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


April 2013[edit]




From the code, I don't see any advantage in using these templates instead of the general {{compound}}, {{prefix}} and {{suffix}}. They do the same thing, with only the difference that they are coded specifically for Hungarian. —CodeCat 17:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete all three. — Ungoliant (Falai) 20:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The {{hu-prefix}} and {{hu-suffix}} templates are used in the etymology section, not in the headword section. Please do not delete them. It is unfortunate that hu-compound was deleted without consulting any Hungarian editor. There was a reason it was created. The Hungarian language has lots of compound words and they have different grammatical types. The template was eventually supposed to show the type of the compound word. This is no longer possible. --Panda10 (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

How is that unique to Hungarian? English compounds have different grammatical types (noun, verb, adverb, adjective, etc.) Mglovesfun (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
What I meant was the classification of the compound structure, not its PoS. "A compound can be subordinative: the prefix is in logical connection with the suffix. If the prefix is the subject of the suffix, the compound is generally classified as a subjective one. There are objective, determinative, and adjunctive compounds as well." Wikipedia: Hungarian language - Compounds. --Panda10 (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
re "the template was eventually supposed to show the type of the compound word": in fairness, it existed for four and a half years without anyone adding that functionality, or even mentioning on the talk or documentation pages that adding it was a goal. But if and when such a functionality is added, the format of the templates is (as noted above) otherwise identical, so it's simple enough to bot-switch {{compound|foo|bar|lang=hu}} back to {{hu-compound|foo|bar}}. - -sche (discuss) 08:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

June 2013[edit]



I've never understood why these exist, they contain precisely ''plural'' and ''singular'', so they save precisely zero keystrokes, with no added functionality. Most of the transclusions are via inflection templates (like for Latin) where they can be simply subst:ed with no drawbacks. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, delete them. But they also have some transclusions through {{context}}, and we can't get rid of those currently. —CodeCat 20:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Could change them to {{context|in the plural}} though. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
MewBot is currently occupied, so could you do that? —CodeCat 20:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Done, though there are some legitimate uses of singular and plural in context labels that remain, but aren't harmful. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

There are {{in the plural}} and {{plural only}}Michael Z. 2013-06-21 19:09 z

The way {{plural}} is currently used (like this), it is unnecessary and undesirable. I am cleaning up ~40 such uses now. - -sche (discuss) 04:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


I'm not sure why we have one template that shows a notice ({{rfdef}}) and one that doesn't. I think it's much more preferable to always show a notice. Compare rfdef with defn. —CodeCat 17:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

One good reason might be to keep the various request categories from being cluttered, as there is no particular other way to prioritize. It would be better if we had a system for collected "likes" for requests and sorted by the number of likes. DCDuring TALK 19:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
That might work if the typical use case was "person looks for some entries to fix". But the reality is more likely "person happens to visit entry, notices request to fix it". Because of that, I don't think adding a notice will have any negative effect whatsoever. And there is concrete evidence that adding notices in other cases has had a positive effect. For example, it has cause many more Dutch entries to have their genders/plurals fixed, compared to when those notices were not there. So they really do work. It's really just psychology: it is well known that humans are bad at noticing the absence of something, whereas the presence of something is more easily noticed, and something unexpected or unusual is noticed especially fast. —CodeCat 19:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I've wondered this myself. I agree that a notice should always be displayed. I support merging (redirecting) defn into rfdef. - -sche (discuss) 21:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I oppose the merger. The only noticeable effect will be to make Chinese character entries painfully messy and harder to use. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Not sure it's even possible to make Chinese character entries painfully messy and harder to use. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Hira, Template:Kana[edit]

