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 | 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 for policy problems; request listings, questions and discussions.

 Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Requests for deletion for pages not in the main namespace, such as categories, appendices and templates.

 Requests for moves, mergers and splits
add new | history

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

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

Contents

[edit] February 2010

[edit] MediaWiki:Noexactmatch

[edit] Wiktionary:Project-Nogomatch

Both not used now that mediawiki uses MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new (see w:MediaWiki talk:Noexactmatch). I don't think there's anything of historical value to keep around. --Bequw → τ 04:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

But who knows when they might switch back.​—msh210℠ 15:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
That's why there's an undelete. And judging from the little I know of mediawiki development they tend to change to wholly new identifiers rather than to previously deprecated ones. --Bequw → τ 19:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
MediaWiki:Nogomatch (an even older deprecated message) now redirects to MediaWiki:Noexactmatch. Maybe both should redirect to MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new. --Bequw → τ 19:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
After a bit more digging it seems that MediaWiki:Noexactmatch is a valid message (just not used) so it's fine to keep that. Wiktionary:Project-Nogomatch I think should still be deleted as MediaWiki:Nogomatch isn't even a valid system message anymore. --Bequw → τ 18:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, what is the benefit of deleting deprecated mediawiki messages? - TheDaveRoss 19:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Generally, the burden of proof lies with keeping something (except of course in the User:). Obsolete files create confusion over what is valid as well as impede editors in finding and using the valid/useful files. --Bequw → τ 20:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Well these are mostly protected pages and when they are edited (extremely rarely) it is only by highly experienced users (admins). If there is actually some evidence of end users being affected by deprecated Mediawiki messages I would love to see it, otherwise this is just a waste of time and effort. - TheDaveRoss 00:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Admins aren't necessarily always highly experienced in all aspects of Wiktionary. And no amount of experience will let you know when a message is obsolete, if all of that experience predates the obsolescence. If I see a bit of text in the interface, and I search the MediaWiki namespace for that bit of text, it's very unhelpful and confusing if I end up at an interface page that no longer does anything. I consider it a service if Bequw (or anyone else) is willing to go delete all these obsolete pages; that is the very best way to document that they're obsolete. —RuakhTALK 02:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete, it's certainly not "helping" anyone, so yes. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, it (or this discussion at least) helped me find what to update in another Wiki that had be broken since the change. I can't see it's doing that much damage being around. Most users won't even know it's there so deletion seems a little obsessive. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 16:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] May 2010

[edit] Category:English words with different meanings in different locations

Several problems that need some sort of resolution, or just outright deletion of the category

  1. The title bothers me, what are "different locations"?
  2. Do we have any way of filling this up, and if so, is it just purely POV?

Ideally I'd post this at RFC instead of RFDO, but since nobody ever edits that page, I brought it here. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

We could certainly populate it. For example, the word house would mean something different if we took the trouble to document the differences by, say, average temperature, seasonal and daily variation in temperature, proneness to flooding and rain, as well as cultural differences. This could serve as a whole new way of encouraging us to add new senses to some common words. We would need a few more context tags and we would be using google news more to attest to the senses. But "All senses of all words in all languages.". DCDuring TALK 13:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I think what this category is intended for is words that exist both in British and American English but have completely different meanings. However, the category name is very ambiguous. -- Prince Kassad 14:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it wants to go beyond that and include all English speaking places. But how to subdivide? If it's different locations, what happens if I use a word differently to my nextdoor neighbor? He's not in the same location, he's nextdoor! Mglovesfun (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
How about "English terms with differing definitions in different dialects"?​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Translations to be checked (Binisayâ)

See WT:GP#Binisayâ language vs. Bundeli language. This is not a language, but rather a family of languages, so it should not get a ttbc category. -- Prince Kassad 21:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

So what do you propose doing with the contents? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
They need to be phased out in some way. Since they refer to an entire language family, they can't be precise and/or verifiable. -- Prince Kassad 11:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Well then they need to be checked! Ideally this category wouldn't exists, but since it does, they do need to be checked. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, the consensus indicates that the category should be deleted only after all its members (five entries: drink, night, peace, planet and plum) have their respective Binisayâ translations checked.
I suggest instead replacing each of these requests by requests of translations to the 17 languages listed here: Tausug, Butuanon, Surigaonon, Cebuano, Boholano, Waray-Waray, Porohanon, Masbateño, Hiligaynon, Capiznon, Romblomanon, Banton, Aklanon, Kinaray-a, Caluyanon, Onhan and Cuyonon. --Daniel 05:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Pronunciations wildly different across the pond

I'd have deleted this on sight, but for two reasons. 1) It says 'placeholder category for...' and 2) MglovesfunBot is busy right now to orphan it. Seems like an experiment from 2006 that is not only no longer relevant, it's bad. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No commenters? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg
 Input needed: This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Ooh, go ahead and delete this. It might qualify for an appendix, at most, but definitely not a category! -- Liliana • 17:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Weak delete as very ill-defined slash subjective; otherwise move (terrible name).​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabet categories

[edit] Category:Arabic alphabet

[edit] Category:Lycian alphabet

[edit] Category:Lydian alphabet

[edit] Category:Ogham alphabet

[edit] Category:Shavian alphabet

[edit] Category:Thai alphabet

[edit] Category:Ugaritic alphabet

[edit] Category:Ukrainian alphabet

[edit] Category:Zhuyin alphabet

[edit] Category:Carian alphabet

[edit] Category:Deseret alphabet

[edit] Category:Georgian alphabet

[edit] Category:Glagolitic alphabet

[edit] Category:Gothic alphabet

[edit] Category:Phoenician alphabet

None of these conform to the standard category structure. The contents are mostly stuff that should either be in Category:(script) characters, Category:(language) letters, or Category:(language) letter names. These should be orphaned and deleted. --Yair rand (talk) 05:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes they're a mix of script characters and English names for the characters. If you want to move the contents I think you'd be doing us a favor. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Where the same name is used to refer to both the language and the script (which is most of those that you listed), it's pointless to duplicate categorization. When the script is more general (e.g. Cyrillic) it makes sense to sub-categorize the subset used for a particular language (Ukrainian). Similarly: letter names are script- and not language-based, and should be grouped in separate categories only if it makes sense to do so (e.g. if there are 2 languages using the same script, with the same letters having different names in English, which I don't exist, at least not different enough). --Ivan Štambuk 09:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] August 2010

[edit] All nl-adj-entry-xx and nl-verb-entry-xx templates in Category:Dutch entry templates

MewBot has been up and running for a while, and has been rather successful at handling form-of entries for Dutch adjectives and verbs. In the ideal case, this means that no entry templates for verbs or adjectives are really needed anymore, since MewBot already takes care of that. I think they can be deleted outright, which saves a lot of pointless maintenance work. Also, anyone think maybe the noun templates can go as well, since we have accelerated entry creation for those? —CodeCat 10:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, all these should be standardized, but there's no reason why we can't have a bot and do it manually. For example {{new fr plural}} is useful for pages that already exist but need French adding to them (say for example observations). I' very weakily favor keeping them and cleaning them up. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The bot can add to existing entries, even if there is already a Dutch section on the page so that's no problem. There is no case that the bot can't really be used for, and furthermore all existing verbs have already been done by the bot so there are no entries remaining to use those entry templates on. Right now, any new verbs that get added are generally submitted to the bot immediately by various editors. —CodeCat 11:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I certainly agree with that. I'm just saying this isn't necessarily a reason to delete these templates. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
We have one delete, one week keep, and one something else. Anyone else have any objections? —CodeCat 20:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg
 Input needed: This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Keep for whenever the bot stops running, but (for now) don't link to them from MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new or the like.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] September 2010

[edit] Template:roa-rup

[edit] Template:zh-min-nan

[edit] Template:zh-classical

All of them should be replaced by ISO codes (specifically {{rup}}, {{nan}} and {{lzh}}). -- Prince Kassad 20:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Any reason not to redirect? --Yair rand (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
We don't want to encourage people to use them as ISO codes (especially zh-classical, which is a very bad code). -- Prince Kassad 20:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
We do have things like {{eng}}... --Yair rand (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, since those are official ISO codes that an editor might use, so we provide redirects since these are not "wrong", just redundant. The ones above are essentially invented by Wikimedia Foundation. -- Prince Kassad 20:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
If we keep zh-classical, roa-rup and zh-min-nan, then how would nrm be read? As Maron (per ISO) or Norman (per Wikimedia)? --Daniel. 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Or, for that matter, {{als}}: Tosk Albanian or Swiss German? -- Prince Kassad 20:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget the code {{simple}}. --Daniel. 20:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
These (and all the ones at WT:Wikimedia language codes) are used for interwiki templates such as {{interwiktionary}}. Redirects will therefore not work. A new system could be created (and might be preferable), but these language codes can't be deleted until an alternative is found. --Bequw → τ 01:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
No, they're not used for interwiki linking. See Template:fiu-vro, which does not exist even though it is a code for a Wikipedia. -- Prince Kassad 06:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Oops, you're right. I forgot {{wikimedia language}} exists ({{interwiktionary}} didn't use it, but ones like {{wikipedia}} do). Delete away. --Bequw → τ 03:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete when it is safe to do so (which appears to be right now). Mglovesfun (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that {{t}} does manual translation of nan→zh-min-nan yue→zh-yue cmn→zh. Can it be outfitted to use {{wikimedia language}}? Otherwise we might want to keep the others. --Bequw → τ 23:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Not quite sure what you mean. You seem to be saying that {{t}} {{t+}} and {{t-}} can already handle this situation, which is correct. Which is why they can be deleted, right? --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Right, {{t}}, {{t+}}, and {{t-}} handle language codes without using {{wikimedia language}}. That is not a good thing, as we might add a new language code. As of now, the three translation templates cannot handle the code lzh. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
But they could if we wanted them too, right? zh seems an obvious target. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
{{t}} and friends handle this without trouble. There's no reason we should need these language templates. -- Liliana • 12:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Category:German third-person singular forms

Erroneous category. {{third-person singular of}} is only supposed to be used for English, and not for any other language. Therefore, this category is completely out of place in the category system. -- Prince Kassad 16:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I reject that, {{third-person singular of}} has a lang parameter, I've used it a couple of times for Middle English too. Though, I believe we do have another German category to do the same job, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Category:German verb forms has subcategories for number, person and tense. It does not have combinations of any of these because you can just as well use Catscan to achieve the same. -- Prince Kassad 19:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Papuan languages

As the category says: the term is defined negatively and does not imply a linguistic relationship - therefore it should be replaced by genetic language family categories. -- Prince Kassad 17:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Is Papuan commonly used? We have many non-genetic groups like Category:Languages of Asia. --Bequw → τ 03:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I have yet to see this term being used in academic publications. And yes we do categorize the languages by country as well (cf. Category:Languages of Papua New Guinea). -- Prince Kassad 05:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Then you might start with some of the publications listed as References on the Wikipedia article about this group. --EncycloPetey 14:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
This category is not a problem as-is, but it will be when we actually cover all those languages. Then we will have a huge category with over 700 subcategories, which will be extremely unwieldy and cannot be split up due to its nature. Therefore, it's better to think ahead and switch to genetic language family categories. (It will be needed anyway when Daniel. creates {{familycatboiler}} like I told him to) -- Prince Kassad 14:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
note that I have created Category:Languages of West Papua, which together with the PNG category above should fulfill the role of categorizing all Papuan languages together. -- Prince Kassad 12:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] October 2010

[edit] Category:Jewish languages

Do we categorize languages by religion now? Where's Category:Christian languages, Category:Muslim languages, Category:Hindu languages, Category:Buddhist languages? -- Prince Kassad 21:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that a category may be a bit overboard, but there is merit in it. Jews have a history of developing their own dialects from the existing language of the areas they lived in. You can't deny that Yiddish and Ladino developed within the Jewish community of their respective parent languages. The same can't be said for any of those other religions. —CodeCat 21:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep -ish per CodeCat. (I realize that CodeCat isn't voting "keep", but I'm voting "keep" for the reasons that she mentions.) I say "-ish" because I think this would make more sense as a topical category, containing such entries as [[Yiddish]] and [[Ladino]] and [[Judeo-Tajik]]; but this approach seems to be the usual way we do language-classification categories, so *shrug*. —RuakhTALK 22:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Reluctant delete, I don't like the idea of non-linguistic categories in our non-topical category tree. Once you start doing that, almost anything can be justified. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, we've already started doing that; see e.g. Category:Languages of Hawaii and Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others/Archives/2007 no consensus#Category:Languages of the United States Virgin Islands. But if you agree with me that these sorts of language-classification categories should be changed to topical categories, then we should start a BP discussion and/or vote for that. —RuakhTALK 23:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:etyl:tut

Not a valid linguistic classification template. Seeing as we already deleted Category:Altaic languages, this should go too. -- Prince Kassad 14:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphan and delete per nom. —RuakhTALK 15:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
If this is ISO 639-5, why isn't it valid? Go on, convince me. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Because ISO is not a neutral authority - it is itself involved in creating arbitrary language families with no linguistic evidence behind them, therefore it coded language families it devised itself, and left out many other, clearly valid language families. {{etyl:ccn}} is another one of these that should probably go. -- Prince Kassad 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what ISO 639-5's exact criteria are, but obviously some of its codes, such as art ("Artificial languages") and crp ("Creoles and pidgins"), do not correspond to real language families. It seems possible that ISO 639-5's inclusion of tut ("Altaic languages") is intended as an endorsement of the Altaic language hypothesis, but unless someone has a copy of the standard or can otherwise confirm that that's how it's intended, there's no reason to assume that it is. (For example, it could alternatively be meant simply as an available option, to be used by people who do put store in that hypothesis, without prejudice against those who do not.) —RuakhTALK 22:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
[1]] Look at the inter-family relationship (second-to-last column). Note how it sorts Turkic, Tungusic and Mongolic under Altaic (but interestingly not Japonic). -- Prince Kassad 08:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Right, but it also sorts xnd ("Na-Dene languages") under nai ("North American Indian languages"). Obviously that's not intended as a claim of genetic relationship. —RuakhTALK 14:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Among people who do believe in the Altaic hypothesis, the most conservative/mainstream variant of the hypothesis is that Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic are Altaic, but Korean and Japanese/Japonic are not. At any rate, I'm going to say keep because the template is in use at 骆驼 and 駱駝. Maybe someone who knows more about Chinese etymology than I do can say which branch of Altaic this word is possibly borrowed from. —Angr 16:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] November 2010

[edit] Category:English toponyms

Shouldn't the contents of this category be in Category:Place names? -- Prince Kassad 14:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Not if the intent is to list place names of England (as opposed to those in English). The term "English" is ambiguous here, but this structure is consistent with our Category:English surnames listings. Discussions in the past have favored treating names (proper nouns) as a part of speech category rather than topical. As such, Category:English toponyms is a better name than Category:Place names, which is constructed as a topical category. --EncycloPetey 21:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete, place names are topical. Category:Place names could be moved to Category:Toponyms. Also English toponyms (place names of England) is way too narrow. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Translingual pronouns

Huh? --Yair rand (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The translingual sections of Chinese characters do tend to function like a language, with full definitions and parts of speech. I find it confusing, but until that issue gets sorted out I feel we can't delete this. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
But we only have Translingual sections for single Chinese characters, not compounds. -- Prince Kassad 14:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I think a good solution for this would be to change 'translingual' for Chinese entries (which is simply too vague/confusing) to a more specific heading that more accurately describes what it really is. I think using the name of a language family or some other kind of descriptive group name would fit well. Perhaps even the name of the script? —CodeCat 15:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
We also have Category:Translingual adverbs, Category:Translingual adjectives and Category:Translingual verbs, all of which seem a bit odd. Codecat's solution doesn't seem better than what we have now. We need some like Tooironic/Jamesjiao/Atitarev to tell us what these actually are and why translingual is better than dividing into individual sections. I can see why a characters would be translingual, as the Latin letter a is the Latin letter a no matter where you are in the world, but extending that to verbs, pronouns, adverbs and adjectives seem much harder to comprehend. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:dat

[edit] Template:gen

Three letter no caps, Latin script, no diacritics, therefore should be replaced by the full tempates {{dative}} and {{genitive}} as we reserve three letter codes for languages. Compare {{nom}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Both are retired codes, so it's not like we will ever need them. Still, I think they should be deleted for consistency. -- Prince Kassad 14:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why they should be deleted if there is no conflict. However, I do think that context labels should not be abbreviated in this way, so in this case I still say delete. —CodeCat 14:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep both per PK's first comment.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:abbr.

[edit] Template:sb.

[edit] Template:sth.

[edit] Template:acc.

[edit] Template:dat.

