms, which is what DP has been worrying about (presumably; he never actually stated a reason for opposing this). Keφr 05:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
    Which two recently started RFVs?--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    proalitionist and selfiest. I think "hot word" status should be restricted to terms whose referents have been recently discovered/established and/or for which citations of usage (not necessarily durable) have been shown to exist in a wide range of media; this would include Euromaidan, olinguito, pithovirus, new senses of Crimea and maybe dogecoin, but not airpocalypse (the presence of dense smog in China) or selfiest (in which the most selfies are taken). Keφr 19:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep; what the template looks like is not relevant to a deletion discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • RFDO kept: no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


This seems like just a thin wrapper around {{head}}. Not only is that not necessary, but I disagree with the way it shows the "description" on the headword line. Something like "first person singular" is really part of the definition, and it should be placed there. —CodeCat 22:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: Nom seems to be nothing more than an "I-don't-like" argument Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 19:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • And your argument for keeping is nonexistent altogether. —CodeCat 19:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
      • If a deletion rationale is invalid, an article is kept. Your deletion rationale is invalid, so this should be kept. I find it very disheartening how many templates are being deleted, when they should be kept or at least redirected Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 19:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Why should we keep templates if there is no reason to keep them? —CodeCat 19:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Shame on you for using the w:fallacy fallacy. Also, the practice here is that unpopulated non-entry deletion discussions default to "delete". Keφr 19:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Concern troll alert! — Ungoliant (falai) 19:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me? Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 02:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think Purplebackpack89 is trolling. I also don't think Ungoliant was entirely serious in this accusation. --WikiTiki89 02:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I am dead serious. PBP isn’t trolling in the traditional sense, but he is definitely concern trolling. Things like voting keep just because CodeCat’s reason for RFDing the template was not liking it (which is patently wrong, as anyone who bothers to actually read the nomination can see) is pure concern trolling. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Concern trolling implies that his intentions are to disrupt Witktionary, which I don't think is the case. --WikiTiki89 13:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
"Insufficient deletion rationale" is an acceptable reason for keeping. I cannot fathom why people who vote "keep" are subjected to so much pressure from you and others. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Isn't "insufficient keeping rationale" an acceptable reason for deleting? --WikiTiki89 21:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
It doesn’t have anything to do with voting keep. It has to do with the absurd nonargument you gave. Giving no reason at all would have been better than your accusation that CodeCat nominated the template due to not liking it. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
CodeCat's rationale included "I disagree with the way it shows the "description" on the headword line". That's something he doesn't like. It's something that could be easily fixed without blowing up the entire template. I stand 100% behind my initial rationale, and 100% behind my belief that accusing me of trolling is inaccurate. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
And the sentence following that bit explains why she thinks it’s a bad thing. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The following sentence doesn't negate the part about it being fixable without deletion. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 22:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
It does, actually. Because if you remove the desc= parameter, you end up with a carbon copy of {{head}}. —CodeCat 22:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
But there's nothing wrong with that. --WikiTiki89 22:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Really? You think having two templates that do the same thing is ok? —CodeCat 22:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Sure, why not? At the very least, one should redirect to the other in case entries still use it. Otherwise, you can potentially break entries or confuse users. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 22:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, preferably one should be implemented in terms of the other to make sure they really do do the same thing. But yes, there is nothing wrong that. {{en-pron}} is easier to type than {{head|en|pronoun}}, and it is parallel to other POS templates. I already said this below, and msh210 added more reasons. --WikiTiki89 22:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep DCDuring TALK 20:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Why? —CodeCat 20:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
      @CodeCat: Why not? It isn't hurting anyone. I don't see much reason for anyone to waste time tidying and I have no enthusiasm for double-checking whether someone's tidying instinct is leading to loss of anything worthwhile, especially when tidying is the sole stated motive. If there were some compelling reason to wipe out easy access to the history of the project, much of which is embedded in templates, I could be convinced otherwise. DCDuring TALK 23:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep per majority. Clearly notable. Harmless and funny. Meets WT:CFI and WT:ELE. The creator worked on this very hard. I like it and find it useful and interesting. It would be censorship to delete this. It contains valuable information. There must be sources somewhere. Vandals and sockpuppets will just keep on re-creating it. It exists and has a zillion Google hits. People are talking about it all over the blogs. It is on the news tonight and of interest around the entire globe. Wiktionary should be about everything. And we should not lose the editors' effort. Keφr 20:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Is the actual motive for wiping this out to make any transition, even on an experimental basis, to something other than {{head}} more difficult? DCDuring TALK 23:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
      • To what do you want to migrate this? Keφr 11:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep despite Purplebackpack89's flawless argument for deletion (am I committing "fallacy fallacy fallacy"?). This template is parallel to other English POS templates and thus people will naturally try to use it even if it doesn't exist. --WikiTiki89 00:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Except that it's not. Don't let the name deceive you, look at the code. It takes pairs of labels and forms, just like {{head}} does. Like I said in the nomination, it's nothing more than a thin wrapper around {{head}}, it just forwards on some of the parameters and doesn't do anything itself. —CodeCat 00:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
      • You didn't contradict anything I said. --WikiTiki89 00:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per Wikitiki89: people will try to use it (and wish to re-create it) to match other en-POS and langcode-pron templates. And per DCDuring.​—msh210 (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "pron" may be mistaken to stand for "pronunciation", though. I think this template, if kept, should at least switch places with {{en-pronoun}}. Keφr 10:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I agree completely, and the same for all languages' counterparts, with redirects kept, but that's not the issue here.​—msh210 (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • RFDO kept: no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


I have never seen this template used to any good effect. Mostly it is used in entries that are speedily deleted. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Ditto. Delete. Keφr 16:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Changing my mind. It at least allows us to find useless pages quickly. What will be the replacement for Category:Section stubs? Keφr 15:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Is the RfD for the redirect or both the redirect and the redirect target? DCDuring TALK 16:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


For the sake of clarity, delete; see also #substub above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes, delete this as well, but note:- it is used in some "new en" templates. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:vi-script helper[edit]


Module:vi (function "applyHanFonts")[edit]

The first is a fork of {{script helper}} (a bad idea in itself) that only does anything different if the script is "Hani". The other two are supposed to apply Vietnamese-specific Chinese-character fonts as inline styles. That completely circumvents our style sheets, and it's really bad practice. @Mzajac, Mxn: for comment too. —CodeCat 19:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Migrate to MediaWiki:Common.css; otherwise delete. Keφr 15:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Keφr 19:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:en-ing form of[edit]

Delete this template. It purports to treat verb and noun behaviors of the likes of ploughing (see also Talk:ploughing) under one definition line, which would probably be placed under Verb heading. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It is, for now, a simple demonstration of an alternative presentation, used to illustrate a discussion of WT:RFD#waxing. Though deleted from waxing, it is still available for its intended use in the discussion in the former version and should remain at until the later of termination of that discussion and a successful RfDO.
Keep. DCDuring TALK 20:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
You can use your user page for demonstration purposes. To demonstrate a proposed format of certain kind of entries, there was absolutely no need to create a template and place it to a discussed entry. Alternatively, you could have placed a demonstration of proposed formatting directly into the discussion, a thing very easy and straightforward to do. You can still do it. This template is unneeded and should be deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Wiktionary:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/Translation[edit]

I have no idea what this is. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

See User talk:Bgwhite. I am somethat less enthusiastic about it than User:Bgwhite, it probably should have been advertised on WT:GP/WT:BP and the page's name is somewhat unfortunate, but otherwise keep this. Keφr 15:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


I have already orphaned it as other languages' possessives don't use lists. See Special:PrefixIndex/Template:list:possessives. --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Other languages have inflection tables for that kind of thing. —CodeCat 02:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Support. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 08:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:English noun forms[edit]

I removed all the non-English ones (mostly Volapük) and then moved all the English plurals to Category:English plurals and lo and behold it's empty. I think it was once a parent category for Category:English plurals but now it isn't. So delete, or keep as a parent category only and create a {{parent category}} template. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I proposed some time ago that Category:English plurals should be moved to Category:English noun plural forms. We don't need two different categories for noun plurals, after all. Are there any other noun forms in English, perhaps archaic case forms that are no longer in use? —CodeCat 19:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
The only other form is the possessive, which is now more of a morpheme than a case. --WikiTiki89 19:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
But is it possible that we can cite other noun forms in old texts, like Shakespeare for example? —CodeCat 19:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
No, because they disappeared phonologically. The last remnants were the presence or lack of a final schwa and by Shakespeare's time it was already entirely silent. --WikiTiki89 19:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Well in any case, I still think this should be kept as a parent category for Category:English noun plural forms. Or we could place the plurals straight in Category:English noun forms, if those are the only noun forms that exist anyway. —CodeCat 20:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Category:English noun plural forms wasn't a very popular idea, pure and simple. Nor was moving Category:English plurals to Category:English noun forms. I doubt the consensus has changed, but feel free to give it a go. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Convert to {{parent-only}}. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:WC and its language subcategories[edit]

We already have Wikisaurus:toilet with just about the same content. Anything in it can also either go in the parent category Category:Rooms or the subcategory Category:Toiletry. --WikiTiki89 23:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. —CodeCat 23:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

More superfluous grc templates[edit]

While I'm on the subject of introducing reforms into the grc system, I've noticed these templates:

They are meant for nouns with properispomenal accent, but they are not only functionally identical but in fact identical in coding (except in the cases where the prp templates have not been updated) to the corresponding prx templates.