These codes are little used (less than 1000 transclusions each), and don't really have a very clearly defined use within Wiktionary anyway. The code used for Japanese is {{Jpan}}, which already encompasses Hiragana and Katakana alongside Kanji (ISO 15924 says: Jpan = Hani + Hira + Kana). So these codes aren't actually needed to provide any kind of formatting support, and they're already aliases of Jpan in the CSS. "Hira" is not set in Module:languages as the script of any language, but "Kana" is used by three languages: Ainu, Miyako, Yonaguni. —CodeCat 22:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Deleted by User:CodeCat on April 11 due to migration to Module:scripts. I declare this discussion moot. The question of retaining the script codes themselves can be raised at WT:BP. Keφr 12:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


The code used for Korean on Wiktionary is {{Kore}}. ISO 15924 says that Kore = Hang + Hani, so it's kind of the same as above. It's already identical in the CSS. This code is used a little more than the kana codes, though still not nearly as much as "Kore". No language in Module:languages uses this code as its script. —CodeCat 22:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I dunno really, as long as Kore can handle both Hani script entries and Hang script entries correctly, then by all means delete. I'd like to hear some more comments first though. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)


Unused template that's more problematic than the problem it's supposedly trying to solve (inserting an ampersand character). - dcljr (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Much easier to use &. — Ungoliant (Falai) 16:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I'll be damned if I know what the purpose of this is, or was, ever! Mglovesfun (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
& is probably clearer still. Delete. —CodeCat 17:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Keep, so long as it's still being used by WT:ACCEL. --Yair rand (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Nobody's going to delete it as long as it's still in use. I don't understand why that is a reason to want to keep it, though. You think this template is good and useful merely because it's used in WT:ACCEL? —CodeCat 19:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I coulda sworn I'd searched for "⅋" in User:Conrad.Irwin/creation.js and not found it (oh, nevermind: I had searched on the talk page), but there it is:

function clean_variable (va) {
    return va.replace (/([\\~])/g,"\\$1").replace(/&/g,'{'+'{subst:⅋}}').replace(/#/,'{'+'{subst:♯}}'); //Yucky HACK

So the question is... why? (That is, why is it there?)
In light of this, I guess the same objection can be raised about Template:♯, which is also only used there, AFAIK. (The names of both templates seem to have been deliberately chosen to make them difficult to "accidentally use" outside of that context.) See Wiktionary:Grease_pit/2012/January#Problem with accelerated entries for some related discussion.
My recommendation for both templates: userfy and delete from template namespace. - dcljr
Ha! Reminds me of my former workplace where we had an internal form of regular expression that was extended to accept the upside-down ("Spanish") question mark as some specialised form of what the standard question mark meant. This then broke a lot of scripts that weren't designed to read/write that character reliably. Probably delete or rename to something that isn't such a pain to type. Equinox 17:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Except this was created strictly to be used in scripts, etc., to solve a specific technical problem. No one should be typing this unless they have a very good reason to do so. It may be odd, and rarely-used, but it does no harm, since virtually no one is likely to even know it exists, and it doesn't take up much room on the servers. I say keep. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Meh, userfy... or keep... like Chuck, I don't see the harm in it, and if the script ain't broke, [] - -sche (discuss) 02:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes if it ain't broke... Mglovesfun (talk) 09:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
If these templates were "created strictly to be used in scripts, etc., to solve a specific technical problem" then they shouldn't have been placed in the Template: namespace to begin with. <sarcasm>But, hey, let's not try to fix that now, right?</sarcasm> BTW, could the purpose of User:Conrad.Irwin/creation.js now be fulfilled with a Module:? If so, [] - dcljr (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Since it seems likely (to me) that no admin will actually userfy and delete this template and Template:♯, I've gone ahead and added Template:⅋/documentation and Template:♯/documentation to explain that the templates "should not be used", and removed the category from each template page to "hide" them further from the view of regular users. - dcljr (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

{{look}} User:Conrad.Irwin/creation.js no longer uses this template. Can we delete it now? Keφr 20:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


Adding for the sake of completeness. Keφr 20:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Since both templates are no longer used even in the script for which they were created, I went ahead and deleted them. Let me know if anything breaks. Keφr 16:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Note that the documentation subpages (Template:♯/documentation, Template:⅋/documentation) should be deleted, too. I don't know if Template talk:♯ should stick around for future reference or be deleted. Thanks to User:CodeCat and User:Kephir for following up on this. - dcljr (talk) 06:45, 16 April 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 (ephagon, 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:European French[edit]