Created by Peleg (talk • contribs) who created some similar templates, apart from {{acc.}} was {{Akk.}} as the German spelling is Akkusativ. Only use in vorlesen. I see no benefits, I can only assume they're copies of templates from the German Wiktionary. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

delete, another one of Peleg's pointless templates -- Prince Kassad 20:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking {{dat.}} and {{gen.}} would be useful as redirects to {{dative}} and {{genitive}}, which is how found them in the first place. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Swear words by language

This entire category system is completely redundant to the topical category Category:Offensive. Since "swear word" is not a part of speech, this category and all subcategories should therefore be deleted. -- Prince Kassad 16:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete and all the subcategories. Stick to the system we already have. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
But not all offensive terms are "swear words"; consider the verb Jew, for example. And conversely, I don't think I'd consider a swear word like goddamn to be "offensive", though it is in Category:Offensive, so perhaps someone's mileage varies. —RuakhTALK 17:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
As long as it works the other way, i. e. all swear words are offensive (which I think is true)... -- Prince Kassad 18:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Should be Category:Swear words in that case, but I think Category:Vulgarities covers it better. If we were to create a Category:Swear words, I think the best two parent categories would be Vulgarities and Offensive. Since MediaWiki doesn't allow us to rename categories, we'd still have to delete this. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Has existed since 2006, fancy that. Easy delete then, we don't even need to create a category to replace it. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Re: "all swear words are offensive": Please see the second half of the comment you're replying to. And anyway, by that argument, who needs Category:English suffixes when we have Category:English affixes? Or Category:Trees when we can have Category:Organisms? —RuakhTALK 20:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
You are missing the point. Swear word is not a part of speech. You don't add ===Swear word=== and {{infl|en|swear word}} to entries. That just isn't right. -- Prince Kassad 20:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I understand that, but it's irrelevant to my comments. You claimed above that "This entire category system is completely redundant to the topical category Category:Offensive." I was arguing otherwise. (BTW, "part of speech" is not quite the concept you want. We also don't use ===Countable noun=== and ===Ergative verb=== and so on, but Category:Countable nouns by language and Category:Ergative verbs by language are to the good. But I agree that swear-words belong to the topical-category system, not the grammatical-category system.) —RuakhTALK 21:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Ruakh, so in essence, you do want to delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Not really. I want to move it. As it happens, moving a category does involve "deleting" it, but obviously that's not what Prince Kassad is proposing. —RuakhTALK 00:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The issue, for me, is redundancy. Similar to [[Category:Derogatory]], [[Category:Offensive]] and [[Category:Pejoratives]], or [[Category:Archaic]] and [[Category:Obsolete]], we could end up categorizing entries in two, three, even four categories basically representing the same thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm having second thoughts; Category:Profanity is listed below; perhaps a Category:Profanities by language would be the most inclusive title. There is some overlap with offensive as Ruakh points out, but not total redundancy. Keep and move. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Languages of the Netherlands Antilles

This territory no longer exists. -- Prince Kassad 16:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Rename to Languages of the former Netherlands Antilles? Or maybe Languages of the Caribbean Netherlands? —CodeCat 16:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm unclear on the status of the then-Netherlands Antilles: was it kinda like that of England or Scotland now (with the Kingdom of the Netherlands like the UK)? Were the Netherlands Antilles recognized by other countries and international organizations as sovereign? I dislike that we think about such topics in deciding what categories to have, but it may be necessary....​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it was a member of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, so it's quite comparable to, say, Scotland. Note that we have Category:Languages of Aruba, another member of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (which became independent from the Netherlands Antilles in 1985). -- Prince Kassad 18:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think current non-existence should be a reason for deletion. If we're going to have this sort of category at all, then formerly-existent geo-entities should be as valid as currently-existent ones, provided we can answer the question: what languages were spoken in the geo-entity, when it existed? —RuakhTALK 17:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
So you'd want Category:Languages of the Soviet Union, Category:Languages of the Holy Roman Empire, Category:Languages of the Ottoman Empire, Category:Languages of British India? -- Prince Kassad 18:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC) addendum: please see WT:Beer parlour#Geographic language categories
If we just go with Languages of the Caribbean Netherlands then we avoid the problem entirely. Because that term has been in use already and will continue to be valid in the future. —CodeCat 19:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not even sure what the language of... categories are supposed to achieve. Isn't it purely encyclopedic? Also, if we accept dead language in such categories (cf. Category:Anglo-Norman language) I see no reason, conversely, not to allow defunct countries/states as well. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Which is why I started the BP discussion. Personally, I would not try to push ancient languages into a modern country's borders. That's historically absolute nonsense, and it does not make sense. -- Prince Kassad 23:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Dutch Low Saxon language

We should arguably not have this language. It is the same as plain Low Saxon, but with a different written standard. -- Prince Kassad 14:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not quite the same. The languages on both sides of the border have each borrowed from their country's respective standard languages, both phonologically and in vocabulary. A (non-Low Saxon) Dutch speaker might understand the dialect of Groningen or Twente as they would their own language, to a significant degree. But that same speaker wouldn't really be able to understand the dialects spoken on the German side as easily. I know this from experience, too: I've watched videos of 'standard' Gronings being spoken and I can understand it decently, but I find videos of Niedersächsisch much harder to understand simply because they tend to sound much more 'German'. —CodeCat 14:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Note that Ethnologue recognizes several standardized dialects of Low Saxon as separate languages, like Gronings {{gos}}, Drents {{drt}} and Twente {{twd}}. It might be better to use those... -- Prince Kassad 14:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Countable nouns by language

[edit] Category:Uncountable nouns by language

Per a recent Grease pit discussion, what do these categories achieve? They exist mainly because {{countable}} {{uncountable}} always categorize. It would be easy enough to remove the categorization and just let the server catch up. {{fr-noun}}, {{ca-noun}} and {{oc-noun}} all add these automatically - I should know, I was the one that installed that feature! For clarity, all the subcategories should go. Particularly per Ruakh's comment that we mainly use {{countable}} and {{uncountable}} to contrast between senses of the same word, meaning that most entries that appear in one will appear in the other. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Useless categories.--Vahag 10:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep Category:English uncountable nouns. I cannot speak for other languages or the parent category. Knowledgeable contributors with experience in teaching English have suggested that handling countability is a significant difficulty for learners of English. I do not know about English natives speakers learning other languages.
We should eliminate the truly useless Category:English countable nouns. As this is the default state of nouns in most (all) mlanguages, AFAIK, it hardly seems worth marking, except for contrast. If that is correct, it would argue for elimination of most (all) of the subcategories. If only we could assume that all and only "uncountable" senses were marked, we could dispense with marking "countable" senses entirely. "Uncountability", as the less common feature of nouns, merits marking.
Lastly, the retaining the category Category:English uncountable nouns, at least, facilitates cleanup of the numerous misapplications of "uncountable". It is often misused to apply to countable (but normally uncouned) senses, ie, those that are almost always used in the singular, and sometimes to proper nouns. DCDuring TALK 11:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Countability in the languages I edit is a very insignificant issue, that's why I voted to delete the categories. Maybe we can keep Category:English uncountable nouns but disable categorizing for other languages. --Vahag 12:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
This does seem to be the kind of thing that probably should be determined language by language. DCDuring TALK 18:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really sure that we need a category for them; keep the template {{countable}} and {{uncountable}} just delete the associated categories. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Once again, the uncountable category is a clean-up facilitator and will probably remain useful for that purpose for some time. DCDuring TALK 18:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I vote to keep uncountable nouns, delete countable nouns, for the reasons given above. In many languages, countable is the default, so it is not worth mentioning (just like 'regular verbs' would be a fairly pointless category). —CodeCat 13:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Didn't Stephen say there are languages where the default is uncountable? -- Prince Kassad 00:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
If that is the case, then the non-default countable category could be be retained for such languages. The categories don't have to be populated for every language. There might even be some where both were worth keeping or where other categories were necessary. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Wiktionary:Abuse reports

Not a useful page; only history was Vildricianus (talk • contribs) starting the page, a report of an abusive sock that migrated from Wikipedia, and Netalarm (talk • contribs) attempting to revamp it. Most of these requests should be deferred to the duplicate page at Wikipedia, since those are the only ones that do any actual damage, crosswiki or otherwise. TeleComNasSprVen 06:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know what it is. The page intro, which is supposed to explain that, basically says "Integration with Wikipedia project". Delete or find a use for it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Welsh words suffixed with -au

I hereby nominate this category for deletion on the grounds that the relevant suffix is a pluralisation suffix. Do we want Category:French words suffixed with -s et al. too...? Perhaps the discussion quite a bit above this should be noted too. 50 Xylophone Players talk 22:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Since {{suffix}} has a pos (part of speech) parameter, I'd recommend Category:Welsh plurals suffixed with -au. Per the discussion above that you've alluded to. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I thought we followed the general practice of excluding use of {{suffix}} for inflectional suffixes. It seems to me that we need to clean out the category by removing the etymology sections of the members. DCDuring TALK 15:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] December 2010

[edit] Template:de-verb-weak

[edit] Template:de-verb-strong

My problem with these templates is that they duplicate information already found in the conjugation template. Also, they're clearly designed for English rather than German, made obvious by the choice of third-person singular present, past tense (without any number or person specified, making the form chosen completely arbitrary) and past participle. Therefore, I don't think they're useful. If anything, {{de-verb}} should be expanded to show whether a verb is weak or strong. -- Prince Kassad 18:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Support deletion. {{it-verb-are}} and some similar ones failed RFDO earlier this year. As we know from {{ca-verb}}, {{es-verb}}, {{nl-verb}} and {{pt-verb}} (among others) it is possible to specific this sort of thing in one template using a switch, rather than that just creating a template for every class of verb there is. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
keep. This template was not designed for English, but for German. German has just two classes of verbs -- strong and weak. The info presented by this headword-line template is ideal for headword lines. It presents the traditional key forms of German strong verbs. —Rod (A. Smith) 00:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Like Prince Kassad (Liliana) says, why not add a type=weak/type=strong parameter to {{de-verb}}? And the conjugation table can do the rest. Still delete, in my opinion. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Manias

[edit] Category:de:Manias

Seems like a rather strange category to have... --Yair rand (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Dunno actually, doesn't seem that silly. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
"rather strange" seems subjective and not enough reason for deletion to me. Mutante 10:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
We don't have any rules for topical categories, so we can be as subjective as we like. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Right. Delete per Yair (11:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)).​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. Several of my books about the English language include lists of -manias and -phobias, so I expect some people are interested in Category:Manias and Category:Phobias. — Robin 19:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Words suffixed with -mania and -phobia belong at Category:English words suffixed with -mania and Category:English words suffixed with -phobia. --Yair rand (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ib

Redirects to Template:italbrac. Not used; I replaced all instances with {{italbrac}} about a week ago, and since nobody has used this in that time, that tells me it can be safely deleted. Furthermore (and not strictly on topic) I don't understand how {{italbrac}} and {{qualifier}} are not fully redundant to each other. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The difference between {{italbrac}} and {{qualifier}} is IMHO that one specifies the an explicit style (italic and in brackets) no matter what the functionality of the text is, while the other specifies the function of that text. I believe that the latter approach is much more useful, as Wiktionary's formating will most likely change over time. On the other hand a template defining the semantics can be very easily changed, i.e. with a bot.Matthias Buchmeier 18:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep this (old) template for six or twelve months to see if it's used in the mean while. If not, delete. A week is nothing.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
But it is two-letter, and those are reserved for 639-1 codes. -- Prince Kassad 19:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Someone (RU?) has mentioned that, as they're assigning three-letter codes now, it's highly unlikely that they'll assign any more two-letter ones. So I doubt this will be a problem. So if it's used, keep it, I say. (And if it's unused, delete it, and we'll know that in six or twelve months.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
It is still possible, but only for languages which are not yet coded into ISO. For example, Montenegrin could get the language code {{cg}} if desired. -- Prince Kassad 20:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Have found one use since December 6 - in millionaire. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch entry templates

[edit] Template:nl-verb-entry-past-2sg-gij
[edit] Template:nl-verb-entry-past-pl
[edit] Template:nl-verb-entry-past-pl-ptc
[edit] Template:nl-verb-entry-past-ptc
[edit] Template:nl-verb-entry-past-sg
[edit] Template:nl-verb-entry-past-sub-sg
[edit] Template:nl-verb-entry-pres-123sg
[edit] Template:nl-verb-entry-pres-1sg
[edit] Template:nl-verb-entry-pres-23sg
[edit] Template:nl-verb-entry-pres-2sg-gij
[edit] Template:nl-verb-entry-pres-pl
[edit] Template:nl-verb-entry-pres-ptc
[edit] Template:nl-verb-entry-pres-sub-sg

All of these have been obsolete for a while now that we have a bot to do Dutch verb forms. And they're a pain to maintain. —CodeCat 12:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete in good faith, since I don't use the templates I'm willing to trust CodeCat, one of our best editors, especially in Dutch. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm rather reluctant to call this a fail, but I don't really think anyone ever uses these... —CodeCat 20:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete the templates, trusting CodeCat. The templates have been deleted on 5 June 2011 by CodeCat anyway. --Dan Polansky 09:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:trademark

Do we want to be in the position of carrying water for trademark holders? I prefer a usage note saying "May be a trademark", which offers a warning, not a positive assertion. Trademarks also have variable geographic scope. Australia for example often does not honor trademarks well established in other jurisdictions. DCDuring TALK 14:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It does, however, seem like a context (in the way we use the term). I think it should be kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Are our users assuming that it is in place in every sense where it should be and not in any place it should not be? Are we really assuming that responsibility? Do we have an appropriate disclaimer about the reliability of our legal work? —This comment was unsigned.
  • Delete. This a burden we should not assume. Trademarks are impermanent. Trademark registrations are for limited periods, and are lost if the registration is not renewed or if the mark is not used for some period of time. Furthermore, most every word in the lexicon has been used by someone at some point as a "trademark". Are we then responsible for noting that ace is a trademark for a brand of bandages, and for a hardware store; that dove is a soap maker, and a chocolate bar; that planters are nuts, Peter Pan is a peanut butter, Pam is a cooking spray, and falling star is a wine? The most we can and should say is that a word (such as aspirin or escalator) originated as a trademark, without commenting on its current status. bd2412 T 19:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete, and simply remove current uses as context tag.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Failed. Not yet orphaned. But what about category:Trademarks? I suppose that's another RFDO, but shouldn't we be emptying — or pehaps renaming (to "Possible trademarks" or something) — that, too?​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the usage note rather than a definition-line template, but I'm still against deleting based on the result of the vote on trademark designations which, though (or if) unclear, strongly favors this option. The alternative needs to show community consensus first. DAVilla 21:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, wow, I didn't realize that that vote existed. I rescind my declaration of failure.​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] January 2011

[edit] Template:defn

Redundant, used for the same purpose as {{rfdef}}, but this doesn't produce the "This word needs a definition" text. Delete or redirect. --Yair rand (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't redirect without checking each entry, as it was added assuming it wouldn't display. I don't particularly mind redirecting after checking entries, or deleting after either substituting it or converting each instance to rfdef, but see no good reason to do so.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete when practical to do so. The two templates don't seem to be identical. {{rfdef}} is the better of the two, more 'standard'. For some reason {{defn}} doesn't display anything, which leaves a gap under the inflection line and the next definition (when there is one). Nice spot, btw. Had never even considered nominating this for deletion. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I think we have (or have had?) bots that added {{defn}} when the entry didn't have any # lines. Since there often is a definition in the entry, just ill-formatted, I think that that use makes more sense than trying to add # {{rfdef}} in the right place. But for manual editing, I agree that {{rfdef}} is superior. —RuakhTALK 23:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes KassadBot does that. And yes, usually it's for definitions that don't start with a #, so the bot doesn't recognise them. But... since they all end up in the same categories, that's no help to us. UllmannBot also added it to a lot of CJKV entries, virtually all of them. If we were to keep it, we'd be better of making it categorize in a different category - though that in itself seems really lame. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I've set up {{defn}} to accept lang=<langcode>, so that a bot (mine probably) could convert all the uses of {{defn|Mandarin}} to {{defn|lang=cmn}}, at which point {{defn}} could be switched to {{rfdef}}, if {{defn}} fails RFDO, otherwise, not. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Note, what would happen to Category:Han characters needing common meanings? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Because KassadBot acts as described above, keep this without redirecting (i.e., keep it as a non-displaying template) for use in cleaning up entries. Even if it categorizes identically to rfdef, whatlinkshere can be used to identify tagged entries.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, but... this would still be true for a redirect. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Most definitely no consensus. I will try and update {{rfdef/doc}} and {{defn/doc}} to reflect this debate. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Harry Potter