I therefore propose that the first seven of these be orphaned and deleted, their transcluders to use instead the prx templates, and the last be moved to {{grc-decl-3rd-weak-υ-prx}}. (If this constitutes more accurately an RfM, I'll move it there.) ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 14:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete Seems reasonable to me. We actually considered doing this ever so long ago, and didn't. At this point I feel rather more confident in stating that it should work just fine, and cut down on some rarely used (and thus typically poorly maintained) templates. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Wow, that's a hell of a long time ago. --WikiTiki89 03:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
@ObsequiousNewt: By the time I got to them, {{grc-decl-1st-ala-prp}} already had no transclusions; I've orphaned {{grc-decl-1st-ets-prp}} and {{grc-decl-3rd-N-ln-prp}}, so those three templates can now be deleted. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
@ObsequiousNewt: I've just moved {{grc-decl-3rd-weak-υ-prp}} to {{grc-decl-3rd-weak-υ-prx}} and changed the two transclusions thereof to use the template with the -prx spelling, so {{grc-decl-3rd-weak-υ-prp}} can also now be deleted. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]


Oclus is attested, so this content doesn’t need to be in the appendix. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Where is it attested? DTLHS (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Based on the etymology section, it seems to be attested as a mention, not a use. --WikiTiki89 23:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Mentions are valid for ancient languages. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Are they? --WikiTiki89 00:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Not even Classical Latin is listed at WT:WDL, and Vulgar Latin is even less well attested. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
The CFI says “For terms in extinct languages, one use in a contemporaneous source is the minimum, or one mention is adequate subject to the below requirements.” I know that one of these requirements is that a list of acceptable sources be maintained, but in practice people just take it for granted that a source is adequate unless someone calls it into question. — Ungoliant (falai)
Fair enough. I presume that the mention also needs to be contemporary (as it is in this case), since we wouldn't want bogus entries from a modern Dictionary of Vulgar Latin. --WikiTiki89 14:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why. Surely we allow mentions from other modern dictionaries of ancient languages. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Because if a modern dictionary has a word that cannot be found anywhere else, then where did the dictionary itself get it from? In the case of a contemporary mention, we can at least presume that the author had access to sources that were not preserved, as well as to the spoken language itself. --WikiTiki89 19:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
So start a list of appropriate sources and add this one. What is it by the way? Old French has a list (of one item): Wiktionary:About Old French#Appropriate sources for a single mention. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


This is just a shortcut to {{head|fr|verb form}}. It has no functionality that {{head|fr|verb form}} does not. It never has, as far as I know, either. Italian gets by fine on {{head|it|verb form}} why can't French too. The 'good news' is that it just doesn't matter whether we keep or delete this or not; it is identical to {{head|fr|verb form}}. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like many languages create such shortcut also. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes but careful. Some of them have parameters that head doesn't. Just French isn't one of them. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
@Circeus, Connel MacKenzie, Mglovesfun, Yair rand, Metaknowledge: Pinging the authors of this template. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Move to Wikiquote[edit]

Template:Move to Wikisource[edit]

Template:Move to Wiktionary[edit]


a redirect to the previous

Template:Move to wiktionary[edit]

another redirect

The first two still have the "If the page can be expanded into an encyclopedic article," verbiage that shows their Wikipedia origins. The third is just a soft redirect to the Wikipedia template of that name.

Do we really need any of these? Sure, interwikis will have links to some of them, but why is a dummy template any better than a redlink? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


Not used anywhere. Seems to be an experiment that was abandoned. —CodeCat 18:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:definite and plural of[edit]

This was just created. But given the wild growth of form-of templates for any random combination of inflections that we had in the past, I'm very reluctant to keep this template. —CodeCat 21:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably means definite singular and plural form of [adjective], if it's used for Danish or Norwegian. I usually list them separately, on two lines. Donnanz (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
The wording used is far too vague anyway. Donnanz (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Put it on two lines. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: If it can be used in multiple places, best to have it Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 15:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
    @Purplebackpack89: Care to clarify? Why should the template be used instead of what is currently being done at engelske? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
    Conversely, why doesn't engelske consolidate things into a single definition? And why can't users have the option of choosing between multiple templates? And why are we so quick to delete templates that being are used? Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 17:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
    Because usage alone doesn't determine how desirable a template is. —CodeCat 18:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete per Angr. - -sche (discuss) 17:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Keep. This is very important for the Danish language. If you delete it, all my work on this adjective form will be deleted. Are you guys kidding me? Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete and put on two lines. Two different definitions, two lines. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
@Ready Steady Yeti no need to 'delete' anything, just modify by bot and put onto two lines. This is a wiki; everything is constantly being reviewed! Renard Migrant (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Do NOT delete. I know there is already a way to say "definite and plural of" with another template but trust me, it's much more complicated, and I need that template, so don't delete TEMPLATES, why would you delete useful templates? Keeping this template will help the project in the Danish language field. If you still think this should be deleted then how should I make an alternative, because there was no other way to do this before, and there are thousands of Danish adjectives that have no definite and plural form entries, but are still listed on their head templates. Please do not delete, either that or make another easy alternative.
I understand everything is constantly being reviewed. But this must not be deleted. Every Danish adjective form has a definite and plural form so it would be useless to make two separate lines. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
And how often do they coincide? Is it on the order of magnitude of English "-ed" forms (where passive participle coincides with past tense)? Keφr 16:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I think you're spot on when you say "I need that template". You're thinking about what's best for you, not what's best for the wiki. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
And even for English, the template is language-specific: {{en-past of}}. —CodeCat 17:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
You realise of course that this argument can be turned on you by suggesting a rename of the nominated template to {{da-definite and plural of}}. Keφr 17:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and I would be ok with that, although in that case the wording still isn't ideal, because it still underspecifies what is meant. —CodeCat 17:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
As I said above, the wording is far too vague. If this template were to be kept, it should read "definite singular and plural form of". The same applies in Norwegian and maybe Swedish, but I always split it in Norwegian into two lines, and will probably continue to do so in Danish. I suspect a short cut is being looked for here. Donnanz (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Is the plural also definite, or only the singular? —CodeCat 17:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The plural form can be either definite or indefinite. The spelling varies when used in singular form, depending on the gender of the noun the adjective is used with, or whether it's used in definite form. The definite singular and plural form always have the same spelling, with very few exceptions. But there are also indeclinable adjectives, which don't vary in spelling, no matter what. They're the easiest ones to deal with. Donnanz (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry I'm a very wrong human being that should never have existed. I'm extremely abnormal.

Anyhow, I think Template:da-definite and plural of is acceptable. I do want what is best for the wiki. That's why I'm here. Sorry, sometimes I get hyper like this. I'm pretty sure that all Danish adjectives that have one form with the suffix -e (which most do), they all are definite and plural so my argument is there's no point in making two separate lines.

I really was planning to apply for sysop privileges here in like 3 or 4 years but it doesn't look like I'm at a good start right now. I hope I can get better at this. I really, I promise, I want to help this website change the world of words and language. You can quote me on that. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Template:en-past of[edit]

Per WT:RFDO#Template:definite and plural of. This is the same principle, just the template is more widely used. Two definitions, two lines. Not combined onto one line.

It would be very easy to replace this by bot. Quick, no; easy, yes. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Common practice for language-specific templates is very different from general ones. Language-specific templates can and should cater to the specific needs of that one language, that's why we have them. —CodeCat 17:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
KEEP per me too. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

All "transliterations of (family) languages terms" type categories[edit]

This means Category:English transliterations of Slavic languages terms and so on, which are maintained by {{translitcatboiler}}. This category was created by User:Kc kennylau and based on {{derivcatboiler}} but it seems like a bit of cargo cult programming, as a lot of the additional code for handling language family categories from that template was copied over without much regard for whether it was needed. I don't think these categories are useful at all. What is significant about transliterating a term from a Slavic language? It's not nearly as significant as a term derived from a Slavic language. —CodeCat 18:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Substantial cleanup is needed if these are kept: several of them contain themselves (e.g. Category:English transliterations of East Slavic languages terms); they're also not fluently named (it would be better to say "English transliterations of East Slavic language terms" or "English transliterations of terms from East Slavic languages"). They also seem to not cover, or to be poised to misleadingly label, terms transliterated according to language-nonspecific schemes like ISO 9. - -sche (discuss) 19:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Terms shouldn’t be defined as “a transliteration” of something. Somebody is confusing meaning and form. A term may have several spellings, and some of these spellings may correspond to transliterations, or transcriptions, or both, or neither. (“Transliteration” probably doesn’t belong in an etymology either, without documentation of a specific first use.) Michael Z. 2014-07-01 15:17 z

Template:User en-us-N[edit]

Template:User en-uk-N, Template:User en-uk-4[edit]

Category:User en-us-N, Category:User en-us, Category:User en-uk-N, Category:User en-uk[edit]

I think we should not encourage this sort of hair-splitting in Babel boxes. English is English, if a user has something to say about their particular idiolect, they should probably do it in prose, because I doubt that differences between dialects can be meaningfully captured by pigeonholing them into a simplistic "British or American" dichotomy. I doubt any speaker actually speaks "pure" British or "pure" American dialect. And it does not even cover all "native" varieties of English.