This category seems like nonsense if you consider that France alone spans four continents by itself. It's mostly used in baseball terms to contrast with Category:Quebec French and spectacularly manages to completely ignore the French colonies in Africa (Reunion, Mayotte etc.), America (Saint Pierre et Miquelon and a few Caribbean islands) and Oceania (French Polynesia etc.). -- Liliana 23:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

French Wiktionary has this category too, and I'm sure they know quite a bit about their language. Are you contending that there are no French terms that are used primarily in Europe? —CodeCat 23:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Well it does suggest that French speakers living eg. in Reunion don't use these terms because Reunion isn't located in Europe, which I don't think is true. -- Liliana 23:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe the issue is the entries in the category then, and not the category itself. And we could always use it as a holder for different varieties of French in Europe, like we do with Dutch as well. —CodeCat 23:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not really a fan of that kind of categorization because it clutters the regionalism category tree. -- Liliana 23:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Appendix:List of Proto-Indo-European roots[edit]

I submitted this for RFC a few months ago in the hope that someone could improve these pages. The fact that nobody has done so makes me believe that these pages are beyond saving, and that it's not worth the effort to fix them all. This page is redundant to Category:Proto-Indo-European roots, the pages of which give a much better overview of these words. These lists also have no quality control whatsoever, so they are nothing more than long and hard-to-navigate lists of cognates. But probably the most pressing problem is that a substantial number of the "roots" listed are not roots at all but word stems or even fully inflected words. —CodeCat 23:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Keep. Do we have a separate PIE appendix entry containing every root and the corresponding reflex on that list? No. So it is worth keeping until we do because it contains (potentially) valuable information. Besides, I can spot some pretty doubtful roots and nominals inside th Category:Proto-Indo-European roots as well (*sū-, *sap-, *ǵénu-, *perḱ-, *pisḱ- - and that's just from the third column of the category!). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Swan diving in for keep as well. Just because no one's come to fix it doesn't mean it's beyond saving. It's just that there seem to be so few PIE linguists around- if I knew more about what I was doing myself, I'd fix it. I just don't want to risk making a worse mess of it than it already is, although I can give it a go if someone wants me to... also, Ivan brings up a good point about it needing to stay until an index is complete. Polar Night (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to delete this? Seriously ...—This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) at 01:19, 24 September 2013‎.

  • Obvious keep, per Ivan and on general principles. DCDuring TALK 04:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep for now, redirect to the category once every/most form has an entry. This is actually the only Wiktionary page whose link I’ve run into in a non-Wikimedia website, and two anons came out of nowhere to support keeping, so clearly this is a very popular page among our readership. — Ungoliant (Falai) 04:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep: I think it's usable as is and similar resources in print can be expensive (save for Calvert Watkins) -- 04:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

KEEP. I use the links by sound quite often in research. The other appendix list you mention doesn't branch to those pages. If you think the page needs editing more than deleting, then be bold and edit it.

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)

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)