"The following is a list of terms used in context of the Harry Potter franchise." We don't allow words only used in such context ([[WT:CFI#Fictional universes]]), so this category and its entries (if they truly belong in it) should be deleted.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with categorizing appendices, but this could be restated to include words that arose from that franchise, which is probably what was meant in the first place. DAVilla 20:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep. It will also probably serve to house terms which were invented for that franchise but were since adopted into the lexicon e.g. Muggle and I am guessing eventually Voldemort. - TheDaveRoss 18:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
But then it should be a "derivations"- or "derived from"- or what-have-you-named category, no?​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
There already is a Category:Harry Potter derivations... --Yair rand (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Care needs to be taken with terms from fiction such as these. Fans may use and hear them often, but such terms may rarely be found outside the fandom. Muggle may indeed be relevant; as evidenced by the quotations, some people have found it useful to fill a gap in the lexicon, and its meaning is fairly widely understood amongst those who enjoy the franchise casually (thanks to its relatively large popularity). However, terms like Snapefic seem to be practically exclusive to smaller communities of people whom find themselves mutually invested in the fiction much more than the average audience. These are probably not in significant use to be kept -- not currently so, at the very least. 76.184.230.142 14:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Category tree

Unused, transwiki'ed template. TeleComNasSprVen 06:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Was actually used once in a category that had no subcategories, so I removed it. I don't hate the template, but where would we use it? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't every category use this, so you can hop down the category tree? (or atleast, language and parts of speech trees) 65.95.13.213 14:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Wiktionary:Topics

Just doesn't do anything useful, I had a go at revamping it to avoid it being nominated for deletion, and IMO, I failed. See Wiktionary talk:Topics for more information. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If it did anything beyond simply listing the categories (like an explanation, or similar) it might be useful. But at the moment, this is useless. delete -- Prince Kassad 18:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep. The page is linked to from Wiktionary:Main Page. If you find the current revision pointless (the one that you have created), I propose to revert the page to this revision. Then we can update the page to help us manage the topical category tree, and to see the historical development of the topical category tree. --Dan Polansky 08:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I thought that version was lame in a different way - inadequate, pointless. We can remove links from the main page you know. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Do note that the Grammatical Index link on the Main Page right next to the topical one links to a category. Presumably, this link could do the same. -- Prince Kassad 10:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • delete, outdated, contains far less information than what is representative. Delink it from Main Page please. --Rockpilot 10:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

RFD failed albeit pretty narrowly; Mglovesfun, Prince Kassad and Rockpilot wanted to delete it Dan Polasnky wanted to keep it. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] February 2011

[edit] Wiktionary:Protected pages

Right at the top it says As of 1/25/2007, this page should be OBE, in deference to Special:Protectedpages. Indeed, I couldn't agree more, do we want a list of protected pages four years out of date? I don't think we can keep this for 'historical interest' as there isn't any. Just delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Note also WT:Protected page, WT:Protected page guidelines and WT:Protected titles. These should be merged and this could redirect to whatever the final title is. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Delete. —Internoob 21:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete. —RuakhTALK 21:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete —CodeCat 14:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 16:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Index:Spanish verbs list

Does this index serve any useful purpose (apart from identifying many old WF pseudonyms)? -- ALGRIF talk 10:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Not in its current format, no. It should really be bot maintained, or deleted. Since we already have Index:Spanish which is bot maintained, I favor the delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:rivers

"rivers" is not a context. The template displays "geography" which (IMO) is a context. However to write (geography) Nile is ridiculous. How are words like Nile, Seine, Thames and Danube not used outside of geography? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

If geography were a context it should be used for the terms that academic, professional, student, and amateur geographers use. Context tags should not be used for purely topical categories (though there may be circumstances where there is a coincidence between context and topical category). In any event, Nile is not a geographic term nor is its use limited to geographers. DCDuring TALK 22:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg
 Input needed: This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

[edit] Wiktionary:Abbreviation

Pointless. Very few linked pages. Keep the talk page though. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

delete -- Prince Kassad 21:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Good "disambiguation" page. You say "[v]ery few linked pages": but what else should be linked to from it? (Or do you mean few pages link to it? That may be true, but people may type it in manually.) Don't see the purpose of deleting it.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems at worst harmless. It might be a good page for some specialized guidance on our practice concerning such entries. DCDuring TALK 22:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I mean very few pages link to it, suggesting that it wouldn't really be missed. However yeah, we don't have many disambiguation pages, but this not the only one we have (WT:CAT). I won't oppose the keep if that is the overall consensus, then. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:onym

Completely redundant to {{l}}. --Yair rand (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I've seen this template and often wondered what it's for. Reading the documentation, you'd think it was literally copied and pasted from {{l}}. Are they compatible to the point that one could redirect to the other? PS Wiktionary:Grease pit archive/2007/October#Template:onym and Template:l. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
There are three differences that I can see: {{l}} supports a g= parameter while {{onym}} does not, {{l}} places glosses and transliterations in separate sets of brackets while {{onym}} places them in the same set, and {{onym}} works like {{term}} when the first parameter is blank, displaying the term unlinked. --Yair rand (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
If those are in fact the only differences (I haven't checked, but will take your word for it), then I'd be fine with either fixing {{l}}'s deficiencies and changing {{onym}} into a (deprecated?) redirect, or vice versa. —RuakhTALK 00:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I think this template should be deleted, as long as {{l}} supports everything it does. —CodeCat 21:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] March 2011

[edit] Template:citelink

This template generates a link from a citation to a source (such as Google Books). This seems redundant with many other templates that do the same thing in a more standardized way, such as {{quote-book}}. Also, in my opinion, the resulting text of {{citelink}} at Citations:add fuel to fire is ugly. --Daniel. 16:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this template is only used inside other templates, where it isn't needed as you can simply write the text out. I would delete it, unless someone can come up with a way this is used usefully. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Tatar Cyrillic Words

'Words' shouldn't be capitalized, we use 'terms' not 'words'. Surely we should either 1) delete this outright or 2) rename to Category:Tatar entries in Cyrillic script, with Latin and Arabic (script) versions too. I don't think we have these sort of categories for Azeri, Serbo-Croatian and whatnot, so just delete it. --Mglovesfun (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

delete. You can use the table of contents to get Tatar words in Cyrillic script. -- Prince Kassad 18:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
We have Category:Mandarin nouns in traditional script and Category:Japanese hiragana, though. --Daniel. 18:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Since I've created {{tt-pos}}, it would be quite easy to categorize these. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The official Tatar is written in Cyrillic, anyway. All newspapers, books, signs, education, otehr media in Tatarstan, Russia are written in Cyrillic. The Roman spelling is a fashion, used mainly on the web, due to the fact that Roman spelling is not allowed but Cyrillic usage by far exceeds the Roman on the web as well. Writing Tatar in Roman letters today is the same as writing Turkish in the Arabic script - attestable but non-standard. --Anatoli 00:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:abbreviation

I just don't understand why this template was ever created; instead of:

==={{abbreviation|foo}}===
'''{{subst:PAGENAME}}'''

Just use

===Abbreviation===
{{infl|foo|abbreviation}}

How would this be different from a template called say, {{verb}}, {{noun}} or {{adverb}}? Oh, it does link to an appendix, though I (personally) dislike links in headers as distracting, though apparently they can also cause browser problems. But I've never witnessed that. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Useful (and in fact used) for categorizing in etymology sections: "===Etymology=== {{abbreviation|Langname}} of...".​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I suppose, though {{abbreviation of}} seems to cover that. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Or just ban it in headers then. Perhaps that's why it was created; for definition lines and etymologies. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I've come across entries using {{present participle of}} or {{past participle of}} in etymologies. By way of hypothetical example, interesting:
==English==

===Etymology===
{{present participle of|interest}}

===Adjective===
{{en-adj}}

# ...

I would simply switch the 'Etymology' head to 'Verb'. If this were intended to be a definition-line template it would now be redundant to {{abbreviation of}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree: delete and use Abbreviation of [[#|]]. in definition lines. The appendix link can be added there, if people wish to keep it. And replace the ==={{abbreviation}}=== headers by real POS headers: every abbreviation has a POS, abbreviation is not a POS itself. H. (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:transliteration

Is this what a standard template is supposed to look like? I don't know. But its parameters seem nonintuitive for non-English terms. Perhaps it's better to just use the separate components {{etyl}} and {{term}} instead of the lengthy template. TeleComNasSprVen 05:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Either delete or improve. It's not really doing anything useful right now. But if it were to categorize somehow, I'd keep it. But Category:English transliterations just looks wrong. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] April 2011

[edit] Template:warn uncivil

This template seemingly was used only once, shortly after being created in 2008. Also, it mentions "articles" instead of "entries". --Daniel. 05:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It could have been used but substituted. But I've never seen it used. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding that, but I've already checked for substituted uses of that text (through Special:Search, naturally) before sending the message above. --Daniel. 07:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:warn chat

This template was created in 2008, and apparently was never used. There also a few unused redirects to it: Template:spam2, Template:spam3 and Template:spam4. --Daniel. 06:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Could have been used but substituted, but I see no evidence of that. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Tatar Romanized Phonetic

I don't know what this is. At best, isn't it bad caps? Or is it a proper noun? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

They also all fail CFI. Tatar is written in Cyrillic, and no other script. -- Prince Kassad 14:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
w:Tatar language disagrees (I assume you know this already). However I tried some Romanized Tatar words in Google Books and found absolutely nothing. According to Atitarev above, Romanization is only used on Internet chat and similar, so many of the words may be unattested. Oh, and we have one Arabic script Tatar word. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Goth2img

This template isn't in use anymore, I don't think there is a reason to keep it... —CodeCat 18:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

See #Template:t2i above. -- Prince Kassad 18:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, I would assume if its parent template is deleted, it would go too. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
But that discussion isn't really going anywhere, and this has a much higher chance of succeeding. —CodeCat 18:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
It might if you commented on it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Keep, irritatingly so, because t2i has passed. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:scn-adj-h

[edit] Template:scn-adj-h

I'd rather have these in the inflection line as a {{scn-adj}}. For other languages with four forms, such as more-or-less all of the Romance languages we put these in the inflection line. Note, just realized scn-adj alreadu exists, will now look at it. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

{{scn-adj}} now seems sufficient as I've made it more flexible but with the same default values; {{scn-adj-n}}, the n seems to be for 'normal' and {{scn-adj}} already covers it; {{scn-adj-h}} is for variants which use -hi for the plural instead of just -i. That said, none of the three templates, for some reason, doesn't allow the masculine and feminine plurals to be different to each other. Is that because no such adjective exists? Hopefully, but I doubt it. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Appendix:Persian given names

[edit] Appendix:Persian given names (2)

I saw someone adding some Latin script names to the list, so I was going to rollback to the last good version. There isn't one; all the name are Latin script. Ergo no usable content given, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

delete -- Prince Kassad 22:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
keep The content is usable, it just needs transliterating. —CodeCat 23:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Which is impossible, as the spellings given here are Englishized. It would require a complete rewrite, and a deletion is easier for doing that. -- Prince Kassad 08:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, hypothetically if I wanted to rewrite an English appendix on the Persian Wiktionary which was written entirely in Persian, I'd sooner blank the content and start from scratch than transliterate a few hundred (maybe a thousand?) given names. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
We would need to know if this list would be any use to someone (bless him) planning to add Persian names. The original initial letters are listed at least. Most transliterations of Persian names would probably meet the CFI. Appendix:Armenian given names and Appendix:Greek given names are also in wrong script. The two Persian ones are almost duplicates so one of them should certainly be deleted.--Makaokalani 16:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Like I've said above, for the Greek appendix I'd either move that to Appendix:Romanizations of Greek given names or just delete it to make way for an actual appendix. Since we have Category:Greek given names such an appendix could be created, and unlike Persian I could probably do it. And if I do (at some point) I'd sooner blank the whole page and start again than convert the Latin words to Greek ones. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
That's what I've now done for Greek given names, hopefully, demonstrating the point I've made above. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ladecl3

Same as #Template:ladecl1&2 above. Add the appendix wikilink to {{la-decl-3rd}} instead. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's already part of {{la-noun}}. Silly me. --Mglovesfun (talk) 06:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Category:English sums of parts

[edit] Category:Sums of parts by language

Not dictionary material. Sum of parts is Wiktionary jargon and I dislike having Wiktionary-only jargon in page titles. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Plus it suggests that the entries there can be freely deleted, which is clearly not the case. -- Prince Kassad 16:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't suggest that to me, but it's also a reasonable assumption. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete, given that the two categories were created in February 2011 by MG, and MG now wants them deleted. If a plain majority of editors wants to keep the categories, consider my vote striken. --Dan Polansky 17:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Err sure, though it wouldn't matter would it? --Mglovesfun (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete. --Bequw → τ 18:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Slovak templates

[edit] Template:sk-decl-chlap

[edit] Template:dlaň

[edit] Template:sk-dub

[edit] Template:srdce

[edit] Template:stroj

[edit] Template:ulica

[edit] Template:žena

Templates that create wikilinks to appendices. Until now they weren't redundant to anything, I've now added a decl parameter to {{sk-noun}}. Further issues, they're horribly ambiguous - what would you think if you saw {{ulica}} on a page? Slovak entries, many of them created in 2004 by Red Prince (talk • contribs) are really messy. Probably not considered so at the time, but essentially a thousand or more entries need rewriting so there's no need to instantly orphan these if they fail, but rather replace them with {{sk-noun}} and {{sk-decl-noun}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I am about to support deletion, but I want to confirm that I have understood the reason for deletion. It seems that you are saying this: "The templates should be deleted, because they are now redundant to template:sk-noun; what they do can now be achieved with template:sk-noun". Is that right? The entry "kalamár" now uses {{stroj}}; can you replace the template in "kalamár" entry, so I can see in the revision history of "kalamár" what sort of formatting update you are proposing? --Dan Polansky 09:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Well not everything can (or even should) go in sk-noun, there should be more use of {{sk-decl-noun}} and I don't know who will do that. Perhaps just by using {{rfinfl|lang=sk}}. Oh and see kalamár. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete all; thank you for the example in "kalamár" (diff). Note that "Template:sk-decl-chlap" is just a renamed "Template:chlap" and that "Template:sk-dub" is just a renamed "template:dub", so each of the templates nominated for deletion was only intended by their creator to link to a declension appendix rather than showing a declension table, a function that is now indeed fulfilled by the headword-line template {{sk-noun}}. Cool! --Dan Polansky 11:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
All have failed, it will take a bit of time to delete them all. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ws refer

This Wikisaurus template makes use of a needlessly complicated technique of "/def" subpages, so I ask for its deletion.

Via this request, I also ask that the "/def" subpages get deleted. The subpages are the following: Wikisaurus:tiny/def, Wikisaurus:ephemeral/def, Wikisaurus:speedy/def, Wikisaurus:quickly/def, Wikisaurus:scrawny/def, Wikisaurus:obese/def, Wikisaurus:impoverished/def, Wikisaurus:gigantic/def, Wikisaurus:wealthy/def, Wikisaurus:enrage/def, Wikisaurus:fatigued/def. The def pages are used only by this template.

The talk page of the template (Template talk:ws refer) lists all the slash-def subpages and the source code of the template, so anyone can restore the idea if, in future, the editors of Wikisaurus arrive at the conclusion that the complexity introduced by the template is worth it.

Here is how the template's use looks like:

  • WikiSaurus.png Wikisaurus has an entry for “rich” in the sense of “wealthy”.