In other words, this is not very useful, it makes browsing categories harder, it is a maintenance burden and a fodder for nationalistic splinters, which we generally tend to discourage. (Well, except in the logo.) Keφr 13:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, a stupid typo I see on one of the templates.
"These users are native speakers of British English." Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I have changed "these users..." to "this user..." to match the rest. Equinox 19:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Probably delete: I agree that this seems to reflect a them-and-us false dichotomy between UK and US. Equinox 19:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, the other templates are bad. They word it incorrectly. "This user speaks English (American)" instead of "This user speaks American English at a native level." Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 20:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: So Kephir gets to decide what users get to call themselves now? The only reason a userbox should be deleted is if it is offensive. This isn't offensive, so keep it. Purplebackpack89 03:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The very existence of this discussion contradicts your childish personal remark. I would have just speedied it if I thought so. A userbox should be deleted if it is not expressly allowed by WT:USER, so not only because it is offensive. Also, offensive to whom? Nationalism offends me.
    Is that supposed to anger me or what? It fails. But if you want to spend your time here attempting to aggravate everyone who disagrees with you, as you have been doing pretty much all the time in recent months, we have tools to address that. Keφr 06:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I vehemently disagree with the user guidelines. I think users should be allowed to post whatever they damn well please in their user pages, including non-Babel userboxes. And just because you don't like that I voted keep on something you want deleted is not reason enough to block me, sorry. Purplebackpack89 14:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I think your disagreement has little merit, but whatever. You voted "keep", fine. You are bloody entitled to do so. I do have a problem with turning every dispute into "this-and-that user acts purely on their whim and is evil" and a "ha ha ha, you can't block me you stupid admins" attitude. Though frankly, given your track record at w:simple:, I doubt you can understand any of that. End of topic. Keφr 15:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Look, it seems to me that there are some things on this project that are motivated by personal likes and dislikes rather than actually being a good idea. Your silly little block proposal last month was one of those. Not having userboxes is another. Is having a bunch of non-language-related user boxes detrimental in any way to Wiktionary? No! So let users have all the userboxes they want! And, even under the present guidelines, there's not really a policy basis for deleting this. It appears that a significant portion of this nominated was that seeing this template used struck a discordant note with you. Purplebackpack89 17:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
(Surprisingly) I agree with Purplebackpack89: keep templates (not necessarily the categories). People should be able to use whatever Babel boxes they want, even if they want to say they speak Serbian rather than Serbo-Croatian. --WikiTiki89 14:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Appendix:Video game consoles[edit]

If this were more than a bunch of links I'd probably not care about it, but as it is this can hardly be called an Appendix. -- Liliana 20:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Bleurk, delete. One of those cases where someone's pet hobby overrules their sense of what is appropriate dictionary content, like all those anime and Harry Potter appendices we recently (mostly) got rid of. Equinox 20:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Why not just use this idea to make a category? Category:en:Video game consoles Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 20:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
My thought exactly, actually, since abbreviations curiously manage to be exempt of CFI rules altogether... -- Liliana 20:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
So the category will really be "Category:Abbreviations of video game console names"? Sounds super useful. Equinox 20:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually it would be "Category:en:Abbreviations of video game console names", because abbreviations may be slightly different in other languages. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 20:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not something a dictionary needs to have. --WikiTiki89 23:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
For comparison purposes, here are the Appendices of the Chambers Dictionary I have on CD-ROM. Readers can draw their own conclusions; I'm just going to say that they don't have a list of Pokémon. So: "some first names" (we already allow names); "phrases and quotations from foreign languages" (largely classical, i.e. Latin and Greek, but also e.g. cherchez la femme, grosse Seelen dulden still, etc.); alphabets (Greek, Russian, Hebrew, Arabic); Roman numerals; Internet suffixes (wow, I was surprised!); Bible books; Shakespeare plays; chemical elements; SI units; various scales (Beaufort, Mohs, earthquakes, wine bottle sizes, wedding anniversaries); math symbols; physical constants; conversion factors (paper sizes, temperature, etc.); and planets and major satellites. Equinox 23:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. Keφr 10:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Unused usage note templates[edit]

As I was standardizing the naming of these, I noticed that they weren't used anywhere. So, should we start using them in entries, or delete them? - -sche (discuss) 03:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:U:ca:cardinal numbers[edit]

Template:U:ca:large numbers[edit]

Template:U:nl:obsolete spelling[edit]

Template:U:fr:may take être[edit]

(cf. Template:U:fr:takes être, which is used)

Passer and sortir fit these criteria. Presumably those verbs just write it out longhand or omit it , both of which are suboptimal. Keep. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Though passer and sortir already have usage notes to handle this. Perhaps I was wrong. Any other verbs that need checking? Renard Migrant (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The entries' usage notes suggest that the circumstances under which passer uses "être" are not identical to the circumstances under which sortir uses "être". If that's the case, this template can't even be reworded to replace passer and sortir’s usage notes (without inaccuracy or loss of information), and — if it isn't needed in any other entries — it seems it should be deleted. But if sortir and passer actually use "être" under exactly and only the same circumstances, then by all means we should reword Template:U:fr:may take être and deploy it on those entries so that they no longer imply a difference. - -sche (discuss) 03:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:U:fr:cannot take être[edit]

(cf. Template:U:fr:takes être, which is used)

I'd imagine it's for things like dépasser and surpasser which take avoir while passer takes être (sometimes anyway). The conjugation tables already say this (e.g. {{fr-conj-er|dépass|avoir}}) so it's not essential. I wouldn't keep it. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I've deleted [[Template:U:fr:cannot take être]]. - -sche (discuss) 02:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:dynamic list[edit]

Transwikied along with the only page that uses it. All it does is add a rather nondescript disclaimer, reference a Wikipedia policy that has no relevance here, and add a redlinked category that contains only the template and the aforementioned transwiki. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


This has now (and indeed long ago) been surpassed by {{head}}. I would change all instances to {{head|fr|adverb}}, fr-adv does nothing that head doesn't already do better. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Redirect: If two templates do the same thing and both are used in articles, one should be redirected to the other and neither should be deleted. Purplebackpack89 03:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, a redirect wouldn't work. —CodeCat 13:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 20:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


As above, offers nothing that {{head}} doesn't already. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Redirect: If two templates do the same thing and both are used in articles, one should be redirected to the other and neither should be deleted. Purplebackpack89 03:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, a redirect wouldn't work. —CodeCat 13:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 20:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Dragons and Category:Merpeople and their subcategories[edit]

These are way too specific. Category:Mythological creatures is enough. --WikiTiki89 16:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There's 12 entries in Category:en:Dragons and 23 in Category:en:Merpeople. The first is maybe questionable, but I don't see any need to merge a category with 23 entries into a larger category.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Note that 2 of the 12 Dragons are currently at RfD Purplebackpack89 18:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that Category:English words prefixed with mer- is a better category for the merpeople. (I didn't even know it existed, and it turns out it has more entries than Category:en:Merpeople!) --WikiTiki89 11:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't use the categories much, but I don't see the advantage in dumping 23 more entries into an already full Mythological creatures. Splitting out groups of 20 for subcategorization is usually a good thing in my experience from other Wikis.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)



Previous discussion: Wiktionary:Grease pit/2014/July#Template:t-check and Template:t-needed. I am too lazy to link to the rest of the discussion, but you can follow the links.

The replacements for these templates are {{t-check}}, {{t+check}} and {{t-needed}}. {{trreq}} has been migrated already once, but I notice some people still using {{trreq}} as before, which makes me reconsider with my idea of moving {{t-needed}} back to {{trreq}} (with the new syntax).

I think there is a clear advantage to the replacements, and the proposal had quite wide support and no oppose. Can we get these formally deprecated, so to speak? Keφr 17:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Redirect: Purplebackpack89 18:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirecting is just going to cause more breaking. People will expect the old template to work as it always did, which it doesn't of course. —CodeCat 00:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Case in point. (Though there have been surprisingly few such mistakes, it seems.) Keφr 13:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)



These have been deprecated for quite some time, but never actually nominated, I think. The replacement is using the appropriate template's parameter (|a=, |g=, or positional arguments for {{t}}), or failing that, {{g|impf}} and {{g|pf}}. Some singular userspace uses remain. Keφr 09:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete to prevent people using them outside templates. --Vahag (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
What's the problem with using them outside templates? So, you're letting me manually clean all uses of {{impf}} and {{pf}}? what alternative you're suggesting, e.g. in чини́ть (činítʹ)? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
It looks like the bot has an alternative. —CodeCat 00:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Copying Kephir's long list here from my talk page:

Keφr 08:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Arabic needs a different approach and Slavic terms/translations were not processed by Kephir's script. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I fixed the Arabic ones (يزرع, يطرح, يلوم). --WikiTiki89 02:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't sure where to put "imperfective" in {{conjugation of}}. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]





Functionality of all of those has been integrated into Module:ugly hacks (formerly named Module:template utilities; please take care of that one too). Which was named so because this is not the type of functionality that we want to encourage to be used in templates. That module also has the advantage that it tracks templates into which it is transcluded; they should show up at Special:WantedTemplates soon.