This was originally intended to show text in fonts with wide unicode support, but it dates back to the times before there was proper script code support on Wiktionary. It has now ended up being used as a general "this text contains Latin script with some relatively rare characters" code. But we already have another script code for that: Latinx. So I propose moving any uses of this code to "Latinx", whenever the characters being used indeed just Latin with extended characters. If there are no more uses after that, we can delete this code. —CodeCat 18:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you read peoples' minds? I was thinking the exact same thing. -- Liliana 21:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I remember nominating Latinx for deletion instead a year or so ago, but that didn't go through. I think that the name "Latinx" fits better so now I'm nominating this one. —CodeCat 21:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Anything that reduces our special-purpose code is good. Michael Z. 2013-09-10 02:05 z
Delete. Seems bizarre to have a script template called unicode, aren't all our characters in Unicode anyway? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The idea was that this would specify fonts that include characters representing a large range of Unicode. As far as I can tell, this was only useful for MSIE 6, which won’t fall back to another font to display a character.
Since MediaWiki now has various IE fixes and webfonts built in, I’d be a little surprised if this template still serves any useful function. Has anyone tested en.Wiktionary in MSIE 6 in the last half decade? I can’t wait until that browser will be officially dead on April 8, 2014. Michael Z. 2013-09-10 19:33 z
Sorry, but nope. Windows Server 2003 is still supported until 2015. -- Liliana 19:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Which appears to run MSIE 7 and 8.[1] What indication is there that MS will support MSIE 6 after XP is gone?
More to the point: can anyone confirm that {{Latinx}} or {{unicode}} is required to make any text on this site render correctly, in any browser at all? Michael Z. 2013-09-13 16:08 z
I've now changed all languages that use "unicode" as their script to use "Latinx". It is probably safe to remove the code from Module:scripts/data, but it's possible that some pages specify sc=unicode explicitly, and those will break then. Unfortunately I don't know of any way to find those pages except by allowing them to break and wait for them to show up in Category:Pages with script errors. The template {{unicode}} will need to be orphaned too, but that should be easier because template usage can be tracked down with transclusions. —CodeCat 21:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Deleted by User:CodeCat on 14th of April. The above discussion indicates agreement to retire unicode as a script code, although the code is still present in Module:scripts/data. Keφr 09:50, 15 April 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]



These forms of chatspeak have too few citable terms to justify the need for individual categories. Category:Portuguese internet slang can host any that are citable. — Ungoliant (Falai) 14:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:ja-suru etyl[edit]

This was used, but never widely adopted, before we settled on the current format for する (suru) verbs. For a random example of the current practice, see 鎮圧. Suru verbs are really nouns plus the verb suru ("do"), but only certain nouns can be used with suru. Previously, those verbs were on a separate page and it made sense to have an etymology making the connection explicit. Now they're on the same page, and {{ja-verb-suru}} serves to make the connection clear. It's not used anywhere now. I don't like the wording either. --Haplology (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

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)


(Listing here because CodeCat has already begun bot-orphaning it for deletion. Previous discussion: Wiktionary:Grease pit/2013/September#Template:term/t.)