Here is the alternative currently used in most pages that link to Wikisaurus:

Here is another alternative sometimes used, listing some synonyms before the link to Wikisaurus:

--Dan Polansky 12:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it's redundant to just writing it out, since doing so isn't very difficult. I've always just typed it out and this template certainly isn't simpler than typing it out; in fact it looks a lot more complicated, including linking to pages that only exist to stop this template malfunctioning. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete, overuse of templates to replace simple functions. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Wikisaurus:Aldebaran

This is a Wikisaurus entry for a star. Having Wikisaurus entries for individual stars seems a bad thing. Its synonyms such as "Alpha Tauri", "α Tauri", and "87 Tauri" are all redlinks, and are going to remain so for some time, unless the community decides that star names of the form "Alpha Tauri" should be included. The synonyms can be entered in the mainspace if really desired, of which I am not convinced. I propose to delete the entry now and recreate it later if the decision is made to include a significant number of entries for stars in Wikisaurus; the entry should go lest it becomes an example for creation for further such entries. --Dan Polansky 19:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Notably, existing entries for names of stars that include Greek letters include Zeta Geminorum, Beta Lyrae, Epsilon Pegasi and Alpha Centauri A. Most names of stars with that particular characteristic are not defined on Wiktionary. My last example is from 2009; the others are from 2010. Reasons to keep such entries may include displaying their characteristics, such as the fact that Gamma Arietis is actually three stars. --Daniel. 03:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The only problem I can see is it's rather narrow as a thesaurus topic. But it seems to me the links would meet CFI, I don't see them as sum of parts or not dictionary material. And to nit-pick a little, you don't need a community consensus to create an entry, if so we'd being doing well if we created even one entry a day. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Non-sum-of-partness in proper names has not been taken to be a condition sufficient for inclusion, or else you would want to have "Albert Einstein". --Dan Polansky 10:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
One very common argument pro-deletion of names like "Albert Einstein" is calling them sum-of-parts of a given name and a surname. In this case: "Albert" + "Einstein". --Daniel. 10:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
IMO I've already covered this (Dan P's argument) above. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
All that I am saying is that, unless we want to include all names of artistic works including novels in Wiktionary, we cannot allow attestation combined with semantic non-sum-of-partness as a sufficient criterion for inclusion. I do not see that you have covered this in anyway, or how you have dealth with the exclusion of "Albert Einstein" that I have pointed out, an exclusion that follows from a recent vote. The names of the form "Alpha Centauri" show a similar combinatorial freedom as "Albert Einstein". --Dan Polansky 11:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The terms "Albert Einstein", "Albert" and "Einstein" are synonymous in the context of referring to one person (or more people), and all of them can be used alone while making sense, so it's easier to claim that the first is a sum of parts. The terms "Alpha" and "Centauri" are not exactly synonymous with "Alpha Centauri" and cannot be used alone while making sense, so it's easier to claim that the last isn't a sum of parts. --Daniel. 11:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this is the route to go down to get this entry deleted. It feels like assuming the invalidity of the aforementioned entries before they are even created, which is more or less the opposite of how we actually do it, that is, an entry is valid until it fails RFD or RFV. Anyway, the question for me is what limits are there on Wikisaurus entries? It's certainly best suited to topics usually covered by thesauri like "happy", "sad" etc. --Mglovesfun (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The redlinks are only one reason for this RFD. If "Alpha Tauri", "α Tauri", and "87 Tauri" are seen as significant synonyms that call for a dedicated thesaurus page, Wikisaurus will be flooded with pages for names of stars, in spite of names of stars being a borderline thesaurus (AKA word finder) content. If, for example, "Alpha Tauri" is only included in some holonym page such as Wikisaurus:Taurus (where it already is), the number of Wikisaurus pages devoted to stars becomes reasonably low. Wikisaurus:Taurus is a reasonably small page right now, and can comfortably host various synonyms of the star names as further meronyms. --Dan Polansky 07:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
If someone were to create the red links as full English entries, would you nominate them for RFD? And (ok, very hypothetical now) if they were to pass, would you still want this page deleted? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
If someone created entries for "Alpha Tauri", "α Tauri", and "87 Tauri", I would have one reason less to get Wikisaurus:Aldebaran deleted, but I would try to get Wikisaurus:Aldebaran deleted nontheless. I do not know whether I would nominate the mentioned mainspace entries. --Dan Polansky 07:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Three

Tagged by DCDuring (talk • contribs). Does this have anything to do with #Category:Importance? TeleComNasSprVen 21:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete, most of these should be in prefix categories. For the others, it's not worth keeping this category. -- Prince Kassad 21:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned this category, in that discussion, shortly before it was tagged. It has characteristics of Category:Importance, Category:Coffee, Category:Water, Category:Female, among many other categories. That is, they apparently exist for the sake of listing which definitions that involve a single concept: As an example, "Category:Coffee" contains frappucino, coffee grinder and coffee shop. --Daniel. 04:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a really weird category containing many things. Things that are etymologically related to three, often via Proto-Indo-European, or things involving three 'things'. My instinct is delete as it's no use to anybody. Interesting perhaps, but we do seem to forget that categories are supposed to be useful for our users and just come up with fanciful things to please ourselves. So delete and let's think about Wiktionary users more often. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. The category seems to contain terms whose definition involves three or threeness in some way, as dactyl--"A poetical foot of three syllables (— ~ ~), one long followed by two short, or one accented followed by two unaccented." The terms do not really seem to be included by etymology: the terms that start with "tri-" naturally also semantically contain the number 3 as long as the etymology follows the semantics at least a bit. I find the category actually quite interesting, but I admit its selection criteria are unlike those of most topical categories. For the record, here is the content of the category: 3-D, 3D, dactyl, hattrick, hattrick, lovetriangle, ménageàtrois, samisen, shamisen, teapoy, ter-, terce, ternary, third, thirteen, thirty, three, three-space, threefold, threeish, threeness, threepence, threesome, thrice, thruppence, tierce, TLA, treble, trefoil, trefot, tri-, triad, triangle, triannual, triathlete, triathlon, tribrach, tricolon, tricolor, tricolour, tricorn, tricorne, tricycle, trident, tridentate, triennial, trifecta, trifunctional, trifurcation, trigamy, trigon, trihedron, trilemma, triliteral, trillion, trilogy, trimester, trimetallic, trimeter, trinary, trinity, trio, tripartite, triphthong, triple, triplet, triplex, triplicate, tripod, triptote, triptych, triquetra, trireme, triskelion, tristate, trisulphide, trisyllabic, trisyllable, trit, tritactic, triumvirate, trivalent, troika. The category was created on 8 September 2009 by PalkiaX50. Category:One, Category:Two, Category:Four and Category:Five, which are similar categories, were all created by Facts707 on 13 February 2010; each of them contains only a few items. --Dan Polansky 13:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, keep as in line with Category:Coffee (these two are categories involving the concept described in the title). --Daniel. 18:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep, the category is useful, I don't get where Mglovesfun is coming from at all. A friend of mine wanted to know a word for "to reduce to one third the original amount". I sent him a link to this category and hopefully what his looking for is in there. Bbx 10:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I think this is potentially useful. I agree it is a weird mish-mash of etymological and semantic threes! Equinox ◑ 10:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:neuter feminine non-personal masculine of

Seems to have been created for use in one entry. Since we usually have one definition per line, I'd prefer us simply to use {{form of}} or {{inflection of}} and separate all the definitions onto separate lines. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete per MG. --Dan Polansky 10:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] May 2011

[edit] Template:alternative form bot

Template:alternative capitalization bot
Template:alternative spelling bot

Is there no longer any need for any of these templates to continue to exist? It's the same format for entries containing as definitions {{alternative <something> of}} when substituted. TeleComNasSprVen 10:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I've seen Visviva use them. That's it. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The choice of name is a complete mystery to me, however. Something like {{new en alternative form}} would be ok, IMO. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:copyvio suspected

Template:copyvio1

Doesn't {{delete}} take care of these issues already? TeleComNasSprVen 10:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly delete the second one as redundant. I seem to think we already have another copyright violation template that passed RFD in 2010. At worst, let's merge 'em into one template. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The one that passed is rndc.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The "copyvio suspected" template does not request deletion.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep per Msh210. --Bequw → τ 18:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:archaic past of

Unused, needs a total overhaul. But on reflection, why not use {{archaic}} {{past of|foo}}. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Replacing it with that might make the 'archaic' category almost useless if there are many verbs with an archaic past form. —CodeCat 20:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Useless for having too many entries in it, you mean? Well maybe, do we also want {{archaic plural of}}, {{archaic present participle of}} et al.? Note, this is unused but there most be some out there; mist for missed, past for passed, for example. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
We could also add an extra parameter archaic=1 to those templates. —CodeCat 12:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] MediaWiki:Cite error empty references define

Since when do we categorize MediaWiki pages? TeleComNasSprVen 09:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No idea, but this one isn't categorized. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Er, yes, it is. It's in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting. (That's because it uses {{broken ref}}, which categorizes.) I don't see the harm in it.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
So, what's the problem? --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep. All system messages start with "Mediawiki:". This is one of several that help automatically categorize pages with broken references. --Bequw → τ 18:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:proper noun

This doesn't really seem like it could be a context... --Yair rand 13:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not actually a context template. IMO check uses. It's used as a context template; most of those can doubtless be orphaned, probably all; if any can't then I suppose keep. If there's other use, perhaps keep depending on what that use is. Otherwise delete.—msh210℠ on a public computer 14:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it predates {{context}} which is why it isn't formatted as a context label. I suspect it should be replaced with {{qualifier|proper noun}} or just removed in some cases. I will however, look into it before saying delete. A lot of the transclusions seem to be not in the main namespace. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete, I've removed the obvious misuses, including one typo ({{proper noun}} instead of {{en-proper noun}}). For entries like PDF I separate the entry by part of speech, as opposed to 'Initialism' with the part of speech being given in a context label. The two remaining entries in the main namespace are curl and terra. For terra, it claims that it's a capitalized proper noun Terra so I should move it there, I just think it might not be capitalized in the given sense. For curl, it's a bit beyond me. Again, if the label is to be believed, there is a proper noun 'curl'. Though, I don't think it is. The transclusions in the appendix namespace are all {{context|proper noun}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:anim

Template:inanim

Unused and poorly formatted; I don't think it will even be used in the future. TeleComNasSprVen 15:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It could be used for languages that use animate vs. inanimate, as opposed to masculine/feminine/neuter/common. Even though it is not used now, it may get used in the future. -- Prince Kassad 15:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The 'poor formatting' is the same used for {{m}}, {{f}}, {{n}}, {{c}} et al. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:sectstub

Pointless. Most definitions I've seen on Wiktionary are "stubs" anyway. We have {{rfdef}} or {{rfc}} to cover such situations. TeleComNasSprVen 00:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this isn't actually supposed to be used in entries. It can be useful in appendices, help pages, and project pages. --Yair rand 01:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
It's used by the preload templates like {{new en noun}}. For this reason, it can be handy for finding newbie mistakes, even if it's not intended that way. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

keep useful for Appendices. -- Liliana • 19:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC) keep per Liliana-60. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Persian colloquial verbs

Is there anything special about these verbs that they need a separate category, or are they just verbs that happen to be colloquial? —CodeCat 22:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

(Why do people insist on nominating shit for deletion before asking these questions?) There are a pretty considerable number of verbs in Persian that are simply pronounced differently than they are written. The changes seem to be pretty regular, and this category is rather useful for finding them, especially if you don't feel like searching Category:Persian colloquialisms for words that end in -dan and -tan. Keep. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 13:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
You can use CatScan to search for verbs that are both in Category:Persian verbs and Category:Persian colloquialisms. -- Prince Kassad 14:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I've never heard of it and you're expecting an average user to be using it? Right. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 16:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
That is a defect that could be easily resolved. -- Prince Kassad 23:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding CodeCat's initial question, I think Dick, your answer seems to be 'no, there is nothing special about these verbs'. If that isn't your answer, please clarify. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
No, this category would be quite useful for new and intermediate learners of Persian. The number of verbs with colloquial forms, which can differ quite radically from the literary forms, is not insignificant. The situation isn't the same as in English, or French, or Russian, or really any other language I can think of. I'm going to copypaste Dijan's message from his talk page here. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 14:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
:Persian has numerous verbs which happen to be pronounced differently in the spoken and the informal language. The category presently doesn't have many verbs in it, because the editors (myself included) have mostly worked on the literary language so far. But, the number of such verbs is extensive. They are quite important to all learners of the language. Why would they not deserve their own category? --Dijan 21:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The bolding is my own, now his :D — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 14:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep the category, or list the verbs in an appendix. - -sche (discuss) 16:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Gay slang by language

First off, "gay" is a pejorative and a bit inaccurate a term, that could be better replaced by the word "homosexual". Secondly, what new information or improvement could this category possibly add that isn't already covered by Category:English slang or Category:Slang by language? Also might want to consider Category:Fandom slang by language and Category:Medical slang by language. TeleComNasSprVen 18:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: the discussion about the Template:gay slang has not yet been resolved. If that is worth mentioning here. --Pilcrow 18:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

And Category:Military slang by language, and I don't think gay is in itself pejorative, just it can be used pejoratively. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
On what planet is "gay" a pejorative? To five year-old school boys, perhaps... As for "homosexual" it is distinctly old-fashioned and totally uninclusive. I would have opted for "queer" but I think we already cover this category at Category:LGBT. ---> Tooironic 00:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we really cover this at Category:LGBT, in that one is a lexical category (containing slang terms used particularly among LGBT folk) and one is a topical category (containing terms relating to LGBT). There's a lot of overlap, of course — in many languages, most LGBT slang is going to be LGBT-related, since that is what queerfolk will have most needed to coin slang for — but I think it's worth keeping both categories. —RuakhTALK 01:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Speaking as a gay man, I am offended at the notion that "gay" is pejorative! (That's just me, of course. I'm certain that there exist gays who feel differently; but for what it's worth, my impression is that my view is typical.) Personally, I find "homosexual" O.K. in many contexts, but only in reference to homosexuality proper, not to cultural accessories: in 2011, I find "homosexual slang" awkward at best. However, I have to disagree with Tooironic's preference for "queer": it's an offensive-but-reclaimed term, which means that (for me at least) it only really works in the mouth of someone with perceived in-group status. But "LGBT", as (s)he suggests, seems fine to me. —RuakhTALK 01:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I too don't think of "gay" as a pejorative word; and I too believe this view is typical. Category:English gay slang is fine (in my opinion). If you guys are going to consider a long and awkward name, then you should note that Category:English homosexual slang is not the most accurate choice. It would be Category:English nonheterosexual slang. --Daniel. 04:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
How is "nonheterosexual" more accurate than "homosexual"? As a substitute for "gay", it seems — if anything — less accurate, since "gay" is arguably narrower than "homosexual" (lesbians are clearly homosexual, but often not considered "gay"), whereas "nonheterosexual" is clearly broader (since it includes also bisexuals and perhaps asexuals). As I noted, "LGBT" — which is broader yet — seems fine to me, but I don't see how we can describe one or another name as more "accurate", since the name itself will determine the content of the categories! —RuakhTALK 23:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I would prefer to call it LGBT slang, because it encompasses the broadest possible sense. Gay slang, even if it refers to men and women, still leaves out transgenders and (probably) bisexuals. —CodeCat 23:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd say keep this one, cuz the gay men have... metric tons of slang. Even if this category were made to include slang of lesbians and transexuals and everyone else in the queerworld, it'd probably be dominated by the slang of the gay men. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent —
Keep but I prefer LGBT slang as well; the fact that it would be 'dominated' by gay slang doesn't seem to be a problem to me. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:wikipedia article

I can't imagine how this template would be used. The title would be confused with the "Wikipedia new" template or {{wikipedia}} and the contents appear to be duplicating {{aus-bun}}. TeleComNasSprVen 06:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep if you want this old abandoned project to be continued. The idea, if I remember correctly, was controlling the Wikipedia article linked from each language category by means of (again) a big switch function, like {{wiktionary edition}} does for Wiktionary editions. Then, Category:English language would link to w:English language because it is the default value anyway, while Category:Norwegian Nynorsk language would instead link to w:Nynorsk (not to "Norwegian Nynorsk language"). --Daniel. 08:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I get it, but I'm not sure it's needed. w:Latin language redirects to Latin, so the Wiktionary Category:Latin language doesn't need any modification; it just follows the redirect. Same for w:Norwegian Nynorsk language. Unless there is an example where the redirect doesn't work, why keep it? --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I remember only one example: Category:Gutnish language and w:Gutnish language. --Daniel. 05:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Going back to the original question, how would this be used? --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Appendix:Greek script

This page would ordinarily hold an appendix concerning Greek script, as used by Ancient Greek, Modern Greek, Phrygian, Ancient Macedonian, Bactrian, etc. Right now, it is a redirect to Appendix:Greek alphabet, an appendix dealing with the Modern Greek usage. Having this as a redirect is very misleading, in my opinion. --Yair rand 22:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

If you distinguish {{el}} (Greek language) from {{Grek}} (Greek script), I suppose you could make a case that they aren't identical. But I'd keep the redirect until (if?) it's replaced by something else. Seems like an entirely reasonable use of a redirect to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep per Mglovesfun. I suggest eventually replacing that redirect by a full language-independent appendix, per Yair. --Daniel 23:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps for a hardened Wiktionary veteran, there's a clear difference between Greek script and Greek alphabet, but I don't think most users would view it that way. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, just revert the move from Greek script to Greek alphabet. This page doesn't just detail the Modern Greek alphabet, but the Greek script in total. -- Prince Kassad 11:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Category:English terms that begin with a written vowel but are preceded by the indefinite article "a"