No single replacement for these, unfortunately. Most users of {{isValidPageName}} should be probably adjusted to use a template like {{l}}, {{l-self}}, {{m}} or {{head}}. Other templates may need to be entirely converted to Lua. For yet others, a new framework or at least one special-purpose module will probably need to be devised (reference templates?).

Keφr 15:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep per "No single replacement for these" Purplebackpack89 17:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    Delete. @Purplebackpack89: I think you misunderstood. There is "no single replacement" for the ugly hacks module, but the nominated templates have already been replaced by the ugly hacks module. --WikiTiki89 17:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    No, @Wikitiki89:, I understood that. I've come to the position that it's a bad idea to outright delete templates, as it confuses editors who don't follow RFD/O too much. Purplebackpack89 18:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    The argument you gave in you first post contradicts that, but at least now you made a reasonable one. I still disagree because these templates are only used by expert template programmers, who will have no trouble adapting. These are not the kind of templates like {{head}} or {{context}} that everyone uses all the time. --WikiTiki89 23:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, no reason to keep if they're orphaned and not needed. —CodeCat 17:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Template:isValidPageName is a very useful template to use when authoring other templates, and not everyone who will want to author a template knows Lua. If we delete template:isValidPageName, I very strongly recommend that (a) the deletion summary indicates what can be used instead (viz module:ugly hacks) and (b) module:ugly hacks have good documentation on how to use its functions in templates. (No comment/vote on the proposed deletions.)​—msh210 (talk) 06:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:obsolete capitalization of[edit]

Delete. To me it seems a bit over the top to be creating separate entries for every noun that was once written with a capital letter. That would be almost every noun, wouldn't it? What's next -- separate entries for every term that was once spelled with the long "s"? -- · (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and while we're at it, we need to delete Extenuation, the one page it's used on. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. What about {{alternative capitalization of}}, on which I based the template?
  2. Extenuation has five supporting quotations, so, on what basis should it be deleted?
 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
# See the difference between blood (which uses this template) and Blood.
# Because we don't by convention list English words with initial capital letters separately from English words without, except where they're always capitals, where the capitals makes a difference. There's no value in keeping Extenuation, when people can find it by extenuation just as easily, and a definite cost to keeping it, as it implies we should have at least ten thousand more entries for no value.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: I agree with you regarding Extenuation, so I wouldn't mind at all it that entry were deleted. Re {{obsolete capitalization of}}, however, I believe it should be kept, because there will be cases analogous with the Bloodblood case, except that the capitalising variability will no longer be current. One of those analogous cases, I think, is god in its long-obsolete use to denote the proper noun which we would now spell God (see Citations:god). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
(after e/c) Extenuation and anything like it should be deleted per Prosfilaes and per longstanding practice; compare also Talk:The and the comments I made on Talk:euery. That might mean that this template has no legitimate uses and should be deleted, but I'm not sure. I notice the addition of a proper noun section using this template to god. The very same lack of standardization of Capitalization which led to Terms being made uppercase if they were Important also led to terms we would now capitalize (including e.g. personal- and place-names) sometimes being found in lowercase, and I don't think we should have entries like michael and germany. But perhaps god (lowercase) / God (honorific/proper-nounal uppercase) and lord (lowercase) / Lord (honorific/proper-nounal uppercase) / LORD (proper name, translation of the Tetragrammaton) are special cases in one way or another and should be kept even if we continue to delete entries like michael and germany. This requires more thought... - -sche (discuss) 21:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@-sche: I think Profilaes hinted at a salient point with "[t]here's no value in keeping Extenuation, when people can find it by extenuation just as easily". The system autoredirects to extant entries from searches for forms with the opposite capitalisation (e.g., if Extenuation didn't exist, searching for Extenuation would automatically redirect the user to extenuation); therefore, sense lines for {{alternative capitalization of}} or {{obsolete capitalization of}} are only useful where both pages exist anyway. Does that make sense? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying if someone finds three instances of Hand being capitalized in English, then we should add an English section to [[Hand]] and call it an "obsolete capitalization of hand"? That seems silly to me. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
All pages like Hand should have headnotes pointing to hand. It's generally not a problem; it doesn't take much English to realize that pages are indexed under their lowercase forms. I think it was the Merriam-Webster's 3rd Unabridged that had one word listed as a capital--God--with the rest listed as lowercase with (usu. cap.) in the definition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
...although, as someone (DCDuring or Angr?) commented elsewhere, it took them a while to learn that MW's "usu. cap." actually meant "always and invariably capitalized". Anyway, yes, pages like [[Hand]] should use {{also}}, they shouldn't have "alternative/obsolete capitalization of" if the only reason for it would be instances of the capitalized Form in old Texts, or Honorific Capitalization (as in "the Holy Church"). Contrast aboriginal/native and Aboriginal/Native, where the capitalization generally imparts a semantic difference, even though it is (notably) not always followed (one can find instances of honorific "Native" where it does not mean "American Indian", and instances of "native" where it does). - -sche (discuss) 00:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
That was me. Always and invariably capitalized unless you're Archy the Cockroach. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
@Angr: I suppose, strictly speaking, that would follow, yes; however, as Prosfilaes notes, {{also}} should do in cases where the only entries at the opposite capitalisation are for terms in other languages (except where {{also}} only links to Appendix:Variations of "string"). When there are entries at both capitalisation variants for terms in the same language, by contrast, noting alternative or obsolete capitalisation is more necessary, because otherwise it is quite likely for a user to assume that the sense is simply missing.
@Talking Point: Please explain why you did this. (I'd like to hear a rationale, instead of just reverting you.)
 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello META -- Sorry, I thought I had explained adequately in the edit summary for that edit. The source of my disapproval with the edit was not that it assigned a Proper Noun POS to god, but, rather, the edit's use of the "capitalization" template, which constituted the whole definition and which was not a correct definition. Although User:-sche thinks otherwise, I see no credible support anywhere (not in OneLook, the unabridged Random House, or the OED, or the citations at capitalisation) for using "capitalization" to refer to the act or result of writing a term in lowercase letters. Anyhow, I have now restored the Proper Noun POS for god, avoiding the use of "capitalization". (In addition to my believing that the {{obsolete capitalization of}} template should be deleted, it also seems to me that a number of the usages of the {{alternative capitalization of}} template are wrong (because they refer to lowercase terms). I discussed this with User:-sche on my talk page and User:Donnanz and User:DCDuring also previously raised this objection with User:-sche on his talk page.) I hope this clears up my reasons. Respectfully -- · (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
@Talking Point: Yes, that clears up my confusion perfectly. I've also checked the OED on this, and it's certainly true that they do not list a sense that reflects the usage at issue. How would you feel about substituting casing for capitalization, resulting in alternative casing of and obsolete casing of? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:ady:Proto-Circassian language[edit]

It's not at all clear what this category is supposed to signify. Is it terms derived from Proto-Circassian? Or something else? —CodeCat 18:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Adamsa123, what is the purpose of this category? --Vahag (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
It is terms derived from Proto-Circassian, but later on I figured it is better simply mentioning those terms in Etymology in each entry rather than creating an entire entry for those terms.--Adamʂa123 (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The correct name for the category is thus Category:Adyghe terms derived from Proto-Circassian, which although it's red does already have some terms in it. However, before it can be properly created, we have to devise a code for Proto-Circassian, which apparently we don't have yet. My suggestion would be cau-cir for the Circassian family and cau-cir-pro the protolanguage. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Even so, these should probably be converted from raw categories to a call to {{etyl}} in the etymology section. —CodeCat 13:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course, but a code for Proto-Circassian is a prerequiste for that too. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
@-sche: Since you are involved with checking languages, can you weigh in on this? —CodeCat 14:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Angr is right, the thing to do is assign codes to the Circassian family and Proto-Circassian, and and cau-cir and cau-cir-pro are fine suggestions. Then we can start using {{etyl}} for this, as you note. - -sche (discuss) 17:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I've created the language and family codes now. —CodeCat 18:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


Seemingly unused. Looks like stuff taken from Wikipedia. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Also, I don't think sockpuppets are a problem over here. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Of course you're a problem over here; it's just that no one can be bothered puttnig this template on all of your userpages. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


As Template:sockpuppet --Type56op9 (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep both: There have been sockpuppets in Wiktionary's history, so there are potential uses for this template. Purplebackpack89 13:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    Prime example above (just to be clear, not you PBP). --WikiTiki89 14:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


Pointless --Type56op9 (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be in use, but this is probably because people aren't aware it exists. I don't agree with the deletion rationale. Equinox 16:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: per Equinox. "Pointless" is not in itself a deletion rationale, Type56op9 must also assert that it's either never gonna get used; or is redundant to another template. Purplebackpack89 20:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete because it's overly general; it doesn't apply to LDLs. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: Where is this supposed to be used, and in what manner? Is it to be substed on talk pages of newbies? The template (not the template doc) just says this: "On Wiktionary, a word cannot be verified by looking in other dictionaries. Instead we try and find examples of uses of the word (mainly using [1] [2]) to prove that it is actually used." --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Archive templates[edit]

Template:rfv-passed, Template:rfv-prej, Template:rfv-failed, Template:rfv-archived[edit]

Template:rfd-passed, Template:rfd-passed-top, Template:rfd-failed, Template:rfd-failed-top, Template:rfd-archived[edit]

Template:rfc-archived, Template:rfm-archived, Template:rft-archived, Template:feedback-archived[edit]

Template:archive box, Template:archive box top, Template:archive box bottom[edit]

The replacement for these is the pair: {{archive-top}} and {{archive-bottom}}. aWa already uses these two, if you noticed. The benefits of using them are that you no longer have to worry about escaping = and | characters. Also, fewer templates means fewer changes needed when archive categories are to be reorganised for some reason.