  • Keep, at least for the next several months. This has been a very widely-used template, and people are likely still using it; it would be folly to eliminate it overnight. (I'll abstain, however, on the question of whether it should be kept permanently.) —RuakhTALK 06:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
    That's OK if people keep using it as a gender template for some time: when we orphaned the template, we will use it as {{term/t}}, and {{term/t}} has several required parameters. On the other hand, when {{m}} is used as a gender template, it would be used without specifying those parameters, so (for now) the module can simply return the old content of {{m}} and add the page to a cleanup category if no parameter is specified. --Z 07:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should have a single {{m}} template with two unrelated purposes. We've done it before when there were excellent reasons (e.g. when we had to migrate from {{see}} to {{also}} because the language code see was assigned), but the reasons in this case do not seem to be so good. —RuakhTALK 07:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Orphan and then delete. I do think that bringing {{term}} in line with {{l}} is a good thing, and we know two things: {{m}} is a short name like {{l}} is, and we can't use {{term}} because the parameters are incompatible. Z is right that there is no danger of confusion. Someone who uses {{m}} as a gender template once the change has been completed will trigger a script error, so they will be notified of the problem and we can easily trace it. The suggestion of making {{m}} dual-purpose would not work, though, because it accepts parameters of its own, {{m|f}} for example. If this were done with the new template, the result would be a script error saying "f" is not a valid language code. —CodeCat 15:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
    Actually we could special-case for that, but I agree that it would not be feasible. Keφr 15:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep, orphaning it so we can use {{m}} for the name of {{term/t}} is madness; can the template {{o}} because it's the next available letter alphabetically after {{l}} that's not already in use as a template name. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
That's actually not the only reason to do it. But it's a reason to do it now rather than later. The truth is we don't need these templates anyway. Look at the code inside {{m}}, {{f}} etc and you'll see what I mean. They're all identical. —CodeCat 16:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete, as well as any other stupid one-letter-name template. {{g}} should be named {{gender}} to force editors to specify gender sparingly on its own, and instead only within proper templates with support for positional or named (g=) parameter for genders. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually that's quite a good point. Though not a reason I don't think to make the name of the template longer. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Orphan and delete. --Vahag (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep until people demonstrably have quit using it.​—msh210 (talk) 08:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Honestly, I think this deletion debate is a bit premature. We haven't even made a serious dent in all the transclusions yet, and existing transclusions are most likely part of what is keeping people using it (they see it used, so they keep using it). So I think we can only really judge how many people still use this after it has been orphaned. —CodeCat 16:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't follow. Your stated reason for orphaning this template was that you want to delete it; so the RFDO discussion should come first, to determine whether that deletion is desired. I get the impression that you'd want to orphan the template even if we weren't going to delete it, so an alternative approach would be to start a BP discussion about orphaning it; I just figured it was simpler to combine the two discussions at RFDO. (That's a common practice, both for templates and for categories.) If you'd like to start a BP discussion, please be my guest. —RuakhTALK 20:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Changed my mind based on what Ivan Stambuk said; delete as then editors will not be so quick to user genders outside of templates that support them. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I think there are four deletes and two keeps, both of which say that it should be deleted only if nobody uses it anymore. I think that's enough of a reason to at least try to orphan the template, which in turn would affect how many people use it (they use it when they see it used elsewhere). —CodeCat 20:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. But first deprecate, then finish orphaning, then wait another month or so before deleting. --WikiTiki89 20:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete (as a gender template). Has been orphaned for some time now. - -sche (discuss) 18:16, 8 April 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]

Appendix:Roger Rabbit[edit]

More Piles Of Crap. Also nominating Appendix:When They Cry, Appendix:The Mask, Appendix:The Fairly OddParents and basically everything in Category:Appendices of works of fiction that looks like a Big Pile Of Crap Created By Daniel Carrero (BPOCCBDC). --ElisaVan (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete the four appendices that you have named. (And probably the others, but I haven't looked.) Equinox 20:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Toontown seems like something that might used without specific reference to WFRR, but that's about it. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Delete all. Wiktionary's job is not to house all information, no matter how irrelevant. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Delete the four pages you name, and Appendix:Avatar: The Last Airbender, and Appendix:Bludgeoning Angel Dokuro-Chan, and indeed everything else in the category you name except Appendix:A Clockwork Orange and Appendix:Harry Potter and its subpages. - -sche (discuss) 17:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Delete Appendix:Roger Rabbit, Appendix:When They Cry, Appendix:The Mask, Appendix:The Fairly OddParents, Appendix:Avatar: The Last Airbender, Appendix:Bludgeoning Angel Dokuro-Chan, Appendix:The Mask, Appendix:The Life and Times of Juniper Lee, Appendix:SpongeBob SquarePants, Appendix:Serial Experiments Lain; keep Appendix:A Clockwork Orange. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Please delete them. Sorry for the trouble. --Daniel 11:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted most of them today. Equinox 12:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)


Tagged but not listed. No transclusions, perhaps replaced by updates to {{yi-conj}}? Also I object to the title yi-conj-d as Yiddish does not use the Latin letter d. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It has been replaced because it has been deemed regular (google books:"ער רעדט" gets way more hits than google books:"ער רעט", meaning the irregular spelling is much less common, to the point that it could be considered an error). Anyway, the reason I used Latin letters in the template names is because I think it is wrong to use non-ASCII characters in the name of a template. But, if you want to move all such instances to the equivalent of {{yi-conj-ד}} and have {{yi-conj-d}} be a redirect, I would not object. --WikiTiki89 15:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Terms with alpha privatives[edit]

I think Category:English terms with alpha privatives‎ could be merged upward into this, but I'm unsure about what the new title should be. The single category could be titled Category:English terms with alpha privatives‎ or Category:Terms with alpha privatives, or if it can be demonstrated that other privatives exist in languages other than English, we could move it to Category:Terms with alpha privatives by language per this precedent. The deletion would not seem to have a very large effect on its parent categories Category:English appendices and Category:Etymology. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

We should use Category:English terms with alpha privatives and Category:Terms with alpha privatives by language. The former is really just a large subset of Category:English words prefixed with a-, so maybe we should put it there instead. —CodeCat 20:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Derived terms[edit]

Same reasons. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


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


Deprecated in favor of our more standard usage of {{ja-romaji}} and {{ja-romanization of}}. On the issue of romanization, I brought up Wiktionary:Transliteration and romanization and Haplology brought up Wiktionary:About Japanese/Transliteration, and I believe that as with words we cannot control language and should go with the most commonly used words and therefore the most commonly used romanization system, which is in this case the Hepburn Romanization. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete a thousand times over. This template was never widely used and was abandoned before I joined this wiki. Using other romanizations was brought up Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2013/May#Japanese_Romanization and roundly rejected. I don't see much value in including obsolete and misleading romanization styles, and in fact when I see し romanized as "si" instead of "shi" or ち romanized as "ti" instead of "chi" it makes my blood pressure rise. I absolutely abhor it. It's ugly, nasty, and bad, and all it does is confuse beginners. On seeing si, one might assume that it is homophonous with English "see", but no. Every departure from our version of Hepburn romanization is like that. It subtracts from the sum total of human knowledge. Yet if anyone wants entries to make a note of such perversities then it would be relatively easy to do with Lua. In fact it might be easier because those styles are less nuanced. Haplogy () 01:06, 27 December 2013 (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)


Imported from Wikipedia, unused. Special:ProtectedPages and a short custom message serves to replace this, so it should be deleted as unnecessary. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete this per nom. This is not my last name (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Deleted. Keφr 13:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Template:list:territories of Asia/en[edit]

Used only in one entry, Asia, which is, needless to say, not a territory of Asia. I discovered it because of Category:en:Territories of Asia, which is added by this template.

This has only one actual transclusion, so, since it uses the resource-devouring monster innocuously named {{list helper}}, it should be substed if necessary (it seems a bit encyclopedic to me), then deleted. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:list:states of Austria/en[edit]

An unused list template.


I don't even know... —CodeCat 23:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Theoretically could be used as part of another template, i.e. a way of nesting __NOINDEX__ without explicitly "transcluding" (I guess you could say "calling") the magic word. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Subst and delete.​—msh210 (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


Redundant to {{archived from tea room}} and confusingly conflates the {{tr}} (Turkish) langcode. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, {{archived from tea room}} should redirect to {{rft-archived}} now. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)




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)


Needs unlinking to migrate to Module:labels/data, also I tried using {{context|idiomatic|metaphor|lang=en}} at other fish in the sea and neither the category Category:English metaphors nor the wikilink is popping up so we need to fix that too. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Say, why do we need Category:English metaphors anyway when it's populated by only three entries? And Category:English live metaphors? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. Should be at Category:Idioms by language anyway, redirecting it to English idioms doesn't even make sense. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:40, 17 January 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)

A list of unused and recurring templates to be deleted[edit]

Category:ltc:All topics[edit]



Category:ltc:List of topics[edit]

All topics and List of topics contain all of the above list (excluding themselves but including one another) and Communication contains Language. Moreover, All topics and List of topics are solely recursion. --kc_kennylau (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

More unused modules[edit]




To my knowledge, none of these three modules are currently used anywhere. The functionality of the former two might be integrated into Module:languages/data2. Some time ago I messaged User:Xoristzatziki about the latter, he did not respond. Keφr 17:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete all three. —CodeCat 17:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I speedy deleted the first one as I was the only contributor there. --Z 19:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


Redundant to Module:links; most users have been converted to use the functionality of Module:headword (which calls Module:links in turn) instead. Keφr 10:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


Unlinked, seemse superseded by Module:utilities. Keφr 07:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


Likewise. Keφr 09:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Category:Gender and number templates[edit]

And all the templates inside. They're all orphaned now, so we can delete them if there are no bots or scripts that still rely on them. —CodeCat 17:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

{{inv}} is not orphaned. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
It is now. There were only a few transclusions, and I fixed them like this: diff. It actually passed RFD before, but I'm not sure why, when entries like that one are all it's used for. —CodeCat 19:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Delete. --WikiTiki89 07:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
What about {{pf.}} and {{impf}}? They are not in this category, but they are also redundant to {{g}}. Keφr 15:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
By the way, #Template:m above is still not closed. We seem to have a fairly wide agreement to delete it though. Keφr 15:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

Request for permission to merge[edit]

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/February. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)



This is being used as a pronunciation template, along with IPA and enPR. Deseret script sees no mainstream academic usage as a notation for English pronunciation, and I think it's rather inappropriate to use it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Edit: I have added {{shavian}} as a subheader. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be doing any harm, though; no more so than {{shavian}} at any rate. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Well the problem is the overcrowding of the pronunciation section. We don't want people to be able to just glance at it and not have to read through all our various transcription schemes until they find the right one. --WikiTiki89 15:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
We could put Deseret and Shavian under alternative forms instead, though obviously without links since I suspect we all agree there shouldn't be entries for them. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Orphan and delete this (and {{shavian}}) per nom; they are decidedly not pronunciation templates. Re: moving uses of both templates out of pronunciation sections and into alt forms sections: the templates are so little used and offer so little of use that I think it would be best to simply remove them, like the (generally malformatted) "Shorthand" sections one may still stumble across from time to time as (as DCD once put it) "remnants of clearly failed experiments". Why would "we all agree there shouldn't be entries for them"? The only reasons I can think of are that they are categorically unattested, or there is some notion that the only attested form of English we should have entries for is the Latin-script form. But if either of those is the case, then why should we list the Deseret forms anywhere? - -sche (discuss) 17:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Old discussion: especially WT:Beer parlour/2013/January#(X)SAMPA; also WT:Beer parlour/2010/May#Customized pronunciation display and WT:Grease pit/2010/April#Template:shavian.​—msh210 (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

  • These have been orphaned for a little over three weeks, and (as was to be expected from the minuscule number of uses which exited to begin with) no new uses have arisen. - -sche (discuss) 02:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Deleted by -sche, striking. Keφr 20:34, 8 April 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)


Should be orphaned and deleted. All instances of:

* Language: {{t|lang|foo}}
* Tongue: {{t|tung|bar}}

Should be replaced with:

* Language: {{t|lang|foo}}
* Tongue: {{t|tung|bar}}

--WikiTiki89 04:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't we keep ttbc as part of the regular translation table now? Then we can get rid of the -top, -mid and -bottom templates as well. —CodeCat 04:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
We still still need a separate section because for polysemous terms, you might not know which definition a given translation applies to, which I think was the original purpose of the checktrans tables. --WikiTiki89 04:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Delete per Wikitiki as {{checktrans-top}} et al perform the vital function of grouping translation requests that do not obviously correspond to any existing sense.
I have never been sure of the best way to draw attention to translations that may not correspond to the current wording of any current definition. Separate {{checktrans-top}} tables or separate {{trans-top}} tables?
{{trans-top}} allows one to retain the gloss under which the translations were presumably added. But with the JS to accelerate adding translations, {{trans-top}} would make it too easy to add translations based on a superseded gloss. :::I hope that the JS does not work for {{checktrans-top}}. But {{checktrans-top}} also does not display any gloss, so creators of checktrans tables would have to insert comments and users would need to pay attention to such comments, which can more easily become obsolete than a normally visible gloss. DCDuring TALK 12:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree, replace and delete. 12:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Orphaning in progress. Should be quick. Keφr 13:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned in mainspace. There are still some transclusions in userspace, and in help pages. The latter just need to be updated, not sure about the former. Keφr 14:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted; help pages were updated (although they too seem RFD-worthy of sorts...). Userspace transclusions were left untouched: users may fix them however they find appropriate. Keφr 21:02, 13 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]



Unused for over a year. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

We also have Template:Tick. I guess it was copied from Wikipedia when importing Module:UnitTests; the template's trivial markup has been since then directly incorporated into the module. Delete. Keφr 09:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Added to the nomination. Keφr 09:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Disputed territories[edit]

And its subcategories. This is a dictionary, not a political forum. --WikiTiki89 18:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210 (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete all categories associated with the Romance of the Three Kingdoms[edit]

It's obvious that the categories were introduced by someone who's enamored with the literature. IMHO, they belong to Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. What purpose do they actually serve in a dictionary?

JamesjiaoTC 22:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Some cateogries[edit]

Hi, I would like to request these deleted as division by POS actually hinders comparing any possible patterns as Livonian has a clear distinction only between verbs and nominals.

Neitrāls vārds (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I've started deleting these. - -sche (discuss) 18:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)


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)


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)

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)

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)

Transwiki:ISO 639:a[edit]

...and Transwiki:ISO 639:b all the other appendices through to Transwiki:ISO 639:z. Like the appendices discussed on Appendix talk:ISO 639-1 language codes, these Transwiki pages are just out-of-date forks/duplicates of pages Wikipedia has up-to-date copies of. They should be orphaned and then deleted. - -sche (discuss) 23:41, 5 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)


Probably the last holdover from the language template era. Even from the time before that. But it's orphaned now. —CodeCat 23:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


Undocumented, seems unused. No incoming links or transclusions. Keφr 14:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy delete. —CodeCat 14:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete.​—msh210 (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Speedied in the end; after deletion of Template:checktrans there is nothing useful this template would do. Keφr 21:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Appendix:Latin reduplicative conjugation[edit]

Unnecessary. Reduplicated Latin verbs are garden-variety third-conjugation verbs with an unusual way of forming the perfect stem (third principal part), but there is no one "usual" way of forming the perfect stem in the third conjugation anyway. It always has to be memorized on a word-by-word basis. The actual conjugation of the reduplicated verbs is no different from that of verbs whose perfect stem has been formed differently, making this appendix (to which nothing links, incidentally) superfluous. All information in it is already covered by Appendix:Latin third conjugation. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

We have Template:la-conj-2nd-redup and Template:la-conj-3rd-redup as well, which do the exact same thing as the usual inflection templates, except that they also categorise in Category:Latin reduplicative verbs. —CodeCat 19:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but they point to Appendix:Latin second conjugation and Appendix:Latin third conjugation respectively, so still no one gets taken to Appendix:Latin reduplicative conjugation. I had forgotten about the second-conjugation reduplicating verbs; now this appendix isn't only unnecessary, it's downright incorrect for verbs like spondeō. I don't mind having the category; it's interesting and useful for historical linguists to have a list of reduplicating verbs in Latin. But the conjugation appendix isn't helping anyone. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Having identical templates just for the purpose of adding an extra category doesn't seem hugely useful either, though. I think those templates should go, and the categories added by other means. —CodeCat 19:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, but maybe that should be a separate RFDO rather than a rider to this one. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Delete all that has been mentioned (useless templates + this page) altogether. --Fsojic (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)



Now that Tibetan transliteration has been added to Module:languages/data2, these templates can be replaced with {{l}}, {{term}} and {{compound}}. Keφr 09:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Useless Latin templates?[edit]

Moved from Wiktionary:Grease pit/2014/April#Useless Latin templates?

I don't see the purpose of the following templates: {{ladecl1}}, {{ladecl3}}, {{ladecl3:b2c}}, {{ladecl3:2e}}, {{ladecl3n}}, {{ladecl3com}}. --Fsojic (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)