What's this good for? We have Appendix:English_articles#Indefinite_articles (linked to from both a and an) which describes the situation in detail, so the category is unneeded. Or do we want Category:English terms that begin with a written consonant but are preceded by the indefinite article "an" as well? -- Prince Kassad 22:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep: I've seen people writing things like "an user" before. People make mistakes. An appendix is not the best place to list all words that fit the category. However, if possible, shorten the name of the category. --Daniel 23:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
And the fact that the vowel is written doesn't really help, because it would mean most words beginning with u- could be added to the category. —CodeCat 23:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Or, failing that, rename. What these words have in common (together with all words in <u-> /ju/ and <eu-> /ju/) is that they start with a vowel letter and a consonant sound. If the category name reflected that, it might be worth keeping. Maybe. —RuakhTALK 23:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
If the category name reflected that, however, it could include the entries "users" (a plural) and "using" (a verb form). The current category name doesn't allow both words. --Daniel 23:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
google books:"a users' guide", "a using statement". —RuakhTALK 00:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, right. :p Point taken. --Daniel 00:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I can imagine this being useful, if only a) the category name was shortened and b) we came up with a sister category for words like hour, honour, etc., which, although start with consonants, should be preceded with "an" because the initial sound is like a vowel. ---> Tooironic 00:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
We should cover this somehow, and a category seems more logical than appendices. Appendices usually end up with very few incoming links. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep the content, either as a list in an appendix or as a category full of entries. - -sche (discuss) 02:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete. This category doesn't highlight any special exception in the English language. I think that people should know in general that words beginning in /j/ take "a", rather than having a category of words that are perfectly regular. More usage examples in the entries saying "a user" or whatever would help people get a more intuitive understanding. Additionally, categories are in general supposed to be comprehensive and I'm not so sure I would want this category to appear on thousands of pages. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 04:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Convert to an Appendix and link it from a Usage Notes section of relevant words. --EncycloPetey 14:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I hope one day in the future we can replace any such categories with phonetic searches using pronunciation data, but that's probably some way off. Equinox ◑ 14:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Also create an Appendix and make a cleanup list to encourage insertion of the usage note linking to the Appendix. (Ie, I support EP's idea.) I have seen no evidence that a category name that may appear several screens below the landing screen is of any use to actual human users of Wiktionary. Even if it appears on the same screen, do we really believe that users look to categories for usage warnings? DCDuring TALK 14:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:zh-cn

[edit] Template:zh-tw

These templates are language codes but they are not languages at all, they are scripts. The use of these templates has already generated categories like Category:Simplified Chinese literary terms, which are being discussed in the Beer Parlour. But separate from that, I believe these templates should not exist at all. —CodeCat 12:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete, you are correct, as well as {{Hani}} for CJKV characters we have {{Hans}} and {{Hant}}. There is no way to use these nominated templates that I am aware of. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Certainly delete. We have the good old distinction between language codes and script codes. These anomalies ("zh-cn" and "zh-tw", that look like language codes but are used to choose scripts) should be terminated. --Daniel 20:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone know what the best way is to orphan them? —CodeCat 20:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Sadly, no. Persistence, mainly. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Would a search-and-replace from lang=zh-cn to lang=cmn|sc=Hans work at all? —CodeCat 20:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
It makes the assumption that zh refers to Mandarin, but {{zh}} currently displays Mandarin already. There are some translations, see abort (permanent link). It seems logical to convert this to
* Chinese
*: Mandarin: {{t|cmn|$1|sc=Hant}}

But in the translations to check checked section. Not easy stuff. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I would rather automate as many of the fixes as possible first, so that we can more easily pick out the entries that need to be fixed manually later. —CodeCat 21:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
There is another issue as well. Even if we deprecate and delete the templates, there are still lots of topical categories using the codes as a prefix: Category:zh-cn:All topics and Category:zh-tw:All topics. I'm not sure what to do with those. Should we merge them into the cmn: categories, or something else? I don't think {{topic cat}} currently supports script subcategories. —CodeCat 21:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, they will be deleted when they are empty! Seems that most of the uses refer to Mandarin, so changing them to lang=cmn might work. I think there's a way to detect section headers thet Yair rand mentioned on the Beer Parlour. If that's the case it would be relatively easy to do them all. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that when I add sc=Hant to a category boilerplate template, it says the category should be named '...in Traditional Han script', while it should be '...in traditional script' I think? How do I fix that? —CodeCat 17:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you tell us which one? It certainly seems to be like what you're trying to do ought to be possible. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
There are a few categories in Category:Categories needing attention. —CodeCat 19:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand the logic behind deprecating zh-cn and zh-tw. However, an adequate replacement solution still needs to be worked out. For example, in the entry 南郡, we have {{archaic}} setting lang to equal "zh-tw". From what I can tell, your objection above is that the current scheme confuses an orthography for a language. In order to implement your solution, all {{context}} templates would have to be altered to include an "sc" so that one could do something like {{archaic|lang=cmn|sc=hant|skey=十07}}. The resulting natural language category would be Category:Mandarin archaic terms in traditional script. Additionally, the entry also contains a manual category: Category:Simplified Chinese archaic terms, which would need to be changed to Category:Mandarin archaic terms in simplified script. What about pinyin entries? Should those be Category:Mandarin archaic terms in pinyin script, or should we simply use Category:Mandarin archaic terms for pinyin entries? -- A-cai 00:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in Mandarin, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Pinyin is a romanization system, not a script, and it uses the Latin script. So the name Category:Mandarin archaic terms in Latin script would be more accurate than Category:Mandarin archaic terms in pinyin script. --Daniel 00:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Point well taken. I personally favor having a category called Category:Mandarin archaic terms that defaults to Pinyin spelling. That would avoid such terminological difficulties. -- A-cai 11:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
A certain amount of "terminological difficulties" already exist since the division between scripts was implemented. By having Category:Mandarin nouns in simplified script, Category:Mandarin nouns in traditional script and Category:Mandarin nouns, we require people to understand what are "Mandarin", "noun", "traditional" and "simplified" for the best experience in navigating them all.
Understanding them is not difficult at all: "Mandarin" and "noun" are basic words in English, and "traditional script" can be inferred to be a writing system. In addition, a person who knows Mandarin enough to want to navigate our Mandarin categories should reasonably know the differences of scripts.
On the other hand, if, hypothetically, our public is comprised of people who don't know how to discern scripts, or don't notice the separate categories for scripts, and we don't create Category:Mandarin nouns in Latin script, then people will only see the Latin script entries in Category:Mandarin nouns, thus possibly having the impression that entries in simplified/traditional script are absent. I don't think we should emphasize pinyin entries that way. --Daniel 12:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep, I think. CodeCat is right, of course, that this is not a linguistic difference, but merely an orthographic one; but since we're a written resource, orthography takes on a greater importance here than ideally it would. Our entries for terms are actually, on a lower level, entries for spellings; our categories of terms are actually, on a lower level, categories of spellings. Given that, I think it makes some sense to keep separate categories for Simplified and Traditional; a person looking through a Mandarin category is not interested in Mandarin-words-regardless-of-script, but Mandarin-words-in-the-script-that-they-know. And that means keeping separate language templates. (I don't actually feel very strongly about this; but if it's to be changed, I think it should be changed because the Chinese-language contributors have decided at Wiktionary:About Chinese languages to change it, not because of a general discussion among people with no stake in it.) —RuakhTALK 02:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I too support the old proposal of separating between categories of simplified and traditional scripts for Mandarin and a number of other languages. Naturally, I oppose the suggestion of merging them into category without any distinction of scripts.
I appreciate the simultaneous existence of Category:Mandarin nouns in simplified script and Category:Mandarin nouns in traditional script, and I certainly don't want a mere Category:Mandarin nouns without any subdivision for scripts.
However, the codes "zh-cn" and "zh-tw" are redundant and superfluous. We can certainly keep the distinction between categories of different scripts, without having to use these codes. We already have good script codes from ISO to replace them:
  • Traditional Han script is "Hant", so "zh-tw" is unnecessary.
  • Simplified Han script is "Hans", so "zh-cn" is unnecessary.
The codes to be deprecated (zh-tw and zh-cn), and their templates to be deleted (Template:zh-cn and Template:zh-tw) are formatted as language codes, not script codes, and are relics from a time when Category:Simplified Chinese language and Category:Traditional Chinese language existed. These deprecations and deletions are a step closer to a more consistent, logical and intuitive system. --Daniel 03:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
In looking at the {{context}} template, it seems that it would need to be modified so that if you have something like {{archaic|lang=cmn|script=hant|skey=十07}}, the category would say Category:Mandarin archaic terms in Simplified Han script (based on the current wording in the {{script}} template). -- A-cai 12:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
A-Cai, it's unclear whether you support the idea of having "Category:Mandarin archaic terms in Simplified Han script" instead of "Category:Mandarin archaic terms in simplified script". Do you have an opinion about it?
I, personally, prefer the latter for consistency with Category:Simplified Han script. --Daniel 12:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't have strong preference. I was merely using the wording currently found in the {{script}} template. I'm not sure if there would be any ill effects from removing "Han" from the template. -- A-cai 22:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The problem (well, issue) is that we don't allow Chinese as a language, but these categorize as 'Simplified Chinese' and 'Traditional Chinese' - they don't categorize in the same language as the section headers and other templates! Furthermore they categorize in a rejected language name. I think we should keep our current system of […] in simplified script. I don't think these templates can fit this system. Perhaps if they displayed 'Mandarin in simplified script' they would fit in, but no other Chinese languages could then use them. It seems to be to be at least possible that {{context}} would allow {{#ifeq:{{{sc}}}|Hans|[[Category:{{{lang|en|l=}} {{{cat}}} in simplified script]]}}. That's not exactly right; I'm just saying it's possible, not how to do it. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
They have been also categorizing as "zh-cn" and "zh-tw" for ages. Just see Category:zh-cn:Anatomy, which is actually described as "The following is a list of Simplified Chinese terms related to anatomy." --Daniel 00:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
There's the possibility, I suppose of {{cmn-Hans}} and {{cmn-Hant}} if we really wanted to. I'd prefer just allow script parameters in {{context}} though. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

For the curious, there was a vote on this: WT:Votes/2009-12/Chinese categories. Afterwards I switched over the POS categories to not use the tag prefixes. The topic categories needed more work (which I proposed at Template talk:context#Allowing a script prefix), but as I didn't get much support I left them alone. I supportive of moves away from the tag-prefixes for categories (though I don't have much time to work on it). --Bequw → τ 21:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be best to consider what to name the final categories. The vote mentions adding 'in traditional script' and 'in simplified script', but many of the existing templates accept only script codes, which would create 'in Traditional Han script' and 'in Simplified Han script' instead. —CodeCat 21:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I thought of one more thing that might make a lot of sense. The codes hant and hans describe traditional and simplified scripts, respectively. However, one could argue that there is actually a third category, which is both. It might make sense to have an additional code, such as hants or simply han, meaning that the word is identical in both scripts. An example would be 明公. If a context template is added to the entry with the "both" option, the word would be added to both the traditional and the simplified category in question. -- A-cai 12:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
sc=Hani? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] June 2011

[edit] Template:alcohol

This template categorizes pages in Category:Alcoholism, and I guess the intention was "alcohol consumption". It is only used on drinking game. Alcohol is an ambiguous name for a topic, since it also has a chemical sense.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 13:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe move it to {{alcoholic drink}}? —CodeCat 13:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Would that be Category:Alcoholic beverages or Category:Cocktails? I would rather suggest a move to {{drinking}} (Category:Drinking).--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 14:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
But drinking could mean drinking in general, not specifically alcoholic. —CodeCat 13:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
What exactly might be categorized under "drinking in generel"? I don't see any real ambiguity, but then again, I didn't see any reason for this template in the first place.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 12:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:del

This code expands to 'Lenape' which is a macrolanguage, and we already have the codes {{unm}} and {{umu}} for its two sublanguages, and also Category:Unami language, while Category:Lenape language has already been deleted before. —CodeCat 21:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Appendix:Etymology/escalator

Appears to be a verbatim copy of wikipedia:en:Escalator#Etymology. The wikitext should be hosted in one place, not several. I.e. the home for the text should be either Wiktionary or Wikipedia, not both. Opinions? --Hydrox 12:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

WT:BP#Huge etymologies indicates that the text from Appendix:Etymology/escalator should be in the entry escalator, rather than on a separate page.
Such a move would, however, introduce a few nonstandard headers, such as "Name development and original intentions". --Daniel 16:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I see no reason why "wikitext should be hosted in one place, not several". Not all transwikied entries are deleted from the original location. If the information is correct and relevant, keep it wherever it is found. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Just keep, in the absence of convincing reasons to do otherwise. I already explained to Hydrox months ago that hosting wikitext in multiple places is not a bad thing, but (s)he created this RFDO anyway, so apparently (s)he just needed some second opinions. --Daniel 10:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Appendix:Star Trek/beaming up

Weren't these (appendix subpage pseudoentries) supposed to have been deleted by the creator? DCDuring TALK 00:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where you got "by the creator" from, but we did vote that this is not to be the standard format for appendices. --Yair rand 01:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I thought that was one of our good-citizenship norms. If not, it should be. I try to clean up any systematic messes of mine. DCDuring TALK 02:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Or you could merge the subpages of Appendix:Star Trek yourself. --Daniel 08:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
These entries got confused when Daniel Carrero moved them into the appendix namespace; Ruakh move beam up back into the main namespace but didn't move the three inflected forms back, which I have just done now. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Oops. Well, thanks for fixing it. :-)   —RuakhTALK 00:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

But what about all the other ones?

-- DCDuring TALK 01:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
And other detritus of the fictional universes (incompletely categorized, so a bit hard to find. DCDuring TALK 01:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The real problem is that some of these will meet CFI! Daniel C moved a lot of terms originating in fictional universes without checking that they might meet CFI, which is a bit dubious, and I'd have thought contrary to his interests anyway. For example transporter is used in more than one franchise, isn't it? --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The way transporter was defined[2], it looked like a term used only in context of Star Trek. Either just removing the "star trek" context label, or moving the whole sense to an appendix, or both, would be good ways to improve the entry. Accuracy is in line with my interests. --Daniel 00:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
DCDuring, knowing what are the unconverted appendices is not so difficult: you could just have asked me. These would be the children of Appendix:Pokémon, Appendix:Star Trek, Appendix:Star Wars, Appendix:Chip's Challenge, Appendix:Harry Potter, Appendix:J. R. R. Tolkien, Appendix:The Simpsons, Appendix:Farscape and Appendix:Brave New World.
Good examples of already converted appendices are Appendix:Haruhi Suzumiya, Appendix:DC Comics and Appendix:The Legend of Zelda. --Daniel 00:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:etyl:Austrian German

And its redirect, Template:etyl:AG.. We already have {{bar}} for Austro-Bavarian, so this template isn't really needed. —CodeCat 12:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hang on. I believe this template is used to designate the variety of Standard German as spoken in Austria (i. e. Category:Austrian German), and not the actual language. -- Prince Kassad 13:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
But are there any words specific to that variety of standard German that don't originate from Austro-Bavarian? It seems to me that one origin would imply the other. —CodeCat 10:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Be that as it may, if a word comes from Language A and, earlier, from Language B, we want to document that it comes from Language A, don't we? I mean, if English had several hundred words from Spanish and they all happened to come from Latin (which is not true, just an example), we'd nonetheless want to document that the words came via Spanish.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
We have Category:Picard language and Category:Picard French. So I'm thinking keep in lack of a reason to delete this. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Wiktionary:Policies and guidelines

This page is outdated and completely contradicts common practice regarding policies. -- Prince Kassad 13:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep I'm not an established editor, so this should count as Weak keep but I found this page very useful. As a newcomer from enwiki, I found the rest of the help pages (the tutorial especially and Welcome, newcomers) a bit patronising and more importantly: only about mark-up and some Wikietiquette. This page led me to the WT:Copyright policy (it's tough to gauge how copyright applies to dictionaries-how much can you be inspired by a copyrighted definition). If the page is outdated, it can surely be improved, there's no need to delete it.' I personally found it far more useful than the tutorial and the welcome page put together. Puchiko 22:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Category:English male given names from India

Um, we don't want these categorized by country or region, do we? Surely just by language. Are we gonna have Category:English male given names from France as well? I don't doubt we could find hundreds of them, but do we want to? --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

See Wiktionary:About given names and surnames#Categories. I don't qualify to categorize these names by original language, and they should be stored somewhere. Also it's reasonable to group together the names of India, because they really could also be called transliterations. It wasn't meant as an encouragement for creating similar categories. It did bother me when an anon created Category:English male given names from Pakistan, obviously incensed that Urdu would be called an Indian language. Since the modern trend is to make category names as long and complicated as possible, here are some suggestions for a better name:
  • Category:English male given names from the languages of the Indian subcontinent
  • Category:English male given names from the languages of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka
  • Category:English male given names that look like they might be transliterations from languages spoken in the former British India where English is one of the official languages.
Or should names from unkown and rare languages be kept permanently outside subcategories? I'd like to see as few subcategories as possible. I think a subcategory should have at least 10-20 members, so there are no categories for names from Provençal (Eleanor), Basque (Xavier), Akan (Kwame), Tahitian (Tehanu), Hawaiian (Leilani) even though they are borne by Anglophones. Category:English male given names from Yoruba is madness. What about putting all the rare languages in Category:English male given names from unkonwn or rare languages? Or more exacly, from languages that are rare as origins of English names... Alternatively rare languages could be grouped together: "languages of Africa", "languages of Polynesia" etc. --Makaokalani 13:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Wiktionary:Inflection-table templates