The above templates can be simply substituted to yield their replacement; some are already orphaned.

Keφr 12:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose deleting these templates. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    • And the argument for that which Polansky put at BP instead of here (where it belongs) is: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Except that in this case it is definitely not "ain't broke". Every once in a while when someone puts "|" inside a discussion it fails to display properly in the archive box because someone failed to remember/realise they should use {{!}}. Splitting the archive box into two templates eliminates that problem. But who cares about that if I dislike the nominator? Keφr 11:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
      • The accurate quotation of the complete sentence from Beer parlour (diff) is this: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and don't make the markup longer." --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Seeing that you only objected to the incomplete quotation, I assume you entirely agree with the rest. Thank you for dropping your opposition. Keφr 11:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
          • For the record and the reader, I did not drop my opposition; I still oppose deleting these templates. I have to admit that dealing with the inflammatory style of the above speaker stretches some of my capabilities. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
            • Delete, can't believe nobody's thought to do this before, it's so simple. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Deprecate. I don't see an urgent reason to delete these, rather than deprecate them, including removing them from membership in the categories in which they reside in favor of the same name preceded by "deprecated". @Kephir: But can a bot accomplish the conversion reliably? Presumably the functionality of {{archived from tea room}} could also be replaced. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    • (@DCDuring: ping fail. See mw:Help:Echo.) After Category:Archive boxes needing attention is emptied, the replacement is trivial, just {{subst:}} the templates. {{archived from tea room}} will be harder to do. Keφr 16:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
      @Kephir: That doesn't exactly answer my question. Can a bot be made to do the operation reliably or does it need to be done manually? If a bot can't do it, who will? If no one volunteers, why not just deprecate the inferior, older templates. If the 346 or so transclusions of {{archived from tea room}} can't be bot-replaced, that might be something for me to get started on. DCDuring TALK 17:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
      • As I said, templates nominated above can be simply {{subst:}}ed, which can be done with a regex replacement, and I have made some preparations to make this process lossless. The problem with {{archived from tea room}} is with finding where the archived discussion ends (i.e. where to put {{archive-bottom}}). It would be reasonable to assume that the discussion spans from the {{archived from tea room}} template to the end of the section. This is possible to implement, but a bit tricky. Keφr 17:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
        Your answers may seem to you to have answered my questions, but they presuppose more knowledge about the power of tools than I have. As I interpret your answers, the specific answer to my question is: "No. A bot can't do it, but there are semi-automated methods that <<<someone>>> could use to reduce the time and effort required." If that "No" should be a "Yes", please forgive me for not understanding. DCDuring TALK 17:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, for starters I am not sure what "it" is, so I am answering two questions at once.
          • The nominated templates can be losslessly substituted in place, which is a matter of purely mechanical text replacement: "{{rfv-failed" → "{{subst:rfv-failed", which triggers MediaWiki to generate the updated wikimarkup. Yes, a bot can do it. (You just need to take care of erroneous template usages first, but I have already dealt with those.)
          • Orphaning {{archived from tea room}} would require guessing where the {{archive-bottom}} template should go. The best method would be probably by inspecting page histories, but I doubt that can be made into a reliable algorithm. Or you could just assume that archived discussions span the whole level 2 section (or make some other "educated" guess), but this assumption is just that, an assumption.
        Hope this helps. Keφr 19:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
        Thanks. I did not know for sure that subst:ing could be done by bot without a problem and that you had already eliminated anything that didn't conform to the requirements for subst:ing or didn't otherwise fail. Both of those are what I wanted to know. I think others would want to know too so that they could also support the proposal.
        I wouldn't bother with {{archived from tea room}}. Arguably it's less useful for the tea room discussions and the list of items is not terribly long.
  • Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 19:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reasons for and against given by the various participants. —CodeCat 20:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


Everything I wrote above also applies to this template. Keφr 12:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

All orphaned and deleted. Keφr 09:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Caucasian languages[edit]

Also included: the family code "cau" and all the categories that use it. This survived deletion back in 2009, but, even after reading through the discussion archived at Category talk:Caucasian languages, I'm not sure why.

This is strictly a geographical grouping: although many linguists have an unprovable hunch that the w:Northeast Caucasian languages and the w:Northwest Caucasian languages may be related, there's been very little support for linking them to the w:Kartvelian languages. Indeed, even among those proposing that the w:North Caucasian languages are related to everything from Basque to Sino-Tibetan to the Na-Dene languages of North America, and those who say the Kartvelian languages are related to Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic Dravidian, and many others, linking North Caucasian and South Caucasian/Kartvelian is rarely even considered. If there were such a family, it would probably be named the w:Ibero-Caucasian languages.

This category is mostly a holding category for the three families mentioned, but, judging from the derivational categories, there are a dozen entries that refer to the Caucasian languages as a group in their etymologies, of which seven are Old Armenian. Perhaps we can get an idea from Vahagn Petrosyan (talkcontribs) about whether this is a serious obstacle. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Scholarly sources, modern or dated, dealing with Armenian linguistics often refer to "Caucasian languages", when they cannot distinguish between Kartvelian/East Caucasian/West Caucasian. The code cau is very convenient for such cases. However, I understand that our etymological categories are based on genetic relationship and that the laziness of sources does not justify having this category. I will go through the Old Armenian entries and try to assign them to different branches. So, delete. PS By the way, your ping did not work. --Vahag (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep. There is no reason that we cannot have a category for languages that are often referred to as "Caucasian languages" outside of our etymological tree. --WikiTiki89 14:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Appendix:Word formation verb -en noun -ness[edit]

WF marked this for speedy deletion with the comment "nothing special here". It isn't the kind of thing that should be speedied, so I'm bringing it here. While I can see the argument that it's enshrining the obvious in list form, I'm not so sure, myself, that this should be deleted, especially since there are so many transwikis that are far more deserving of the honor (for some reason, the transporter accident from the first Star Trek movie comes to mind when I think about those...). Chuck Entz (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. What's wrong with an appendix collecting instances of a certain linguistic function? bd2412 T 13:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
It needs a better title but it does seem to have a specific enough function to be kept. If it were just all nouns ending in -ness, a category would be much better, but it isn't. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: See Category:English words suffixed with -ness, which is almost what you want, but is all that CodeCat will let us do. DCDuring TALK 14:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep. DCDuring TALK 14:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • RFDO kept: no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Desserts and subcategories[edit]

A dessert is anything eaten to end a meal. But that doesn't say anything about the food served; anything can be served at the end of a meal. Steak can be a dessert, so can soup, chili con carne or a biscuit. So this is not a good way to classify food and the items in this category should probably be distributed among other categories. —CodeCat 22:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you may be mistaken; our entry and many other dictionaries' entries agree that desserts are sweet foods served as final courses, not just any final courses. Cambridge defines dessert as "sweet food eaten at the end of a meal", oxforddictionaries.com as "sweet course eaten at the end of a meal". Merriam-Webster defines it as "a usually sweet course or dish (as of pastry or ice cream) usually served at the end of a meal", and Dictionary.com goes as far as to define it as "cake, pie, fruit, pudding, ice cream, etc., served as the final course of a meal". BTW, those last two give a second sense we lack, along the lines of "{{label|en|UK}} fresh fruit served after another course" (Dictionary.com says "after a main course", MW says "after a sweet course"). - -sche (discuss) 22:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
But even so, being served as a dessert does not make any food inherently a dessert. Labelling any particular kind of food "dessert" is based on a particular instance of it being served as a dessert, not because that kind of food is a dessert by nature. It's a very ambiguous term that does little to help users in practice. Just consider the wide range of things we might list in a hypothetical Category:Breakfasts, Category:Lunches, Category:Dinners, Category:Starters, Category:Main courses and yes, even the existing Category:Snacks suffers from the same vagueness. Furthermore, how foods are served differs widely across the world. In the Netherlands for example, pancakes are primarily a main course dinner, and I was rather surprised to learn that Americans consider them breakfast. It would be rather strange to put pancake into Category:en:Breakfasts but to put its Dutch translation pannenkoek in Category:nl:Dinners instead. —CodeCat 22:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
If something is commonly eaten as a both a breakfast and a dinner dish (sausage is a good example), it should be categorized in both the breakfast and dinner categories. The two categories needn't be mutually exclusive. Purplebackpack89 23:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't solve the real problem though. Wiktionary categories should be culturally agnostic, so these categories would end up with foods that make no sense to many users. Putting worst in Category:nl:Breakfasts would not reflect the practices of Dutch people for example. More crucially though, it's possible to eat any kind of food at any time, for any meal. So what criterium is there for filling these categories? Is it about being commonly eaten as a certain meal? If so, in what part of the world? What if it's common only in one part of the world? —CodeCat 23:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Neatly enough, I saw a video on "what the world eats for breakfast" just yesterday, though I'm sceptical of its accuracy. I don't think there's anything wrong with categorising on a case-by-case, culture-by-culture (term-in-one-language vs term-in-another-language) basis, such that pancake is in Category:en:Breakfast foods while pannenkoek is not in Category:nl:Breakfast foods.
You make a good point that we don't have Category:Breakfasts, Category:Lunches or Category:Dinners (yet). On the other hand, I suspect we should have Category:Breakfast foods to go along with Category:Desserts, as the foods that belong to those categories do seem to retain their identities as "breakfast foods" and "desserts" regardless of when they're eaten. For example, [eat/ate/serve/served/have/had] "breakfast for dinner" gets a lot of hits at Google Books, and I found a lot of restaurants in the US (including IHOP) that served "breakfast all day" to people who had eaten one or more meals already. And "eat dessert before dinner" gets a lot of hits.
In contrast, "lunch" and "dinner" foods seem not to retain their identities if they are not eaten at lunchtime or dinnertime: "eat dinner before lunch" gets no hits, and the hits "lunch for dinner" gets are spurious (e.g. "serves buffet breakfast and lunch; for dinner there is..."). Also, "various breakfast foods" and "various desserts" get many Google Books hits, while "various lunch foods" and "various dinner foods" get only one hit each.
- -sche (discuss) 02:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Probably because many places serve or eat the same foods for lunch and dinner. Purplebackpack89 03:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, probably. (If the video is to be believed, India, Mexico, Vietnam and a few other countries seem to eat the same foods for all three meals.) - -sche (discuss) 19:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, and keep Ice cream, cake, and pie as subcategories of Dessert: per sche, and because cake, ice cream and pie are generally referred to that way. Purplebackpack89 22:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@CodeCat: That line of reasoning could challenge many of our topical categories, eventually making Wiktionary less interesting and useful to folks who are, after all, often only interested in one culture, or at best the few cultures that coexist near where they live. DCDuring TALK 00:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
And maybe we should indeed challenge them. The topical category tree is quite a mess and I think some others have expressed similar views, although I don't remember who. It came up not too long ago when I brought up the names categories for discussion, I think. —CodeCat 00:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Huh. I don't believe that steak is ever a "dessert", even if it's eaten last. I don't care much about the topical categories either way, though. Equinox 18:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@Equinox: This is slightly off-topic, but Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com have a second definition of "dessert", labelled "British", namely "fresh fruit served after a main course" (per Dictionary.com) / "fresh fruit served after a sweet course" (per MW). Can you say if either of those is actually a sense that "dessert" has in Britain, that our entry should cover? - -sche (discuss) 19:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
"Fresh fruits served after the main course" is inherently included in the main sense of the word and is most certainly not unique to Britain. --WikiTiki89 20:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, our "sweet confection" sense is really inadequate, since you could have e.g. grapes for dessert (in a way that you couldn't have a beef steak for dessert). I suppose they are trying to distinguish between dessert-as-recipe (e.g. chocolate cake) and dessert-as-course (just something you bring out to the table, like fruit, or a box of chocolates). Chambers' double entry is similar: "a final course of a meal, pudding or other sweet item; fruit, sweetmeats, etc served at the end of a meal". Equinox 20:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
It is common to joke about having steak as a dessert: What was the main course? Steak. What did you have for dessert? More steak. --WikiTiki89 20:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. I find the rationale for deletion unconvincing. Not every food item can be considered a dessert. Furthermore, Category:en:Desserts has 72 items, so its granularity seems ok. Moreover, for reasons not entirely clear to me, I find google:"dessert recipes" and Google image search for dessert interesting; the former suggests that those who classify food recipes find the category of "dessert" worthwhile; if they do, so can the English Wiktionary. Finally, I do not think the requirement that categories be culturally agnostic (or independent) is unquestionably desirable and practicable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • RFDO kept: no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries[edit]

...and its A-Z subpages. These haven't been updated for years, and don't really hold any useful information: they are just links to past discussions, which could now be found on deleted entries' talk pages. Should we consider deleting these? Equinox 13:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries, Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries/A and the other subpages. Note, however, that many of the discussions linked from there are not found on talk pages; e.g. macrocosmus has empty Talk:macrocosmus; curiously enough, macrocosmus is at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Archives/2007/03 anyway. If this gets deleted, remove a link to it from {{rfv-failed}}. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I see no harm in keeping it until everything from it is moved to talk pages. Though of course it should be eventually deleted. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: The harm is in increasing the entropy of the web site for very little benefit. For instance, {{rfv-failed}} currently links the reader to Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries as if this page were of any import. Having very old discussions on talk pages is inessential since they can be found in RFV and RFD page histories by looking by the date of deletion. In case of doubt, a deleted page can be restored and sent to RFD anew. Originally, I hesitated to support, but I now see immediate deletion as the best course of action. I do not think it worthwhile to wait until someone spends their resources (time, attention) to ensure that all discussions linked from Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries are copied to talk pages. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
This seems a lot like deleting the record of judicial decisions. In a common-law country such decisions certainly reflect efforts to interpret and apply laws and principles to situations not contemplated when the principles and laws are articulated and passed. Our decision-making is similar. Erasing convenient history seems to me to be a mistake, making investigation of our decision-making limited to those who can manipulate the edit history in XML dumps. I am aware of no such efforts. As it is, there is no effort to record speedy deletions and no ready means of accessing whatever record the wiki software retains.
More desirable would be a more systematic record of ALL deleted terms, at least via the RfD process, and a link to the current location of the discussion. Even better would be to make sure that there was a copy of the discussion in the talk page corresponding to the entry or definition deleted.
Accordingly, Keep until a more effective means of accessing such decisions and their rationale is implemented. DCDuring TALK 15:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand much of what you are saying. A systematic list of all terms deleted via RFD and archived using the method currently in place (placing dicussions on talk pages) can be found by looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:rfd-failed (2536 pages per AWB) and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:rfd-passed (1892 pages per AWB); ditto for RFV. This gives you an extensive history of discussions of past deletions. They are searchable using Goggle; Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries/A does not give you the text of the discussion, so it does not help searchability. As for terms deleted and not so archived, one only has to take the year and the month of the deletion, and then search in history, using the online wiki functions, no dump processing. Moreover, multiple of these links in Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries/A are broken anyway; e.g. for "adipoli" or Ábraham (never deleted). --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC) I have striken my comment that is worthless. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
At best the coverage of 'what links here' pages covers only a period for which the templates have been applied. It is likely to fall short of complete coverage even during that period due to imperfect implementation. It would not be a surprise to me if someone decided to replace these templates or change or dispense with the archiving process, further fragmenting our readily accessible historical record. I'd favor someone mining these pages to more appropriately archive the discussions of the included deleted items before the pages are deleted. If someone can do so more effectively by instead mining the XML edit history, they should do so.
I suppose it is possible, even likely, that we won't ever have the resources to actually be systematic about much of anything, let alone making sense of our actual practice in deciding to keep or delete entries and definitions. Making some of the history less available doesn't really matter if such history isn't going to be looked at. I have some hope that we will have the resources to do so and would like to preserve anything that might help. DCDuring TALK 17:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:be-adj1, Template:be-adj2, Template:be-adj3, Template:be-adj4, Template:be-adj5[edit]

In favor of the easier-to-use {{be-adj-table}}{{be-decl-adj}}, to which the above essentially redirect. --WikiTiki89 15:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The new template is kind of misnamed though. Generally, the templates named -table are the ones that contain the table, to which other templates supply the information to fill it in. It does not normally contain any grammar logic. —CodeCat 16:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
That's an arbitrary rule though, it makes sense both ways, but happens to go against your personal naming convention. The reason for my naming scheme is that I named them the same way I named the Russian noun template, and when I named the Russian noun template, Template:ru-decl-noun already existed, containing tables, so the first thing I thought of for the automatic declension table was Template:ru-noun-table. Then I named the Russian adjective template the same way, and now I used the same scheme for Ukrainian and Belarusian. --WikiTiki89 16:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
It's arbitrary and it did start off as my own personal convention, but I do think it's still sensible to follow it. And it's better to give the template the right name before it becomes widely used. —CodeCat 17:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Who else has followed your convention? I honestly don't mind switching them (it is arbitrary, after all) as long as the Russian templates are switched as well, but the Russian ones are widely used. --WikiTiki89 17:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought we had a module for Russian already? We probably don't need the template anymore then. And I don't know who else followed the convention, that would be up to those who followed it to say? —CodeCat 17:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Searching for "Template:table" gives templates I created, but also quite a few created by others from what I can see. —CodeCat 17:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that module is accessed through Template:ru-noun-table. The old template Template:ru-decl-noun, which is the backup table for irregular nouns, is still very widely used. And can you link to an example or two of a "-table" template that you did not create? --WikiTiki89 18:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
No wonder I'm confused. We have two or three entirely separate methods for making Russian inflection tables. I thought that when the module was created, the existing templates were changed to use it. But that wasn't done for some reason and an entirely new parallel template was created. We should probably try to sort that out by deleting what we no longer need, and merging/renaming what we want to keep.
A list of the templates named -table that I did not name, but do work in the way I described: {{osx-decl-noun-table}}, {{is-conj-table}}, {{fr-conj-table}}, {{enm-conj-table}}, {{uk-conj-table}}, {{ca-conj-table}}, {{be-conj-table}}, {{lv-conj-table}}, {{hit-conj-table}}, {{el-decl-adj-table}}, {{lv-decl-noun-table}}, {{cel-gau-decl-noun-table}}, {{ka-conj-table-transitive}}, {{el-conj-table}} {{el-conj-table-passive}}, {{nds-conj-table}}, {{non-conj-table}}, {{nn-verb table}}, {{nn-verb-table}}, {{nb-verb table}}, {{nn-adj table}}, {{nn-adj-table}}, {{nb-adj table}}, {{nb-adj-table}}, {{nn-noun table}}, {{nn-noun-table}}, {{nb-noun-table}}, {{gml-conj-table}}, {{nds-conj-table}}, {{egy-decl-noun-table}}, {{ang-decl-adj-table}}, {{kn-decl-table}}, {{oc-conj-table}}, {{lv-decl-part-table}}, {{ast-conj-table}}, {{sem-decl-noun-table}}. There may be more. —CodeCat 18:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I was going to propose deleting the old non-module templates for Russian right after this, but I thought I might as well get the easy stuff over with first. --WikiTiki89 18:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree. —CodeCat 18:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Done swapping the templates (very convoluted work). Now I'll do the Ukrainian ones. --WikiTiki89 19:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Done swapping the Ukrainian ones as well. @CodeCat: do you plan on voting on these now? --WikiTiki89 20:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I supported the proposal from the start. I guess I forgot to say so... —CodeCat 20:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:uk-adj1, Template:uk-adj2, Template:uk-adj3[edit]