This was page was emptied out per this BP dicussion (pages that try to list a lot of info for every language are unmaintainable). --Bequw → τ 19:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit of a weird concept. First of all, you're only gonna use an inflection-table for a language you know well. Secondly, to find such a template, I'd either guess at a name, such as typing Template:pt-decl into the search bar (pt being Portuguese) or type in Category:Portuguese templates. Trying to remember the name of this page would come a distant third; like Bequw says, it would be very difficult to maintain and it's quite empty now. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] July 2011

[edit] Category:Sony

Overly specific. Sets a precedent for other categories like Category:Nintendo, Category:Sega, etc. which we most likely don't want. -- Prince Kassad 12:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete. It would seem our prejudice against company and brand names should be relevant in some way. This may be an indication that we will be needing a little more formality about categories. DCDuring TALK 13:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Definitely delete. This free open project should not get bogged down in corporate commercial enterprises — and imagine trying to keep this kind of category accurate in the face of future takeovers and mergers. Equinox ◑ 13:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to keep it as long as it has members, per Category:Microsoft, which survived RFD. --Daniel 13:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The Microsoft RfD was prematurely closed by the advocate who now cites it as precedent.
If the CFI-meeting terms have proper etymologies, then searching for "Sony" finds them. Categories whose principal justification is such searching seem marginal at best. DCDuring TALK 14:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Wiktionary talk:Requests for deletion/Others#Minimum time indicates that the minimum time for closure is one week.
The discussion you say was "prematurely" closed was closed after 3 "keep" votes, 2 "delete" votes, and one month without discussion. --Daniel 14:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
DCDuring, you already orphaned Category:Sony few hours after this discussion was created. Very clearly, the one who acts prematurely among us isn't me. You shouldn't rush. --Daniel 14:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
You had said above that the sole reason for your keep vote was that it was not empty. I thought you had the housekeeping/red-link objection to deleting it while it was populated. Feel free to restore the categories, though I made other changes in some of the entries, like adding etymologies. DCDuring TALK 18:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, that seems reasonable to some extent. I'm not interested in restoring the categorization right now, especially if no one else wants to keep Category:Sony. I'm going to clarify my intent, though: as you know, some of the members of Category:Sony are undergoing RFVs and RFDs, so there's a chance they get deleted (or not deleted) in the future. As long as we have entries that fit a "Category:Sony", or perhaps a relatively high number of said entries, I think the category should exist. Similarly, my arguments in favor of keeping Category:Microsoft included the fact that it has more than 50 members with a clear relationship of being related to the same company. --Daniel 18:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I have no objection to Appendices for such matters. They provide some of the functionality categories and additional potential functionality of their own (eg, they can have sortable tables). The Appendix could be linked in the See also section of each appropriate entry. Terms that did not meet CFI could also be included, as well as links to the corresponding Citations and Talk pages. This would conserve effort should the term meet CFI, whether because its use changed or CFI changed. If I understand correctly a call to an Appendix page is quicker than a call to a category. DCDuring TALK 19:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I like the idea of using appendices for that. Please see Appendix:DC Comics, which is an appendix of fiction, whose format is so generic it can fit other appendices, such as Appendix:Sony, nicely. Now I added a link to talk pages from the template {{item}}, per your suggestion. --Daniel 19:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Cool. Is there any technical reason that such template cannot be used within sortable tables? DCDuring TALK 20:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
It can. That template returns quite fancy text, but it's still just text, so it can be used within sortable tables. If you want to deprecate the DT/DD lists and introduce sortable tables in their place, please first create an example and propose that change formally. The current lists look very good, and I don't know in advance whether the new design would be better. --Daniel 23:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know from DT/DD lists. Where can I learn about them? I just copied what I like from WP and found that it worked here. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I explained about them on your talk page. --Daniel 01:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete, not dictionary material, but in future do not orphan before it fails, it rather makes a mockery of the whole rfd process. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Not a lexicographically useful distinction. bd2412 T 15:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Parts of knots

Overly specific; surely Category:Knots could stand another five entries in it without all hell breaking loose. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. I have no strong opinion either way, but FWIW see Appendix:Parts of the knot for some additional terms that could be added to this category. --EncycloPetey 15:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, merge into knots. Of course, that means that if we ever rename topical categories along the lines of "English terms for knots" then this one will have to be "English terms relating to knots".​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Sure. Go ahead. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 22:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

RFD-failed, merged into Category:Knots. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Entries with audio examples

I can't really see any use for this. --Yair rand 14:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I quite like the idea, to be populated by {{audio}} when lang is given, see Category:Mandarin entries with audio links. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hypothetically, one could use this, together with a list of common terms or terms that have some kind of pronunciation difficulty, and, say, CatScan, to produce a list of terms that need pronunciations. Obviously there are other ways to achieve a similar result, such as having a bot identify terms that might warrant an rfap. DCDuring TALK 15:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
This isn't a category containing entries with audio pronunciations, it's a category containing entries with audio examples, such as evil laugh and bark. It's a duplicate of Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:listen. --Yair rand 15:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I rescind my previous statement. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. I like that category. --Daniel 04:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep. — Beobach 21:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:etyl:ber-tam

Isn't this the same as 'Berber', which already uses the code {{etyl:ber}}? —CodeCat 14:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't discern any difference. delete -- Liliana • 14:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I seem to think I created this because it was used in an entry, not because of any personal desire for the template. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
It looks like [[Tamazight]] had "Tamazight", and you formatted it to use {{etyl:ber-tam}}, which you created at the same time. —RuakhTALK 14:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, as I couldn't find a code for Tamazight, I have no idea if Berber and Tamazight are effectively the same thing. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • It's not the same thing, although maybe it would be better if we treated them the same. "Berber" is the name of a language family which includes a staggering profusion of languages/dialects. "Tamazight" is just "Berber language" in most Berber languages, but confusingly it's also often used as the official name for the specific dialect spoken in central Morocco (which has its own ISO code, tzm). Personally I think we should lump them all together as "Tamazight" and deal with local differences on the level of definition-line context markers, but this is confused by 1) the fact that some Berber languages have a history of being treated separately, eg Kabyle and Touareg; and 2) the fact that we have never had a discussion about it here and there is no history of consensus. Ƿidsiþ 15:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
    • See also [3].​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
      • As I understand it, 'Berber' is a language family (ISO defines 'ber' as a family), and 'Tamazight' is a macrolanguage that encompasses (almost) all of that family, similar to how 'Gaelic' and 'Goidelic language' are mostly the same. I don't think there is really a distinction between them that is useful for Wiktionary? —CodeCat 16:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
        • We need to decide what it means exactly. If "Tamazight" is intended to include Kabyle and Touareg, I think that sounds weird and "Berber" would be better. "Tamazight" to me suggests northwestern varieties. Ƿidsiþ 09:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
        • I think nobody who seriously studies Berber languages considers Touareg to be part of Tamazight. There definitely is a distinction between these terms. Maybe we need something like this classification list to categorize the Berber languages properly? (especially since there isn't really any agreement on what constitutes a language and what is better classified as a dialect) -- Liliana • 13:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Category:en:Taxonomic names

AFAICT, there is no good reason for this category to exist. There should not be 1822 members in it. There should be none. There must be some template-based miscategorization going on. DCDuring TALK 04:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is already ongoing above at #Category:Taxonomic names as to what to do. The question to be resolved is: Do we use Category:Taxonomic names for all of these (my own preference too) or Category:mul:Taxonomic names or Category:Translingual taxonomic names, each of which implies that these are possible in other languages. I've determined that most of the problem was in the implementation of {{taxon}}, which categorizes based on an imcluded language parameter and apparently defaults to English. I've made an edit specifying "lang=mul" to at least empty the "en:" category of all but a fraction of the entries, but we still need to decide where we want all of these entries to end up. --EncycloPetey 05:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Note: It is also possible that there are some pre-Code obsolete taxonomic names that never existed outside of English. See Quadrumana for a possible instance. --EncycloPetey 05:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I forgot about the ongoing discussion. Thanks.
I also prefer Category:Taxonomic names for the main home for these. I'll keep my eye out for the ones like Quadrumana. Even those older terms were Latinate, were they not, and intended to be useful internatonally? Should they not be treated as also Translingual? DCDuring TALK 06:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
We have used "Translingual" to mean that a term is used identically across a wide range of (often unrelated) languages; see for example the citations I added to sensu stricto. So, I would call a word "Translingual" unless it actually can be shown as used in multiple languages. Intention of use isn't really documentable in a case like Quadrumana, as this name was used pre-Code. Once the international Codes came into acceptance, then it becomes clearer because authors are bickering about satifying international agreement requirements for publication. However, if Quadrumana can be documented to languages like Swedish and Russian, then I think calling it "Translingual" makes sense. --EncycloPetey 17:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Transwiki:Ye wei

Copy from English Wikipedia Article. --Dingar 01:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

That's what a transwiki is. What's your objection to this one? See Help:Transwiki. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Bad nomination, striking. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] August 2011

[edit] Category:en:Superheroes

This one could probably contain Superman, etc., but apparently the current practice is having only Category:en:Fictional characters for all fictional characters... --Daniel 08:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

So, you're proposing we delete the English category, but keep the ones in all the other languages? Or what? --EncycloPetey 08:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm proposing the deletion of that category. Many times I said something along the lines of "don't forget to delete the other language versions as well!", but now I just didn't want to do that, for the additional deletions could (or could not) be obvious. No, I propose deleting them all, including Category:hu:Superheroes and Category:fi:Superheroes. --Daniel 08:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Category:English focus adverbs

not for deleting the category, but in a few pages in this cat they have included {{context|focus}}. I reckon almost everybody would have no idea why "focus" is there. Maybe it would be better to make Template:focus which would link towards a decent page explaining what a focus adverb is, otherwise I see the tag as more damaging than positive --92.24.123.16 19:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you offering to take a run at drafting the section of Wiktionary:English adverbs that would cover this? DCDuring TALK 20:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Maybe one day. For now I'm going to do what I always do. Put in hours of incredibly useful work, find a nice list to work from, edit from new locations every day, get blocked by SB then move on, play with Equinox, get drunk and do some silly edits on a Friday night, rant, make lots of typos, pretend I know a new language so you think I'm a newbie, delete the main page, then start from the beginning. --78.146.12.163 22:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
So Wonderfool, you're saying you don't want to delete this category? So why's it here, this page isn't for proposing new templates. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Bad nomination, striking. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wiktionary:Frequency lists/Contemporary poetry

I don't see how this can achieve anything. A list of the most common 2000 words in contemporary poetry (quite how that's been compiled, I don't know). Since we have all 2000 words, what does this page achieve, and for who? --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

When is "contemporary"? Can we even tell when this category falls out of date? Equinox ◑ 19:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This is useful for cryptanalysis, as sample texts are often taken from poetry. (anonymous)

Perhaps, but cryptanalysis is out of our scope. I don't object to someone putting it on their blog or something. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Does not some degree of frequency data fall under our purview? I would worry most about the fact that there's no evidence on how it's been compiled.--Prosfilaes 23:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't oppose Wiktionary:Frequency lists, quite the opposite, I've used them myself, I oppose this particular list for the reasons stated above (both by me and by other users). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:of a person

Not needed; just use {{context|of a person}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently created to get it off of Special:WantedTemplates. Not a good enough reason IMO, delete. No opinion —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 18:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC) 19:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
If that's true, it should never have been made. The way {{context}} works, it will always put stuff on that list. Delete in favor of using {{of a|person}}.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The main reason to create any {{context}} template is to categorize, as in terms of displaying text, context does this well already. Any context template that doesn't categorize simply saves eight keystrokes - {{of a person}} instead of {{context|of a person}}. But deleting them probably doesn't achieve much, if anything. For example would we get rid of {{figuratively}} or {{transitive}}. Similarly, {{of a|person}} achieves the same thing; it saves a few keystrokes with no other advantages, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Delete. I think "Of a person," should be a part of the definition rather than being marked as a context. --Dan Polansky 09:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] September 2011

[edit] Category:Inflection-table templates by language with subcategories

These categories contain one or two subcategories: declension templates and conjugation templates. Categories like Category:Japanese conjugation-table templates or Category:Japanese declension-table templates are also subcategories of Category:Japanese templates and Category:Japanese inflection-table templates. So, we have something like this:

  • Category:Xxx templates
    • Category:Xxx conjugation-table templates
    • Category:Xxx declension-table templates
    • Category:Xxx inflection-table templates
      • Category:Xxx conjugation-table templates
      • Category:Xxx declension-table templates

I think "conjugation-table templates" and "declension-table templates" categories could be inside "Category:Xxx templates", so categories like "Category:Xxx inflection-table templates" are redundant. Maro 19:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Some inflection-table categories have direct members. --Yair rand 20:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Some languages also have individual categories for different kinds of declension template. For example Category:Greek adjective declension-table templates. —CodeCat 11:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Koongo language

redundant to Category:Kongo language -- Liliana • 15:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently Kongo is the macro-language and Koongo is a 'sublanguage'. We generally decide these on a case-by-case basis. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Entries with redirects

Woefully underpopulated. Was this intended for trans-lingual entries only, with or without subcategories for specific languages (don't cry over spilt milk), or as a catch-all like Category:Wiktionary pages that don't exist? Should it be deleted, or populated? — Beobach 21:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No. It is a category for entries with redirects. Keep it. --Daniel 21:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Your ideas could become subcategories of it, though. --Daniel 21:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
What is the purpose of this category? You can always use Special:Listredirects. delete -- Liliana • 01:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
How would you populate it, anyway? What purpose does it serve? Delete, I think. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Korean terms derived from Proto-Korean

This was in Special:UncategorizedCategories because we don't have a language code for Proto-Korean. Wikipedia says ""Proto-Korean" is not a well-defined term". Should we delete this category and change the one entry (물) to refer to Old Korean and/or not categorise, or make a proto: code for PK? — Beobach 21:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

That entry should have most of its Etymology section stripped entirely, since it is based on the ill-fated Altaic hypothesis. That would make this category empty. -- Liliana • 01:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:arb

Isn't this exactly what we cover with {{ar}}? Shouldn't these two be merged? -- Liliana • 03:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we use {{ar}} to mean {{arb}}, yes. I'm not certain. To rephrase it, how should {{ar}} and {{arb}} be used if they are kept as separate templates. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Arabic is a macrolanguage so it would refer to any Arabic variety, including standard Arabic. On the other hand we also have {{etyl:sem-arb}} for the Arabic language family. —CodeCat 12:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
It's really a bit like having Mandarin, Chinese and Sinitic then, just even less clear! In which case we could use the same approach, ban {{ar}} using only {{arb}} for Arabic and sem-arb for the language family. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I can see how this would be used, namely in etymology sections of Arabic dialects. But surely "From Standard {{etyl|ar}}" should be sufficient for these? -- Liliana • 20:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:makurakotoba

Can one of our Japanese editors tell me what this is good for? I fail to see the point in it. -- Liliana • 18:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The only potential utility I see is the link through to the term makurakotoba, but this is not very useful. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 05:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, it gets even better -- the IP user who created {{makurakotoba}} never even added the makurakotoba entry, but only linked through to w:Makurakotoba. Wow. Not very ... together. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 06:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Is it a context of sorts, or the sort of thing that should be in the definition itself? --Mglovesfun (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not terribly familiar with the term, but judging from the WP article, it's a sort of set phrase used as a lead-in for a specific something else, which can sometimes be used as a stand-in for that something. I can sort of see why someone thought it might be useful to have such a category, but I have no idea how many such terms there might be. Shogakukan's J-J dictionary goes into ancient poetic forms, making me think this isn't too common in the modern language (which might also help explain how I've missed hearing about these before now). -- HTH, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps analogous to {{simile}}? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe a bit. Reading around on the term, it sounds more like cases where you've got a set intro, like, "there once was a man from Nantucket", that comes to represent the bit coming after -- in this case, just saying "a man from Nantucket" calls to mind ribald jokes, and I think this might be more the kind of association meant by makurakotoba. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:stock symbol

Not a context. Neither do I think we should include stock symbols, but oh well. -- Liliana • 22:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete, correct. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
That is, if something is a stock symbol, it should be in the definition itself a bit like this. --Mglovesfun (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Museums

Since we do not have names of museums in Wiktionary (or at least we aren't supposed to), what is this good for? -- Liliana • 02:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Category:National Parks and Monuments

encyclopedic -- Liliana • 02:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Indifferent to keep, not really worse that [[Category:London]]. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Even if it's kept, it is still bad caps... -- Liliana • 18:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:meta

I doubt that any of our entries or categories or whatnot would benefit from having a link to Meta added, which is mostly just a collection of boring mud wars. -- Liliana • 02:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:PL:meta

Same -- Liliana • 06:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete both templates. How could these ever be used? On discussion pages surely you'd just use [[m:. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Have they been used (and were orphaned for the RFD)? If so, keep. I can see that they would be useful in the Wiktionary: namespace. (Also the User talk: namespace had we not outlawed userboxes.) If they haven't been used, I abstain.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

They were not used at all when I nominated them for deletion. -- Liliana • 17:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Wiktionary:Sister projects

This old page is orphaned. It only contains links to sister projects, which we have right on the Main Page already, and a list of templates, a bunch of which have already been deleted on RFDO as well as others which will be soon. I don't see any value in keeping it. -- Liliana • 06:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete, I'll add to that that a lot of the templates on there which haven't been deleted are unused, and quite possibly have never been used. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Remember to fix "what links here" things first. SemperBlotto 11:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] October 2011

[edit] Category:Closed votes

IMO delete: the benefits of such a category are AFAICT three:

  1. the category can be browsed;
  2. the page can, at a glance, be seen to be closed (check the bottom line); and
  3. tools like CatScan (CategoryIntersect) can be used to search among pages in the category.