In favor of the easier-to-use {{uk-adj-table}}{{uk-decl-adj}}, to which the above essentially redirect. --WikiTiki89 15:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

SupportCodeCat 20:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Category:Authors and subcategories[edit]

Since we don't allow entries for people, this category won't have any entries in any language. Instead, it has ended up as the parent category for three categories about specific authors. But those categories are quite ill-defined. What is Category:William Shakespeare meant to contain? Words related to the author? Names of his works? Names occurring in his works? Words he invented? Words derived from any of these? I don't think a category simply for anything related to some person is dictionary-worthy. I mean, paper is related to Shakespeare, because he wrote on it, and book is related to Tolkien, because he published it. If someone were to create Category:Albert Einstein, would we then put gravity in it, since that's what he studied? —CodeCat 00:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Currently, names of his works. Which makes sense, to a degree, but if we're going to keep it I suggest it be renamed to "William Shakespeare's works" or somesuch. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 02:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep. The purpose of these three categories is to create central places in which terms related to these authors and their works can be collected as part of the topical categorization system. Category:J. R. R. Tolkien is meant to slot into Category:British fiction and Category:Fantasy along with Category:Harry Potter, allowing readers to easily find terms related to Tolkien, his works, and the fandom thereof. The descriptions of the three categories currently explain what they're intended to contain, but if these descriptions are not sufficiently clear, they could always be modified.
I find it troubling that CodeCat isn't proposing any alternatives, such as renaming Category:Lewis Carroll to Category:Alice in Wonderland, or Category:J. R. R. Tolkien to Category:Tolkien legendarium. I think the current titles are preferable, as they are broad enough to allow for the inclusion of terms like Carrollian and Tolkienite, which are related to the authors, rather than to specific works by them. But changing the titles of the categories to the names of works would resolve CodeCat's concerns about having categories named after people. Wiktionary is a collaborative project, and compromise solutions are preferrable whenever feasible.
I don't think having categories named after specific authors is the same as having dictionary entries for them. Shakespeare, Carroll, and Tolkien have all helped shape language. The categories are meant to serve as jumping-off points for anyone interested in their individual linguistic contributions.
It's also worth pointing out that Category:Authors can be used to house general terms for authors like ghostwriter, biographer, etc. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: You can fill categories about people with words they invented. For example, truthiness and any other of Colbert's WØrds could go into Category:Stephen Colbert. It's also probably a mistake to take the hard line we have about no people entries; every paper dictionary I own has a smattering of biographical entries. We should at a bare minimum have any person who is etymologically significant. Purplebackpack89 05:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
If we do keep this stuff, can we please put a prominent note at the top of the category index pages, stating that it is not a free pass to add any character or made-up item from their books? Otherwise we will keep getting people who "helpfully" start filling a category with Harry Potter potions and so on. Equinox 06:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: These are major authors who, as Cloudcuckoolander points out, have had wide and varied influence on English literature and vocabulary. And because their influence is wide and varied, it's difficult or impossible to draw up a specific and detailed description of what the category should contain. But I agree with Equinox that we need to put some explicit guidelines at the top.
    Suggested kinds of content, whether subcategories or not (these are just the ones I can think of at the moment; I'm sure there are more possibilities):
    • Certainly the titles of their works should be included, if they have entries.
    • Words that the authors coined: e.g.,
    • Words that they did not coin but whose use they significantly influenced:
    • Senses that they originated:
    • Words derived from their names: Shakespearian, Carrollian, Tolkienian
User:CodeCat raises the question, "If someone were to create Category:Albert Einstein, would we then put gravity in it, since that's what he studied?" No, we wouldn't, because Einstein's studies of gravity didn't have a significant effect on the use or meaning of the word gravity, and this is a dictionary.
Thnidu (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Why would we lump all of those things together into one rather vague category? We already have Category:English terms derived from The Simpsons and Category:English terms derived from Nineteen Eighty-Four and such, so why not extend that principle and create a variety of other categories? —CodeCat 17:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Because there's an etymological categorization system and a topical categorization system. We've got the topical Category:Harry Potter and the etymological Category:English terms derived from Harry Potter. Some words fit into both categories, but there's others that don't, since they were coined by the Harry Potter fandom (e.g. Drarry, Snapefic, wizard rock) rather than drawn directly from the Harry Potter books (e.g. Quidditch or Muggle). Thus, it would be inaccurate to place such terms in Category:English terms derived from Harry Potter, but there's still value in gathering them within the framework of the topical categorization system. That said, I do think we should create a etymological categories for Tolkien, Carroll, etc. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 10:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • RFDO kept: no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ladino headword-line templates[edit]

Unneeded, all information has been already moved to Category:Ladino numerals; moreover, it has only one subcategory. JSBrowand13 (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Moved from RfD. bd2412 T 18:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
To be honest I can't even guess what it is your trying to nominate for deletion. From the title it would be Category:Ladino headword-line templates but that doesn't fit your description. Not even close. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Struck as moot. Keφr 20:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:zh:Variant pronunciations[edit]

Category:cmn:Variant pronunciations[edit]

Category:zh-cn:Variant Pronunciations[edit]

Category:zh-tw:Variant Pronunciations[edit]

Category:Mandarin variant pronunciations[edit]

It's not at all clear what these categories actually contain. Terms, in themselves, are not variant pronunciations, so this needs to be clarified if they are to be kept. Also, these are not topical categories so they should not be named as such. —CodeCat 22:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I would just delete the fuck out of them. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Unicode:Hindu-Arabic script[edit]

Template:Unicode:Katakana script[edit]

These are used on only one appendix page. Can they be substituted and then deleted? —CodeCat 01:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:English words prefixed with Palestino-[edit]

I mean, really? Is this productive at all? Highly doubt it. {{affix|en|Palestine|-o-}} would work better for these three words. Keφr 14:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Palestino- is used as a nationality prefix like Sino-, Italo-, etc. Words formed using these types of prefixes have been deleted in the past so I don’t know if a category for them can be expected to have entries. I agree that its current contents correspond to Palestine + -o-. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the pronunciation is the same as just Palestine + -o-, is it? —CodeCat 16:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Palestine: /-aɪn/. Palestino-: /-iːn-/. --WikiTiki89 22:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Then these must be separate terms, as there's no regular rule in English that would account for the change in pronunciation. —CodeCat 22:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Is Palestino- pronounced /-iːn-/, though? It seems counter-intuitive that it would be, at least to me, given that Sino- is /-aɪn-/. - -sche (discuss) 02:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I would want to pronounce it /-iːn-/, but I've never heard it. Does anyone have any YouTubes with this? DCDuring TALK 04:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The difference in pronunciation seems quite natural to me: the "in" in Sino- is the only syllable in the affix aside from the connecting vowel, the "in" in Palestino- has two syllables in front of it. Look at the pronunciation of Palestine vs. Palestinian. There may also be some influence from foreign borrowings such as Filipino. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:process header[edit]

Almost unused, and only on very rarely visited pages. Do we need it? Keφr 17:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

How would its function be replaced? DCDuring TALK 15:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
…which is…? I find this template completely useless. Keφr 16:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
It would help if you would say why you wanted to delete something that is in use outside of User space. Clearly it is not useless: It is used to format some pages that are not in user space. How would you want to format those pages? Why bother deleting it? Do you really want to delete those pages? Does the template clutter up some cleanup list? DCDuring TALK 16:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Move the content of |notes= outside the template, convert |shortcut=... into {{shortcut|...}} and remove the rest of it. I see no value in this completely illogical navigation this template provides. Cleanup lists? Well, some of these pages show up on Category:Shortcut boxes needing attention. Which gave me the idea of cleaning up project namespace pages: deleting some or marking as inactive. But whatever. Keφr 17:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
It's been around for more than eight years. It has a format not really consistent with other generally similar pages, though that may have been the intent. I guess it won't be missed.
There is something curiously satisfying about working on reducing lists: redlinks, cleanups or whatever. It's probably most important to be working on the right set of lists. DCDuring TALK 18:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep; no defect of the template reported; no replacement offerred. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • RFDO kept: no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:English phrasal verbs with particle (rid)[edit]

Whether or not we call get rid of/be rid of phrasal verbs, I don't see that rid is a w:Grammatical particle in the same way as down might be so considered in write down or sit down. Accordingly, I think the category should be removed. DCDuring TALK 00:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Quercus Hypernyms/documentation[edit]

Orphaned, not the standard approach of having such templates only for taxonomic families and orders. DCDuring TALK 01:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]


Was never very popular, and {{unsigned|2=date|username}} does its job just as well. Incidentally, while orphaning this template, I encountered quite a few instances of {{unsigned2|2=username|date}} which defeats the whole purpose of this template. Keφr 06:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I've always used {{unsigned2}}; if it doesn't look like it's used much, it's because I (and perhaps others who use it) always subst: it in. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I do it the 2= way because of the order they appear in when copying and pasting from page histories. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:context test[edit]

Template:context doc[edit]

Template:context labelcat[edit]

Template:context helper[edit]

Not used any more. Also, now that {{term-context}} has been switched to Module:labels, Module:labels2 and Module:labels2/data can go too. Keφr 13:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep: Too much merging and migrating going on without any discussion. Purplebackpack89 14:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
    • As long as it's migrating and not modifying, so what? All that's being changed here is the way of getting the information into the pages, not the content that ends up in the page. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Because whenever you migrate something, you confuse the heck out of a lot of people. Purplebackpack89 17:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, no reason to keep. —CodeCat 14:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nom. These templates are not designed for use by and do not seem to be used by the general readership; it seems that the only people who ever used them are people who are technically adept and involved enough that they already know the templates have been deprecated and orphaned. And thank you, Kephir, for fixing up {{term-context}}! :) I hope it proves useful to people. I've been busy IRL and so haven't used it much. - -sche (discuss) 02:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete based on belief, trusting Kephir, that deletion will have no user impact. DCDuring TALK 04:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. Keφr 23:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:US and Template:UK (restoration request)[edit]

These have twice been deleted by User:Kephir, both times without discussion. I think that this deletion was a mistake, particularly twice without any discussion at all. I think that there are uses enough for (US) and (UK) in contexts where you wouldn't use Template:Label to justify this being kept. It's also a template that uses less characters; and a template that makes more sense to the layman. There's no need IMO to have these merged into the label. At worst, a redirect shoulda been left behind. Purplebackpack89 14:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a context where you would use (US) or (UK) and not use {{label}}? — Ungoliant (falai) 14:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Whenever you use those outside of a definition. Label is for definitions. Purplebackpack89 16:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Would you have these templates add the entry to Category:American English/Category:British English? — Ungoliant (falai) 16:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Didn’t think this through, did you? Keep deleted. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Here's an idea, Ungoliant...stop making baseless assumptions about how much thought I put into this. I believe that this is useful because it does the same thing as context, us with only six characters. Merging everything into {{context}} means a lot of things take considerably more characters to get it done. Purplebackpack89 19:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
You said that these templates can be used in definitions and outside definitions, which is impossible since the templates used in definition need to add categories while those used outside definitions need not to add the categories. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
However all other context labels now need {{context}}, and outside of definitions we use {{qualifier}}. I disagree that this is however without discussion; it was discussed months ago and the consensus was to always require {{context}}. I disagreed but I didn't feel strongly enough about it to start a vote on the matter, so I'm not going to dig it up again a couple of months later. Keep deleted; if we are going to restore this, the discussion should be about all context labels used as qualifiers (which this discussion is). Renard Migrant (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Things that need to be labeled US or UK can be so tagged with {{context}}, {{label}}, {{qualifier}}, or {{a}} (though the last one should be avoided since neither US nor UK is actually an accent). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    Why use an 11-character template when you can use a six-character one? Purplebackpack89 19:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
It does complicate things if the next person wants to add another context. In general, though, a single template is easier to maintain/keep in synch than multiple ones (to a point- we don't want Template:everything, with 37 different parameters that do the same thing as 37 different templates). Chuck Entz (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, Template:Context has become a Template:Everything. Context is fine for multiple contexts, but I think people should have the option of a solitary template for a single context. Purplebackpack89 23:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thread:User talk:Kephir/"Please use the sandbox"[edit]

Thread:User talk:Kephir/Deletion of Template:US and Template:UK[edit]

Requesting undeletion because reasons given for speedy deletion were inappropriate (they only apply to entries) and disruptive. The reason given for deletion of the first one was "No usable content given" and of the second, "Incomprehensible, meaningless or empty: please use the Sandbox". Neither are appropriate reasons for deleting a talk thread, and also claim the thread were test edits when they weren't. In fact, the user should be de-sysoped for his continual deletion of pages for the wrong reasons. Purplebackpack89 19:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


Why do we have this? There are no other "inflected forms" than the ones simply stated in the head templates now are there? This template just gives the "more" and "most" at the beginning of the word. It'd be like if we gave a huge inflection template for English nouns when all they have is one singular and one plural form. Couldn't we include these in an Appendix entry, since this should be sort of self-explanatory in one article in my opinion? I mean there are a lot of different uses for this, it seems, but they should all be listed in one appendix article IMO.Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 04:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the superlatives are of use. I'm not so sure about the comparatives in the form 'mais x', I mean, we do list these for English ({{en-adj}}) but not for any other language I can name, and no Romance languages. Also I hate the format I think it's hard to read and should be in a full length table with masses of blank space on either side. I could live with a reformat but ultimately this is a Portuguese issue and I think the Portuguese editors should decide what to do with it. But I'd be unhappy with the format saying as it is if it's kept. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
For Slovene we also list "more"-type comparatives.
In any case, I think I'm actually inclined to say keep but reformat. Not because the table is so useful in the current setup with forms also in the headword line. But because I think it may not be a bad idea to start moving away from stuffing inflections into headword lines, and using inflection tables more. It would aid in clarity as we can use two dimensions and more space. —CodeCat 14:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Keep. There are synthetic superlatives, diminutives and augmentatives. A few adjectives (only 4, if I remember correctly) have superlatives and comparatives proper. They aren’t used very often, so this template doesn’t have to be used in all entries, but they need to be listed when they do occur.
BTW, a reformatting was discussed in WT:T:APT but no one got around to doing it. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
My personal question is, why should we keep something like this? Mais is a word in itself? In my opinion, it's useless to keep repeating this over and over in entries. In my opinion, we should say "comparable" or "not comparable" and leave it at that, and/or make a link to an Appendix articles explaining the mais stuff, which is generally used in most Portuguese adjectives it seems. I already don't agree with the en-adj template saying "more _____" and "most ______", since that can also be explained somewhere and is just a waste of space. But using this entire inflection template is just overboard, and I do not think that is necessary for sure. So my question is, why is keeping this template with the mais and stuff like that better than linking to an appendix entry that already explains the system? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 19:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Again, some adjectives have more forms than the analytic “mais X” and “o mais X”. For example, the word feio has 20 inflected forms in addition to those already present in the headword line: feiíssimo, feiíssima, feiíssimos, feiíssimas, feíssimo, feíssima, feíssimos, feíssimas, feínho, feínha, feínhos, feínhas, feiozinho, feiazinha, feiozinhos, feiazinhas, feião, feiona, feiões, feionas.
Even if the masculine singulars were listed, the HWL would have 9 items, which is too many IMO.
I agree that listing the analytic forms isn’t very useful. The template needs restructuring but it’s not completely useless. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]


All uses have been migrated to the more general {{pl-decl-noun-masc-pers-a}}. --Tweenk (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Questions about entries[edit]


What is this for? Keφr 22:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Too bad User:Mglovesfun hasn't been around lately. Perhaps you could e-mail him. DCDuring TALK 22:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
He's still around, he just goes by the name Renard Migrant nowadays. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
What?! Sockpuppetry?! Are you sure he wanted to be outed? DCDuring TALK 23:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not sockpuppetry because he's not using both accounts simultaneously to appear to be two people. And he outed himself, otherwise I wouldn't have known since I'm not a checkuser. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmmmm. DCDuring TALK 01:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
For some reason I missed that post. But it was not that difficult to discover on your own, he never really got out of his way to hide it. Do you know an interesting anagram of "Renard Migrant"? Keφr 08:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
RM's knowledge-about/participation-in Wiktionary forums was enough to raise suspicion. The timing of commencement of editing and the edit pattern (languages, etc) were conclusive. I had been trying to bait an explicit self-outing, but missed them until the recent claim/admission of authorship of a vote concerning inflected forms. DCDuring TALK 13:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Seriously guys, how obvious could it be? I'm working my way though User:Mglovesfun/to do/Middle French for crying out loud. Um I seem to think the idea was an alternative to [[:Category:<langname> entries needing attention]] for reader's questions. I didn't come up with the idea, it existed for Mandarin first via the template {{cmn-question}}. I have no attachment to these; I suppose Wiktionary:Information desk is a better venue. Though I don't feel strongly enough about it to say 'delete'. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
My uncertainty fell short of needing to check your user contributions. Incidental information alone sufficed. In any event it was fun to try to bait you a bit in the course of discussions. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


Has never caught on, apparently. (I believe it was introduced in Wiktionary:Grease pit/2007/April#Interim stop-gap measure.) Keφr 00:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)