The first two reasons do not exist in this case, as (respectively)

  1. [[Wiktionary:Votes/Timeline]] is better than a category for that purpose and
  2. we have a "decision" section at the bottom which is almost always very clear.

The third benefit of this category is not enough IMO to keep it. Others may differ. If we do keep it, it should be completely populated, or it's worth less.​—msh210℠ (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Category:en:Medical body positions

Bad caps. Should we keep the terms in some subcategory like this, though, or just keep them in Category:en:Medicine? - -sche (discuss) 07:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Can we fix the name?Acdcrocks 11:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Fixed, debate continues. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Principalities

How is that a useful topical category? Except for a few misguided German entries, it only contains Wales. -- Liliana • 16:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

And Wales is a country, or is there another Wales? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
It used to be a principality w:Principality of Wales, and it still has a prince (w:Charles Windsor) - but I'm a republican —Saltmarshtalk-συζήτηση 13:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Konkan Standard language

From what I can tell, this is redundant to Category:Konkani language. -- Liliana • 21:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Accoding to Wikipedia, Konkani is a macrolanguage with Maharashtrian Konkani (ISO code knn, which we called Konkan Standard, above) and Goan Konkani (gom) as dialects. Others divide the language into three dialects, Northern (Maharashtrian), Central (Goan) and Southern. I'm not sure we want to make the distinction, though. - -sche (discuss) 21:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Czech entries with audio links

Delete this category. Eventually, all Czech entries are going to have links to audio files, so this is at best a maintenance category. The list of Czech entries that have an audio section can be extracted from a dump; this is also true of the list of Czech entries that use the template "audio". --Dan Polansky 09:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. From experience I can say that in the past I tried to search for entries with audio (because it would help me learn to pronounce fluently and remember the words), but failed. I can't imagine that I would be the only one. Such a category would have helped me much. So: When will all have audio? What about in the meantime? --JorisvS 10:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying that you have searched for Czech entries with pronunciation and failed? Many common words already have pronunciation, imported from The Shtooka Project project, so randomly browsing common Czech words should get you a lot of words with pronunciation. See also Commons:Category:Czech pronunciation, which has 3,067 member files. --Dan Polansky 11:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Not so much Czech in particular, but in general. I am getting at this from a more general perspective. Nonetheless, I would appreciate an answer to the questions I've asked. As for Commons, strangely these files do not say they're being used here on Wiktionary even though they are(!). --JorisvS 10:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Your questions: Q: When will all [entries] have audio? A: I don't know. Ten years from now, there will probably still be many entries without an audiofile. Q: What about in the meantime? A: In the meantime: If a language has a significant number of audiofiles in Wiktionary, merely randomly browsing common words of the language gets you a lot of entries with audiofiles. If a language has a very small number of audiofiles in Wiktionary, the small set cannot be effectively used for language learning anyway, but even if you want to have a look at that set, you can look up the set of all audiofiles in Commons. On another note, in order to make it easier to find the Commons category from Wiktionary, {{langcatboiler}} used in language category pages such as Category:Czech language could be extended to link to the category for audiofiles in Commons. --Dan Polansky 08:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:etyl:nic-vco

Speedy deleted by User:CodeCat without any kind of discussion. I restored it and sent it hither. -- Liliana • 08:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I see it was deleted because it is hypothetical. We should also remove the hypothetical Category:Southwest Pama-Nyungan languages, in that case, and Category:Yok-Utian languages, and the Template:etyl:Penutian I created. (Also, what about the non-linguistic family Category:Papuan languages?) An alternative to deletion might be to indicate that the categories are hypothetical (Category:Papuan languages already indicates it is geographic). - -sche (discuss) 19:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Papuan is on RFD right now. Look above you... -- Liliana • 19:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Good, delete it (Category:Papuan languages), and delete the hypothetical families (only) after putting their contents into any narrower but real families like Category:Yura languages. - -sche (discuss) 19:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I've replaced and deleted Template:etyl:Penutian. - -sche (discuss)

[edit] Wiktionary:Languages needing improvement‎

(diff | hist) . . m Wiktionary:Languages needing improvement‎; 15:00 . . (+76) . . CodeCat (Talk | contribs | block)‎ (Undo revision 14109988 by Liliana-60 (talk) - entry count is not the only thing that determines quality, almost all the nouns are lacking inflection) [rollback]

In this case, the page is redundant to Category:All languages. Wiktionary is still in development, and all languages need improvement in one way or another, there isn't really a language you could consider complete at this stage, and a list like this does not add a lot of value. Heck, most German nouns lack inflection, so by that argument, you could add Category:German language to the list! As well, if someone speaks a language, he's gonna find out what needs improvement by himself, if not, this list won't help him. -- Liliana • 15:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh... looking at the title, I thought it meant that the language itself needs improvement. Y'know, like English, and spelling reform. (Kidding.) Anyway, yeah, delete unless someone presents a good argument for keeping or revamps the page so it lists what's most needed/wanted in each language (though even that should probably be on the "About language" pages, so maybe delete anyway).​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I can't imagine this page will ever be terribly useful. On the other hand, while all languages may need clean up, some will need it more than others. In the same way that if an entry is tagged with {{rfc}} or {{rfc-sense}}, it doesn't imply that other terms/definitions not tagged don't need clean up, they just may need it less. So to be honest I just don't care. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Please don't rush into deleting. This is a first attempt and the page is far from perfect. There is some interest in this and this could be made much more useful - especially in terms of showing the number of entries. What is important is to raise awareness about some languages being neglected or wanting skills. --Anatoli 00:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:script note

The template was created after discussion at [[Wiktionary talk:Todo/Anomalous section0 content#ja]]. It's used on only two entries currently:

  • [[ја]], which is in Cyrillic script, uses the template to note "Note: This is written in Cyrillic script. See ja for the Latin-script of the word".
  • [[Io]], which is capital-I lowercase-o, uses the template to note "Note: This is uppercase i, not lowercase L.".

IMO this is what {{also}} is for: These transclusions should use {{also}} instead, and this template should be gotten rid of.

(Arguably, the site-wide use of a template such as this should be discussed at the BP rather than here, but the template author, Bequw, has indicated that RFDO is okay with him.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Though creator, I'm ambivalent towards its existence. The real question is what to do with the pre-existing messages which this template merely regularized (and if similar messages would be useful as well). --Bequw → τ 17:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not redundant as {{also}} doesn't allow any 'comments', it's a question of whether we should have any messages at all in these entries, I too am pretty ambivalent about it. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Category:mul:Botanical author abbreviations

We are not an encyclopedia of botanists, as much as we don't have names of linguists or anyone else. I already deleted those that fail Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-12/Names of individuals. -- Liliana • 13:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete, sort of. I think this should be the other way around; delete the individual senses of the 100+ words in this category that refer to individuals, then delete this as an empty category. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ca-feminine of

[edit] Template:ca-feminine plural of

[edit] Template:ca-masculine plural of

Most of the time, these template are redundant to {{feminine of}}, {{feminine plural of}} and {{masculine plural of}}. The only time they aren't is when is specified, in which case they're redundant to {{ca-form of}}. Also, it saves a couple of key strokes to use {{ca-form of}}, not the other way round. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted, note I mentioned this template on the Beer Parlour and nobody objected there, or here. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:py-to-ipa

See also Wiktionary:BP#For_the_lack_of_a_.22Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion_review.22_page, Template talk:str index.

User:Ruakh tagged this (reason: "very expensive") but didn't list it here. He cited previous deletion of Template:str index as the rationale for this, which I would like to request to be reviewed. Also, as a result of tagging, all pages linking to this template don't function properly now. Hbrug 22:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I made an edit to Template:py-to-ipa which should take care of the latter problem (i.e., the RFD tag should no longer be transcluded). —AugPi (t) 23:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Would it still be too expensive if we made it only work substed? - -sche (discuss) 23:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Is it really too expensive? I mean, Wikipedia uses it non-substitutively, other Wiktionaries (fr, zh, vi, etc.) use it non-substitutively; if it really were that expensive (which is true for the uncreated Template:str right), Wikipedia would have banned all non-substitution uses of this, right? Hbrug 23:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
No, at the English Wikipedia they don't even seem to have a concept of something being "too expensive". Templates which loop through parserfunctions thousands of times are used on virtually every page. --Yair rand 10:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
w:WP:DWAP. Judging from the results of other wikis, these templates don't seem to be very harmful to viewing, loading or editing (this RfD page is taking much longer to load than pages previously using string templates); perhaps we should put this aside and consider using the functions that will make editing more convenient? The advantages of using these templates are enormous, especially in transliteration. For example, a single template {{ug-noun}} (much better than {{ug-?|ئ|ۇ|ن|ى|ۋ|ې|ر|س|ى|ت|ې|ت|ى}}could be placed at the Uyghur entry ئۇنىۋېرسىتېتى, which would automatically generate:
ئۇنىۋېرسىتېتى (Latin Uyghur: univërsitëti, Uyghur Pinyin: universiteti, Cyrillic: универсиtеtи),
saving the need to manually transliterate and avoiding the possibility of human errors. I wrote an auto-transliterator for Tibetan at Template:bo-transli (deleted), relying on the str index template, which would give the Wylie transliteration of the entry title in Tibetan script. Burmese, Khmer, Uyghur, Japanese, Hindi-Urdu (yes?), Vietnamese (vi.wikt uses it to generate Vietnamese pronunciation in six dialects) and other languages (fr.wikt uses it to form Spanish plurals) can also benefit from this template. Hbrug 11:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
(Somewhat relevant: There is an open bug for enabling the Transliterator Extension here, but unfortunately there are a few issues blocking it...) --Yair rand 11:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
(hmm.. Please have a look at the code for Template:bo-transli. It's a little bit difficult for Tibetan, which uses an abugida. Inherent "a" vowel is unmarked so a great amount of code is used to ascertain where the vowel should be..) Hbrug 11:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I do think that this particular template should be only substituted onto pages, first of all because pronunciation is something that is very unlikely to change in the near future, and more importantly because it makes these pronunciation sections unparseable by automated programs (as in User:Robert Ullmann/IPAchars). -- Liliana • 20:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. --Yair rand 01:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:enm-timeline

Only used once; should be redundant to {{timeline}} which is still nominated for deletion, but has neither passed nor failed because of lack of input (since 2010). Same reasons; this template adds nothing that cannot be done just as well if not better outside of the template. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

{{timeline}} has since passed RFD. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
If we keep {{timeline}} there shouldn't be a reason to delete this. -- Liliana • 22:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Can't we make {{timeline}} more flexible instead? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] November 2011

[edit] Category:Water

Seems a bit too specific to me -- Liliana • 18:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

True, but a lot of our categories are very specific. There's no real rationale on what to include, so I find it a bit pointless to make a decisive comment on this one. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep, there are a lot of waters, in fact I just added a bunch, interesting category if you ask me.Lucifer 03:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] All 3-letter language templates that have a 2-letter equivalent

We have many languages that have 2-letter language codes, but we also have separate 3-letter codes for them. Templates such as {{eng}}, {{fra}} and so on redirect to the corresponding 2-letter templates, {{en}} and {{fr}}. The idea is that someone can use either of them, but in practice this does not work at all. Many templates, most prominently context templates, break when the 3-letter codes are used. Ideally they shouldn't really be used at all. So going with what I said above I'd like to propose either deleting these templates or replacing them with a notice indicating that only the equivalent 2-letter code can be used. —CodeCat 13:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

They also cause problems with {{Xyzy}} because it cannot find a script for these, I should note. -- Liliana • 13:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete. (The issues with {{Xyzy}} and related templates actually can be addressed by creating the /script subpages for these . . . I just don't think we should do that.) —RuakhTALK 22:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
No objection. Deletion seems one option. Keeping them as redirects is another. The redirects work most of the time, but not things like {{t|ita|abitare}}, as it comes up with no such Wiktionary (ita) as the code is {{it}}. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it's better if they don't work as codes at all, than if they work sometimes but not all the time. —CodeCat 14:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete, let's do this thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Has this been done now? —CodeCat 00:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
It's in process, but there are a lot of these codes and with no easy way to find them it might take a while. -- Liliana • 00:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I've been using Appendix:ISO 639-1 language codes. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

deleted -- Liliana • 18:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:computer keys

not a context -- Liliana • 15:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Kill it. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
What, for nouns like Enter, Return, Delete, Home, End, as distinct from their ordinary usages? Not a bad idea for a context. ~ Robin 04:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not a context. It's a category. See [[Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-03/Context labels in ELE v2]].​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Seems like a reasonable category too. Keep. ~ Robin 05:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep what? The category hasn't been nominated for deletion. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, it hasn't? Then why are we discussing it on Requests for deletion? ~ Robin 22:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
We're discussing Template:computer keys. The associated category is not nominated. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] User:Royal Jelly/Brain

All these bits and pieces.

Royal Jelly/Brain Royal Jelly/Brain/bee.js Royal Jelly/Brain/dict.js Royal Jelly/Brain/dict util.js Royal Jelly/Brain/history panel.js Royal Jelly/Brain/input disc.js Royal Jelly/Brain/machine.js Royal Jelly/Brain/navigation.js Royal Jelly/Brain/status panel.js Royal Jelly/Brain/wax.js Royal Jelly/common.js

User has made no other contributions. SemperBlotto 08:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait, user may have a purpose for them. I think he/she is trying to set up a navigation system that other users can use as well. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey there!
You are exactly right Mglovesfun. It will basically be an alternative way to use wiktionary. Something like a http://10words.com/ word game, but I want there to be an etymological information and a definition for every word played.
I fixed the loader, so you should be able to run it, to see what it is.
If you will decide to erase it, feel free, I will make my backups, and perhaps apply for a toolserver account then.
Keep up the good work! Vitali --Royal Jelly 22:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hmm a word game? Does seem a bit off-topic, but in the user namespace I'm ok to allow it. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
No user activity since 12 December. Equinox ◑ 13:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, Thank you people for tolerance so far, but now it's safe to remove all the files, and the account,
because I will not use it.
Feel free to message me, if needed. Thank you, Vitali Royal Jelly 23:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Japanese character counts

I think this may at best be categorized as "useless trivia". Even the Japanese entry by kanji categories are more useful than this! -- Liliana • 09:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this comparable to category:English seven-letter words (redlink)? If so, keep (and extend to other languages): useful category for word-puzzle solvers and natural categorization scheme for words.​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Nope, since it doesn't take kana into account, it counts only the kanji in every word. -- Liliana • 13:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Basically useless trivia, though we have a lot of that. Weak delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Category:Japanese character counts currently only has subcategories in the format Category:Japanese terms written with ten Han script characters‎, that naturally don't count kana; they count only characters of another script ("Han script") mentioned in the category name. If people want a category for counting kana, possible names are the short Category:Japanese four-hiragana terms and the long Category:Japanese terms written with four Hiragana script characters‎. (I'd be inclined to choose the shorter.) --Daniel 18:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:English terms spelled with '

Uhh, aren't there quite a lot of terms spelled with an apostrophe? Think of all the contractions, for one. How is this any more useful than, say, Category:English terms spelled with A? -- Liliana • 21:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:English terms spelled with A? Someone should create it! --Daniel 04:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete. —Internoob 01:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete, neither interesting nor useful in any practical way. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] December 2011

[edit] Template:LR

[edit] Template:RL

Is it really so hard to just use &lrm; and &rlm;? They could even be added to the edittools if needed. -- Liliana • 13:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, sometimes need to use these characters; now that I know of the templates' existence, assuming they're kept, I'll... continue to use the escape sequences directly.​—msh210℠ (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:mul-script/Latn-list

I don't have anything against the lists themselves, but this template is coded in what may be the most unintuitive and complicated way possible. It should be split up into subtemplates that do not depend on the name of the entry they're transcluded on (yes, that is how the template is coded currently!). -- Liliana • 13:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Template:language

This used to be pretty important when we still had the lang: templates like {{lang:en}} (and, moreover, when not all language templates existed yet). This is now no longer the case, and the needed code has gotten reasonably simple that it could just be substituted in all templates where this is embedded in, thereby saving a lot of unnecessary overhead. -- Liliana • 18:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see what this template does, but I don't know what it's for. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The only thing it does is removing the links from language templates. If we got consensus to no longer link language names in translation tables, we could get rid of even that and the code would literally just be {{{1|}}}. -- Liliana • 18:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Delete! I even wanted to rfd it and then I saw it was already here! —CodeCat 20:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
No objections from me, I cannot see a function other the one's we already object to, and as pointed out, those can be handled by just adding l= to any templates that call language codes (that is to say, [[Category:{{{{{lang}}}}} nouns]] will produce [[Category:Catalan nouns]] for {{ca}} (Catalan) because of the link, change that to [[Category:{{{{{lang}}}l=}} nouns]] and you're done! Mglovesfun (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Why would the language templates need a link at all? Language templates are used so often, we want to make them as simple and fast as possible. That means that they should all consist of nothing more than: (name)<noinclude>(optional extra info)[[Category:Language templates]]. —CodeCat 21:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Like I said before, the only reason is because people subst: the language templates in translation sections, where the link is needed. -- Liliana • 21:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I've never understood a need for it either. I don't find linking to language names, even obscure ones, a priority. I'm not saying to remove such links to not to add anymore, but rather with respect to having an automatic link in the template itself, the benefit of removing such links seems to outweigh the benefit of removing the link. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this conversion-deletion should be effected without linking to this section of RFDO from the GP and possibly the BP for greater visibility.​—msh210℠ (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
A full BP discussion seems appropriate to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Now that links have been removed from language templates, this template isn't really needed anymore... —CodeCat 16:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Right. So what can the code be simplified to? -- Liliana • 16:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe just its first parameter? It currently contains an #if, but are there any cases where it is called with an empty parameter? —CodeCat 16:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I think {{term}} is sometimes used with an empty language parameter... -- Liliana • 16:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Hedonomics

Article deleted as protologism. Talk page is now an orphan - but a reasonable amount of work has gone in to it, so I didn't like to delete it without reference to others. SemperBlotto 17:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the draft for a WP article on the subject. DCDuring TALK 01:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I've posted it at [[w:Wikipedia:Requests for page importation#wikt:talk:Hedonomics]].​—msh210℠ (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
...where they've indicated that they cannot transwiki from enwikt.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
...and a notice at [[User talk:Laurenlmurphy]].​—msh210℠ (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
...and if she doesn't reply IMO we move the whole thing to her userpage without redirect and keep it there.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I don't know why I wrote that. It doesn't belong on Wikt. She has the opportunity to save it (and post it to WP); otherwise, IMO delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
They cannot transwiki from enwikt??? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I was surprised, too.​—msh210℠ (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] January 2012

[edit] Category:ky:Weather

Empty category. Hazard-SJ 01:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:kw:Mathematics

[edit] Category:kw:Anthropology

[edit] Category:hil:Language

[edit] Category:hil:Education

[edit] Category:hif:Transportation

[edit] Category:hif:Language

[edit] Category:za:Language

[edit] Category:yi:Mathematics

[edit] Category:yi:Anthropology

Keep all. Just because they're empty now doesn't mean they'll be empty forever, and there is no harm in having an empty category. It might even encourage people to add terms to it. —CodeCat 02:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Note: I've now tagged all the above. (In the future, Hazard-SJ, add {{rfd}} to a page, then click the plus sign in the resultant notice to bring the nomination for deletion here.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Weak keep per Codecat.​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Keep all unless and until it is decided in Beer parlour or in a vote that non-English topical categories with zero entries should be deleted. To see many non-English topical categories with zero entries, see e.g. the subcategories of Category:Mathematics. --Dan Polansky 13:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Hang on, I thought it was okay to delete empty categories, Special:UnusedCategories has about 2000 of these, some of which like Category:French nouns lacking gender of course should be empty as much as possible, but I'd have thought it was okay to speedy delete all of these. I seem to think there might be something on meta about it. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Wiktionary in particularly has a very rigid category structure, and because every language can potentially have the same categories, we can essentially 'predict' which categories might one day be used and which are genuinely unwanted for the foreseeable future. I only delete empty categories if I don't expect that there is any reason for them to ever contain any entries, not just if they don't happen to contain any right this moment. An empty category that is wanted shouldn't be deleted, it should be filled! —CodeCat 20:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
My counter argument is that when a user clicks on a category, he/she is going to be disappointed to find it empty; plus deleting and restoring categories is easy, it take literally a couple of seconds. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Languages of Easter Island

Not a sovereign country or anything, no need to keep this. There are millions of islands on the globe and they surely don't need their own categories. -- Liliana • 03:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I wonder, though. Would an isolated land mass be more interesting in terms of what languages have lived on it than a small country like, say, Belize or Switzerland? (I'm using Belize as my example advisedly. It is, if I'm not mistaken, the only anglophone country in Central America. Likewise, Switzerland is, I think, the only country with Romansch. Despite all that, would Easter Island be more interesting?) Likewise, would a category for languages of the Hawaiian Islands (that is, Hawaii and Midway Island) be more interesting than a category for languages of Hawaii or Colorado? I'm not sure. I'm also not sure we should have any of these categories.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I think something like Category:Languages of India is both useful and on topic. Well maybe on topic; perhaps Wikipedia should handle this sort of things. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The thing about islands is that because they're isolated, they tend to have more distinct local languages. —CodeCat 21:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Languages of Hawaii

Not a sovereign country. Currently the only US state with its own category since Category:Languages of New Mexico failed RFDO. -- Liliana • 08:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete. —Internoob 19:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Why should sovereignty matter, if a state or province speaks a different language from the rest of a country? Perhaps in some places where it makes sense to do this. We're not necessarily only concerned with official languages. That said, is Hawaiian a major language there anymore? ~ Robin 09:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:zh

Going by the reasoning that it's undesirable to have two different codes for the same language, I'd like to propose deleting this code. This template was already submitted at WT:RFM#Template:zh but I would prefer it to be deleted outright, so that {{cmn}} is the only template for Mandarin. —CodeCat 02:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete, same reasons. Having two parallel category trees for Mandarin can only cause confusion and genuine difficulty in finding things. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I support deletion. However, there are many translation entries that are still using this code e.g encyclopedia. Is there any way to use a bot to clean this up? Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 02:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
It's a really easy replacement to do by bot, but I don't think we need to; both cmn and zh need to point to the zh Wikipedia and Wiktionary, as they exists while cmn.wikipedia.org does not. That does mean I think that {{zh/script}} needs to be kept, probably as a redirect to {{cmn/script}}. It would be possible to bypass that, but it's not worth adding all that extra code to {{t}}; better just to keep the redirect. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
If we have a zh Wikipedia and Wiktionary, wouldn't it make more sense to delete {{cmn}} and standardize on {{zh}}? Seems confusing to use zh everywhere else but cmn here. It would also seem more consistent with deleting All 3-letter language templates that have a 2-letter equivalent. ~ Robin 09:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Irritatingly good point. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
While that's true, the code 'zh' officially stands for 'Chinese' which is a macrolanguage, while 'cmn' stands for 'Mandarin'. So they are not really equivalent. —CodeCat 12:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:fr-new-proper noun

I don't see the point in this; it's not substitutable so it's purely a copy and paste template, so it shouldn't be in the template namespace, it should be in the user namespace like my User:Mglovesfun/templates, which I rarely use now anyway because of the New Entry Creator. Anyway, cannot be userfied as the user is permanently blocked, so please delete this. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ja-noun/pokemon

I don't even feel the need to explain this nomination. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hahahahahaha no. delete -- Liliana • 10:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
What does it do that's different than ja-noun? —Internoob 19:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems it uses {{apdx-l}} instead of {{l}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
And it doesn't categorize. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, not quite sure why I listed this instead of deleting it outright. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:French terms spelled with '

Uber pointless, see #Category:English terms spelled with '. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete, as before. —Internoob 19:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:list

This is unnecessary as topical categories (and to a certain extent appendices) fulfill the exact same purpose (and it makes it harder to quickly look up foreign-language equivalents, too). Also, this is coded in an absolutely horrible way that outright murders the servers (just check out a!). -- Liliana • 22:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Much more convenient than topical categories. — [Ric Laurent] — 22:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
How? -- Liliana • 22:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Less scrolling. Less clicking. More potential for organization. — [Ric Laurent] — 22:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I created {{topicsee}} just for you. It looks like list but uses the existing topical category system, so we don't have needless duplication. -- Liliana • 06:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Hate it. Lol — [Ric Laurent] — 13:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, but this template seriously needs cleaning up. Do we really need each individual item to be wrapped in a script template, instead of just wrapping the whole thing in one? --Yair rand 23:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support  I never figured out what this was for, and the template's page can't even say what the heck it is. —Michael Z. 2012-01-23 03:28 z
I quite like it. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I love it. Always have. — [Ric Laurent] — 13:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as creator and admirer of that template. Please keep it forever. --Daniel 14:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. Often we want to semantically link a group of words, such as days of the week, in an order other than alphabetical. Robin 07:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Would some ardent admirers please add an introduction to the template's documentation, which makes it clear what it is for, what it's not for, with links to the relevant parts of WT:ELE? Thanks. —Michael Z. 2012-01-26 17:49 z

What exactly it is and isn't for has never been defined or, to my knowledge, even discussed. — [Ric Laurent] — 19:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
How does one find out how to create a list? This looks like another nightmare of template obscurantism. DCDuring TALK 23:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Intuitive choices:
  1. Copy another list template
  2. Or read the doc
  3. Or use commas and parentheses and whatnot to achieve the same effect without ever using the template
--Daniel 23:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
You forgot the fourth option: Use {{list}} while the template doesn't exist and click the convenient "create" button which then gives a full preload text with explanations of what parameters do what. --Yair rand 01:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I prefer the third choice (or {{topicsee}}!). Also, I'd like to inform you that since AutoFormat and {{list}} are incompatible, any pages using the list template are conveniently ignored. -- Liliana • 00:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
That's problematic. What do you mean by "incompatible", exactly? Do other templates in See also sections listed in bullet points also cause problems? --Yair rand 01:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
So far only the list template has shown this behavior. It is easily reproducible by adding or removing the template to any page. -- Liliana • 01:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC) (addendum: and incompatible = crash)
But why? Also, isn't it better to fix the bot code than to delete this template? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems to be an elemental bug with Python itself. The only solution would be porting it to another language like C++, but that's something I'm not in the position to do, and it would take a long time. -- Liliana • 15:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you explain this in more detail? How in the world can the presence of a template in a wiki page be causing trouble to a Python script in such a way that there is no workaround? --Dan Polansky 15:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I wish I could answer you that question, but I am myself on a loss on why and how this happens. I just know that it does. -- Liliana • 04:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Appendix:Hyper Text Markup Language

Normally I don't particularly care what crap gets into our appendices, however this is a programming language, and so it is totally out of scope. -- Liliana • 10:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, "language" is a misnomer for our purposes, you can't make words and sentences out of HTML. There's no HTML for "I love you" for example, HTML just allows you to take the English "I love you" and format it in different ways. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete but move its contents somewhere else, because it might still be useful to other projects, such as Wikibooks. —CodeCat 14:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I think b:HTML is more than sufficient, they certainly won't need our measly content. -- Liliana • 17:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
An aside: I think the title is wrong. Despite the abbreviation HTML, hypertext is one word. Equinox ◑ 13:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I believe you're correct. See, e.g., RFC 1866.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. Markup languages aren't the sort of languages dictionaries are for. ~ Robin 09:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Delete per what others have already said.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

deleted per pretty much everyone. -- Liliana • 21:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Move to Wiktionary Native American

Doesn't fit in the category system. What is this good for? -- Liliana • 18:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete furthermore why not delete all the empty categories from Category:Move to Wiktionary. Some of these have been emptying or at least a year, perhaps two or three years in some cases. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
What it's good for is that transwikied pages can be inspected by those who may know the language they contain words in. I don't see any reason to delete it: what's the harm in it. But I only strenuously oppose the deletion if there's some automated or semiautomated process that adds entries to this category. Anyone know whether that's the case?​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Such a category is only useful if used; pointing users to cleanup categories with no entries in them as at best useless, and at worst counter-productive as it may annoy the users. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:APL language

No such language (in the linguistic sense of the word language). Mglovesfun (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The category page's layout is that of our language categories' and should be fixed if kept. Are you also objecting to having the category altogether, say as a topical category? On what grounds?​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not a language, so delete the category and its contents, which are also non-linguistic. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, the special symbols used in APL might merit a page on them. However, an appendix doesn't need a corresponding language category, so delete -- Liliana • 23:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
An APL appendix wouldn't hurt, I suppose, but I remember that a bunch of the APL symbols had their entries deleted because they were not attestable in human language (as opposed to computer language), so maybe this project is the wrong place. Hmm. Equinox ◑ 01:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
That sounds about right.​—msh210℠ (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:♯

This template is only used to subst: for the character # when using accelerated entries. But as Mglovesfun mentions at Wiktionary:Grease pit#Problem with accelerated entries, this is not needed and hasn't been needed for a while now, as piped links in form-of templates are obsoleted in favour of the lang= parameter. —CodeCat 18:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't even think this needs an RFD, but delete -- Liliana • 18:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
But obviously accelerated-entries needs to be modified first. Preferably with a few weeks' delay in between (to give people time to get the updated JavaScript). —RuakhTALK 18:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
But Conrad's acceleration script, and form-of entries, aren't the only use for this. There may even be people using this (and we don't know because it's always substed), though I doubt it; but even if there are no current uses, it's a potentially very useful template. And I don't see any harm in keeping. Keep.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah keep for now, but don't use it. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikisaurus items with red links

Terrible idea. Wiktionary, being a wiki-based project, tends to have red links everywhere, and listing all of them is much better done by querying the database dump. As it is, this category is populated by doing insane amounts of #ifexist calls which are limited for a reason. (Alternatively, create Category:Entries with red links too!) -- Liliana • 05:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete and adjust {{ws}}, which populates the category. --Dan Polansky 07:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Yair rand 08:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Daniel 22:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Vietnamese Han tu adjectives‎

[edit] Category:Vietnamese Han tu nouns

[edit] Category:Vietnamese Han tu numbers

[edit] Category:Vietnamese Han tu verbs

[edit] Category:Korean hanja nouns

Since when do we categorize terms by writing system like this? -- Liliana • 01:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:initialism of

There are many problems with this one. First of all, it is very redundant, since the part of speech header already says "Initialism" for all of these. Secondly it links entries automatically, which is in most cases not appropriate since the written out terms do not meet CFI. In short, this is not needed, and what it does it does badly. -- Liliana • 15:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that just now, when Cirt added a sense line at ADS. It does seem redundant. Equinox ◑ 15:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it's not needed either. Usually initialisms are defined just by writing the expansion as the definition, there is no need for 'Initialism of' before it. And linking isn't necessary in many cases either. On the other hand, it would be nice if a link existed if the entry it links to exists as well. And we need to account for that in cases where the expanded form is created after the initialism. —CodeCat 15:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The part of speech isn't "initialism" for each of these. See e.g. [[USSR]], which is as it should be. Also, I believe this template is used in some etymology sections. Strong keep.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Those uses are wrong and should be removed, as this is explicitly not an etymology template. -- Liliana • 20:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep and delete {{initialism}} instead. Per msh21, you can use this when the header is not initialism, such as UTI (a noun). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

When the "Initialism" section is ever needed, anyway? I have the impression that we can always replace it by "Noun", "Verb", etc. headers in English. --Daniel 12:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Ideally yes, I'm strongly in favor this, but sometimes when the initialism is expanded it's a phrase, like for the win. It seems a bit silly to categorize FTW as an English phrase. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
If for the win is an adverb, then FTW could have an adverb section, too.
Possibly GTFO is a better example because it expands to a full sentence.
Frankly, maybe "Abbreviation" or "Initialism" is common in dictionaries, but a "Phrase" header (or maybe a "Sentence" header) does not look half bad in there. --Daniel 22:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually yes, you're right. When formatted that way, it seems to work. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template:pt-verb/construir

I've created the more general Template:pt-verb/truir. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 17:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah done, nothing to debate. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Others&oldid=16269298"
Personal tools
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox