Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5

This page is designed to discuss moves (renaming pages) mergers and splits. Its aim is to take the burden away from the beer parlour and requests for deletion where these issues were previously listed. Please note that uncontroversial page moves to correct typos, missing characters etc. should not be listed here, but moved directly using the move function.

  • Appropriate: Renaming categories, templates, Wiktionary pages, appendices, rhymes and occasionally entries. Merging or splitting temp categories, templates, Wiktionary pages, appendices, rhymes.
  • Out of scope: Merging entries which are alternative forms or spellings or synonyms such as color/colour or traveled/travelled. Unlike Wikipedia, we don't redirect in these sort of situations. Each spelling gets its own page, often employing the templates {{alternative spelling of}} or {{alternative form of}}.
  • Tagging pages: To tag a page, you can use the general template {{rfm}}, as well as one of the more specific templates {{move}}, {{merge}} and {{split}}.

Contents

Unresolved requests from before January 2013[edit]

January 2013[edit]

Category:Requested entries and Category:Requested entries by language[edit]

I think these are the same thing? They should be merged, but which name should the merged category have? —CodeCat 00:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Requested entries contains User:Brian0918/Hotlist, that seems to be the only difference. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:nbr[edit]

It can get no worse than this. We evidently call a language Numana-Nunku-Gbantu-Numbu. The name is formed by hyphenating the four major dialects. I propose that we instead call it Sanga, listed as an alternative by Ethnologue. Although it appears to have just as many uses as Numana-Nunku-Gbantu-Numbu on BGC for the meaning "a language of Nigeria", it does appear to be citable as the name of the ethnic group which speaks it, which I think is a damn sight better than the current condition. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You think that's bad? Look at Template:gel (Kag-Fer-Jiir-Koor-Ror-Us-Zuksun). The horror, the horror. - -sche (discuss) 08:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The name WP suggests, "Gbantu", does get one GBC hit... in an specifically unpublished paper cited in Zwischen Bantu und Burkina; "Gwantu" gets nothing relevant. I like your suggestion of "Sanga" (I even managed to dig up one or two citations of it as a language name). Support renaming. - -sche (discuss) 09:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Be careful. It looks like you're confusing it with Sango ({{sg}}). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, you're right. That's... ugh. As silly as its current name is, giving it a name that's only attested in reference to some other language would obviously be undesirable... and calling it by the name of only one of its dialects (Gbantu) isn't exactly ideal, either (compare {{mij}}), although I'd go along with it for lack of a better option. It may be that, as with {{gel}}, the least odious (or at least, least confusing) thing to do is leave it as-is. :/ - -sche (discuss) 23:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC) - -sche (discuss) 02:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, can you figure out what the first cite refers to? That might help. And as I mentioned, it still may be a more logical choice, considering that google books:Sanga Nigeria isn't too sparse. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:wikipedia[edit]

I propose that we merge this template with {{slim-wikipedia}} (by redirecting it there, or deleting it and moving {{slim-wikipedia}} to {{wikipedia}}). I believe this will help reduce entry clutter without affecting usability because, unlike the “In other projects” box, {{slim-wikipedia}} can still be easily seen, and because {{wikipedia}}’s bigger logo, longer text and greater waste of vertical space are useless. — Ungoliant (Falai) 21:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't noticed the larger size being that much of a problem, though. And Wikipedia has an identical-looking set of templates I think, so it helps with cross-project consistency. —CodeCat 21:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose. I think that without this template, few would notice the Wikipedia links. Sorry, Ungoliant. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Tend to support but hesitantly. Put me down as an abstain. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Support. {{wikipedia}} wastes a lot of space. --Yair rand (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Support if {{slim-wikipedia}} has all the features {{wikipedia}} does (linking to more than one article, linking to foreign-languages Wikipedias, etc.). (I haven't checked.)​—msh210 (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per Metaknowledge. - -sche (discuss) 19:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Support merging the two; Oppose making it smaller. How is space on web pages being wasted, particularly by a box that floats to the right of the content? Is scrollbar an endangered resource? Michael Z. 2013-02-03 00:26 z
Keep. In entries where there are multiple L2s, each with their own language-specific wikipedia links, not to mention their own images, it's not unheard of for the wikipedia box from one language to end up at least partially across from the entry for the neighboring language- so space is, indeed, sometimes a problem. That said, I don't agree with eliminating the option of ever using a full-size wikipedia box even in the majority of cases where space isn't an issue. Like Μετάknowledge says, it's good to have it highly visible sometimes. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • {{slim-wikipedia}} was originally intended to be the only interproject link template that could appear above the first L2 header. It was intended to send folks to WP in cases where there might be a proper Wiktionary entry, but WP had an entry or a disambiguation page that had material not in and not appropriate for Wiktionary. The principal situation would have been for English proper noun entries for which there might be many proper noun that did not meet our prevailing criteria for inclusion or had not yet been entered. The rationale for the placement was that this was the encyclopedic equivalent of {{also}}. It was made small to take up less vertical screen space.
Oppose. If this project link box is to be smaller, then all should be. If the original rationale for {{slim-wikipedia}} as a special box for above-first-L2 placement is considered currently valid then the rationale for small size also remains. DCDuring TALK 01:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Support merge Why can't we just add a parameter like |slim=yes so you could have the slim version show up when invoking {{wikipedia}}? You could keep the slim version and amend it as necessary and eat the cake too. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Support a merge if done like this, but otherwise, oppose. — Carolina wren discussió 00:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

cœn-[edit]

Also

And its 6 members:

Also involved are unligatured twins of most of these

These are all fine entries, but the rare ligatured forms shouldn't be the lemmas. Right now, there are alt-form entries for each of these with the preferred unligatured spellings. What I would like to do is to swap the ligatured with the unligatured entries: move the ligatured entry to a temporary name, move the unligatured entry into its place, and move the ligatured entry to where the unligatured entry was. After that, it should be a simple matter of switching ligatures for diphthongs and vice-versa in the texts of the entries. This should preserve the edit histories and keep the content intact.

I realize there are probably many other cases like this, but this one is small and contained enough to be easily accomplished without much fuss. I almost just went ahead and did it myself, but figured it was better to give it due process.

Please note that I'm not talking about the pondian difference of oe vs e- just the characters used to represent the UK spelling. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Support. — Ungoliant (Falai) 06:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
It's predictably down to Doremítzwr (talkcontribs), someone I would consider a POV pusher with respect to using archaic spellings when contemporary spellings are available. Support. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
SupportCodeCat 14:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
To be pedantic, Category:English words prefixed with cœn- won't change. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:ko-freq and subpages of Appendix:Korean frequentatives[edit]

KYPark (talkcontribs)'s latest pseudoscientific pet project, which ought to be moved to the subpages of User:KYPark. I have moved a couple things, as previous editors have moved his off-topic musings, rants, etc to his userspace, but I just wanted to ensure that there is consensus for this. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

February 2013[edit]

Appendix:Tausug adverbs[edit]

Judging by their definitions, most of these words aren't actually adverbs. It's a short, low-quality wordlist, but I think the best place for it is at Index:Tausug. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Nautical[edit]

It is rather unusual for us to use a bare adjective as a category name. I can't really think of anything substantially better, but if someone has an idea, I'd be glad to hear it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Sailing is already taken as a subcat (though I don't know what the difference is supposed to be), so perhaps Category:Nautical terminology? —Angr 13:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe Category:Sailing has to do specifically with sailboats: you can set sail in a submarine, but the verb "surface" isn't a sailing term (unless you're doing a really bad job of it)... Chuck Entz (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
What about Category:Boating? That's what Wikipedia's Sailing category is a subcat of. —Angr 15:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I like your previous suggestion, Nautical terminology. If you take a look, a lot of it is sailors' slang. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
There is slang, and there is jargon. The sailing argot of the late 19th-early 20th century was also translingual; there is ample evidence the industry required proficiency in the technical language but did not require the ability to otherwise communicate with colleagues or officers. Much of nautical terminology refers to maritime and shipping law, e.g. Singapore was established as an entrepôt port (which term is completely lacking the tax-relevant character: it is a port/warehouse at which goods may be stored for transshipment without incurring taxes.) - Amgine/ t·e 19:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Coordinate term templates[edit]

This category (and the templates in it) seem to fulfill the same purpose as list templates (Category:English list templates). So they should probably be merged, and the templates themselves converted. —CodeCat 14:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Support. — Ungoliant (Falai) 16:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

jemandem etwas in die Schuhe schieben[edit]

...and jemanden über den Löffel barbieren, jemandem über den Weg laufen, jemanden hinters Licht führen, and other German verb phrases containing "jemand*" and "etwas": should some of all of them drop "jemand*"? I note that our English entries sometimes but not always omit "someone"s and "something"s, e.g. we have [[lay at the feet of]] (which, when said that way, sounds like what a dog does) rather than [[lay something at the feet of]], but then we have [[cross someone's path]]. (Actually, "lay at the feet of" needs a placeholder, IMO; see my post just below this one.) - -sche (discuss) 21:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

  • My gut instinct is to remove accusative jemanden but keep dative jemandem, but I'm not sure I can articulate exactly why. Direct objects just feel somehow more removable from idiomatic verb phrases than indirect objects. —Angr 21:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Move all. I would remove such placeholders generally. The necessary complements (no matter if accusative or dative) can be specified next to the definition. The reason we have a placeholder in cross someone's path probably is that it has the genitive-'s and thus can't be removed (other than by replacing it with "X's" or something like that). Longtrend (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:English diminutives of male given names[edit]

Category:English diminutives of female given names[edit]

I think these need to be split as not all of the names are diminutives. Some are non-diminutive nicknames. Alternatively it could be renamed Category:English nicknames of male given names. Or it could be Category:English male nicknames.

I think that nickname and diminutive are overlapping categories. Aren't Francine and Mariella diminutives of Frances and Maria, respectively? But they are not nicknames. Similarly, Jake is a nickname for Jacob/Jacques, but not a diminutive.

I don't know whether the categories and their application are correct with respect to other languages, but the application of {{given name}} has lead to a bad result for English. DCDuring TALK 00:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean that a diminutive has something added (Franc+ine, John+ny) and a nickname has something subtracted (Jake-(c)ob, Rob-ert)? Or what is the difference? Is this a meaningful way to split a category? Francine is defined as a formal given name in French and English. It derives from an ancient diminutive, but that's etymology. The diminutive definitions and categories are based on the way a name is used, not on its grammatical form. Diminutives and formal given names often overlap, and what's a diminutive in one language may be a formal given name in another: Tommy for example. So use of Template:given name seems reasonable.
I agree that "diminutive" is not the perfect category name, but are the alternatives any better? "Nickname" applies to words like Shorty, Dubya, Shug that are not linguistically related to a person's real given name. "Pet name" sounds too colloquial to me, and "hypocorism" is the opposite of a "pejorative" with Russian names. Changing the name would take a lot of manual work. Not all the entries use the template. --Makaokalani (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
What makes you think that "'nickname' applies to words... that are not linguistically related to a person's real given name"? I would certainly say Tom is a nickname for Thomas, Bill is a nickname for William, Liz is a nickname for Elizabeth, etc. Those aren't the only kind of nicknames, but they are nicknames. —Angr 15:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Sure, but terms like Shorty should not be listed in the same category with Tom, Bill and Liz. You can create a separate category for them. I meant "the word nickname also applies to..."--Makaokalani (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Whatever else, the current name is applicable only to a subset of those now in the category. It is mostly populated by {{given name}} when the parameter 'diminutive' is applied. If there were other possibilities for other kinds of derivations, then the template would not create the erroneous results it does. A category of derived names for which diminutives would be a subcategory would be fine with me.
The template did not specify 'diminutive' until January 2010. I'd be happy with a rollback to the edit before that, but there have been later changes that may have some value. DCDuring TALK 00:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The members of the categories are called hypocorisms or pet names, judging from online dictionaries. The current name is wrong, IMHO, or misleading anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd meant to look up hypocorism. It is not really suitable for use as part of a category name if we intend the category for use by normal users, rather than us or language professionals. I probably would be OK to group nicknames, diminutives, and other similar types of names, if there are others to include. DCDuring TALK 23:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Just to make clear that we are discussing the same thing: I oppose splitting the diminutive categories. It would be confusing, and impossible to do in many languages (e.g. Finnish). Tom and Bill certainly belong to the same category as Tommy and Billy. Terms like Dubya and Shorty are now uncategorized and need some other category ("Nicknames?"). Terms like Francine are not diminutives in English or French. (I can see some old entries have confusing definitions like "A male given name, diminutive of X" , the diminutive part properly belonging to the etymology.) I oppose removing the diminutive= parameter from Template:given name. Changing it to something else, and changing the names of all diminutive categories (21 male, 16 female) would not bother me provided someone else does it all, including the tiresome manual work. Webster's 2003 definition of diminutive includes: "used of affixes (as -ette, -kin, -ling) and of words formed with them (--), of clipped forms (as Jim), and of altered forms (as Peggy)", so the present category name is not completely wrong. Our definition of diminutive includes endearments.--Makaokalani (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  1. Is this category supposed to be directed at normal users or linguists or is it intended as some kind of maintenance category? Diminutive for normal users implies "small" and may connote "belittling".
  2. In English, the categorization based on affixes alone cannot be semantic, it is etymological. The word "diminutive" does not seem appropriate for display on the definition line in cases where "diminutive" in the normal user sense is not accurate, though the etymological sense applies. Perhaps we need to create a special template for use in the etymology section of names to categorize into diminutives. I am aware that diminutives seem to be virtually inflectional in some languages, at least in the opinion of, say, some of our Dutch contributors. But I don't think that an approach based on that model is appropriate for English.
  3. It seems to me that we have can have almost nothing to say about the meaning of names, rather than their derivation. At best we can provide a non-gloss definition. I doubt that we have a fact base to use to check the correctness of such assertions as often used as a pet name/term of endearment. DCDuring TALK 13:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Another candidate term: familiar form: try google books:"familiar form"; there, Dictionary of First Names by Iseabail C. MacLeod, Terry Freedman, 1995 uses the term. In spite of Merriam-Webster's "diminutive" entry siding with Makaokalani, I still disfavor "diminutive". --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
That might work. But I'm not sure that a person whose birth certificate says his given name is Jim views the name as a "familiar form" or a "pet name" or a "diminutive".
If we don't consign the relationship to other names to Etymology, the only place it belongs IMO, then for display we need something other than "diminutive" for those cases where that is in appropriate, eg, Jimbo. It is obviously related to James, but is decidedly NOT a diminutive. DCDuring TALK 16:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013[edit]

User:Dixtosa/ka-postpositional-of[edit]

This is called from several main-namespace entries. It should be moved into the Template: namespace and those entries which call it should be updated. - -sche (discuss) 03:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I subst:ed the only remaining transclusion. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't the foggiest[edit]

Shouldn't this be at not have the foggiest (now a redirect) or perhaps better at have the foggiest. Certainly this doesn't only occur in the first person singular.

I think there is always a negative associated with this idiom, but the following kinds of usage are not rare:

I don't think he had the foggiest about selecting the best lemma entry.
I wonder whether he has the foggiest about what he's doing.

This is what favors the non-negative as lemma with redirects from the most common forms, including those with -n't. DCDuring TALK 01:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a canonical negative polarity item in English, found only in negatives (including negation of the main clause when the NPI occurs in a subordinate clause) and questions (including indirect questions like "I wonder whether..."), just like any in "John does not have any potatoes", "I don't think John has any potatoes", "Does John have any potatoes?", "I wonder whether John has any potatoes" but *"John has any potatoes". I'd say move to have the foggiest or even the foggiest since I think "have got the foggiest" is also used. —Angr 11:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Should any (explicit-verb-containing) negative polarity item contain "not" in the headword? I think not, though there may turn out to be exceptions. Of course, redirects from the most common negative containing forms might be helpful. DCDuring TALK 16:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Move to have the foggiest, retain the redirect (would not be an ambiguous redirect). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I think "idea" is an essential part of undIerstanding the phrase, even though it's dropped in some forms. Suggest we first create foggiest idea (idiom) and then either redirect other terms there or to have the foggiest idea (have the foggiest could be an alt. form). Facts707 (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Having said that, I see "foggiest clue", "foggiest notion", etc. are not uncommon. I also updated foggiest with a second sense. It seems to make foggiest idea and have the foggiest idea less useful. Also, "get the foggiest..." is also popular.Facts707 (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

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

This was originally nominated at WT:RFDO as this page didn't exist yet. I feel uneasy about the title. There's clearly some merit to it, like pissed meaning drink in the UK and angry in the US, but I hate the title 'English words with different meanings in different locations'. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A similar page was RFDed/RFMed in the past; I'll see if I can find it. It was the one which was originally titled something like "words having different meanings on different sides of the pond"(!)... - -sche (discuss) 20:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2013[edit]

Template:han tu form of[edit]

Two editors on 𫋙 and Talk:𫋙 (no I can't see those links either) have objected to the name han tu, saying it should be chu nom. I have no opinion on the matter. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to move or rename this. It's just that using this template in 𫋙 and 𪜚 (which are chữ Nôm) is wrong. There is no problem using it in Sino-Vietnamese words; all pages linking to it are using it correctly except for those two. Wyang (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Since that was me who made those two edits, what's the difference? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Kauffner (talkcontribs) moved it unilaterally; I moved it back. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
"Hán" means Classical Chinese. "Nôm" is Vietnamese written with Chinese-style characters. The template says it is for "Vietnamese written in Chinese characters", so it should be called "Nom form of". Tự (words) and chữ (characters) are just descriptors and should not be treated as part of the name. See Vietnamese Nôm Preservation Foundation. Vdict defines hán tự as "Chinese literature", and chữ nôm as "demotic script (Ancient Vietnamese script)." I note that the phrase "unilateral" is being misused above, as there was in fact another editor who agreed to the move. Update: I looked at some of the links. They are mostly Vietnamese readings for modern Chinese characters. This is properly called "Han-Viet" or "Sino-Vietnamese reading". Every Chinese character has a reading of this kind; It's the Vietnamese equivalent to pinyin or Wade-Giles. You can get such readings from this site. Kauffner (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Weirdly, that editor is the one that commented here and doesn't agree with it. Don't ask me why that is. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we can create another template for Nôm? In Vietnamese dictionaries, the Hán reading is labeled "H" or "Hv." (for Hán Việt). The Nôm reading is labeled "N". There is none of this Hán tự stuff. Update Here is a Vietnamese dictionary that uses the label "Hv" for Han readings. Type "nom" or some other syllable into the search function. Kauffner (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
@Wyang: do you think we need another template, as Kauffner suggests above? - -sche (discuss) 06:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there is a need for a separate template. One template should do the job, with two parameters |h= (Hán) and |n= (Nôm) which will be parsed by Lua. Wyang (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Merge Wikisaurus:idiot and Wikisaurus:fool?[edit]

I realize that idiot and fool can carry different shades of meaning (idiot implies low intelligence, whereas fool implies poor judgment, which doesn't necessarily preclude intelligence), but given the amount of overlap between Wikisaurus:idiot and Wikisaurus:fool, I'm wondering if a merge of the two pages might be warranted. Astral (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I dunno, while Wikisaurus probably doesn't have as much content as a real thesaurus at all, y'know thesauruses do tend to have entries for both say, word X and word Y, where word Y is a listed synonym for word word X. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 02:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with such a merger. I think we have an opportunity here to create a better thesaurus, one that provides a more informative communication of nuance. Just about every set of synonyms has subtle shades of meaning, formality, and so forth, that can best be compared on a single thesaurus page. bd2412 T 19:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
The template {{ws}}, used to add words to Wikisaurus pages, allows for the inclusion of a definition that appears upon mouse-over. I think this feature is sufficient to communicate subtle nuances of meaning. But the placement of many terms on Wikisaurus:idiot and Wikisaurus:fool strikes me as somewhat arbitrary. I mean, what makes dimwit a synonym of idiot, but not of fool? A single, consolidated Wikisaurus page would be easier to manage, and would make it easier for readers to find synonyms, as right now some dictionary entries link to Wikisaurus:fool while others link to Wikisaurus:idiot. Astral (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose; I think a meaningful distinction can be maintained. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: "fool" is not used in the context of mental disorders and "idiot" is not used in the context of court jesters. Purplebackpack89 17:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Mandarin topical categories[edit]

It was discussed and agreed here: Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2013/April#Some_small_changes_to_Mandarin_.28also_Cantonese.2C_Min_Nan.29_entry_structure_and_about_topic_categories_-_suggestion that Mandarin topical categories are to be similar to other languages with no distinction between traditional and simplified (no affect on parts of speech, only topical categories).

Simple renaming of categories to remove "_in_simplified_script" and "_in_traditional_script" is not a good idea before entries are corrected.

1. Could all Mandarin entries be edited by a bot to remove " in simplified script" and " in traditional script" in them? I.e. they should belong to Category:cmn:Family, not Category:cmn:Family in traditional script or Category:cmn:Family in simplified script?

That's the first step.

2. We also agreed that sorting order should be the same for trad./simpl., so that entries are sorted like simplified - by numbered pinyin, e.g. "jie3jie", not "女05姐姐" (see 姐姐). This is harder. It's OK if just the 1st part is done.

That entry instead of

[[Category:cmn:Beginning Mandarin in simplified script|jie3jie]]
[[Category:cmn:Family in simplified script|jie3jie]]
[[Category:cmn:Beginning Mandarin in traditional script|女05姐姐]]
[[Category:cmn:Family in traditional script|女05姐姐]]

Should have:

[[Category:cmn:Beginning Mandarin|jie3jie]]
[[Category:cmn:Family|jie3jie]]

The above entry is both simplified and traditional, if it's only one, then the category name should just be shortened.

3. When all entries are fixed, categories with "_in_simplified_script" and "_in_traditional_script" should be removed to without the suffix, or, if the shorter names exists, just deleted but not before the first step is done.

Is that possible? Can someone take it on? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, it seems this thread got no attention. @Atitarev: does anything still need to be done? - -sche (discuss) 06:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, it seems to be OK. Almost all converted to normal catgories and Chinese, instead of Mandarin, Cantonese, etc. There are some remaining entries but they are time-consuming - single-character entries. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

address with the polite V-form[edit]

Does English really not have a better term for this? I imagine that even if English doesn't have this phenomenon itself, it would still have a word to describe it in other languages. Also, what is its antonym? —CodeCat 13:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The antonym is thou, though it may be obsolete. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I think English really doesn't have a word for this, even when talking about other languages. When I want to talk about it, I use the verb found in whatever language I'm discussing, so if I'm talking about French, I'll say vouvoyer and if I'm talking about German I'll say siezen. As in "When I was in Paris, I vouvoyered my host parents until they asked me to tutoyer them, but when I was in Vienna, I duzened my host parents right away." (Actually, this brings up an interesting phenomenon I've noticed among English-speaking expats living in Germany: when we adopt German verbs when speaking English, some of us leave the infinitive -en on and say "I siezened him, I duzened her", while others of us drop the -en and say "I siezed /ziːtst/ him, I duzed /duːtst/ her".) —Angr 18:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Yep, the non-Romance words don't even start with V, which I find problematic. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The formal pronoun is called V-form and the informal T-form regardless of language. Thus, this could be moved to address with the V-form (and address with the informal T-form to address with the T-form). — Ungoliant (Falai) 21:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that this entry should (or shouldn't) be moved there, but you#Verb is the English term for this (although it's obsolete). The counterpart, as Takasugi Shinji noted, is thou#Verb. - -sche (discuss) 06:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Rock Paper Scissors[edit]

Tagged but not listed. Also Scissors Paper Stone, Paper Scissors Stone. Should not have any capital letters, perhaps this is uncontroversial enough to just move them. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

S.  Michael Z. 2013-05-18 18:42 z
Are we supposed to know what that means? —Angr 20:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
My best guess is 'support', but it is a guess. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013[edit]

Appendix:Japanese Swadesh list[edit]

This page is quite a dog's breakfast. The list includes numerous terms that don't belong in a Swadesh list; see the list's Talk page for details.

Glancing over the list, I thought some of the content looked different from how I remembered it. Poking around in the history of the Appendix:Japanese Swadesh list page and the Wiktionary:Japanese Swadesh list page, I realized why -- apparently Croquant (talkcontribs) and I had had the same idea at nearly the same time back in 2006, and he launched the Appendix: page, while I launched the Wiktionary: page four days later.

Comparing the two pages, the Appendix page has gotten a lot more editing traffic, but sadly appears to be less usable -- more Chinese-derived terms, more compounds, and more inflected forms (all inappropriate for a Swadesh list), and less useful information given (no Notes or Usage, for instance). Add to that the fact that the wikicode is harder to work with (as each column is given in a single huge list, but it's each row instead that the editor must work with).

With all that in mind, I'd like to propose that we merge the Appendix:Japanese Swadesh list page with the Wiktionary:Japanese Swadesh list page, with a bias towards keeping the wikicode from the Wiktionary: page and merging in any preferred data from the Appendix: page. If no one objects, I may set to that task in a week or two. Once done, my sense is that we should delete Wiktionary:Japanese Swadesh list, or at least turn it into a redirect to Appendix:Japanese Swadesh list. If anyone feels otherwise, please chime in. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This sounds more like a subject for WT:RFM Chuck Entz (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah, yes, somehow I'd gotten it into the back of my head that RFM was only for moves, not for mergers. Moving there. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Anatoli's Angr's post here copied from Appendix talk:Japanese Swadesh list:

I don't think anyone has taken lexicostatistics seriously in forty years. All Swadesh lists are useless for determining the genetic relatedness of languages, regardless of whether they're filled with native words or loanwords, because the methodology has proven to be flawed. The only point in having Swadesh list appendices at Wiktionary is to provide a list of basic words that we need to have entries for. —Angr 20:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Arrowred.png Is lexicostatistics as a whole discredited, or just Swadesh's approach? Is there any value in keeping these pages, then? Should we just remove them, if they're not to be maintained? We have plenty of other, more highly-trafficked lists that help us keep track of what terms we're missing and might want to add. Curious, -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Both. Lexicostatistics makes the assumption that language change is a homogenous, continuous process that can be reduced to mathematical models. In the real world, there are things like regional and social variation, and things like sociopolitical and economic forces (not to mention blind luck) that often determine which form survives. Swadesh lists are interesting, and provide a rough view of variation between languages, so they're probably worth keeping in the appendices. I wouldn't base anything on them as evidence, though. Lexicostatistics is usually a lot better than flipping a coin, but there are too many ways for it to go wrong, since it depends on unverifiable past events. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Considering the amount of work I've put in on the Burmese and Irish Swadesh lists and the amount of work I'm planning to put in on the Lower Sorbian, Old Irish, and Welsh Swadesh lists, I'd be opposed to deleting them. I don't know of any other lists of terms we need for those languages. —Angr 12:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Chuck, thank you for the detail. I'm clearly behind in my reading.  :)

@Angr, understood. I'm fine with keeping them.

That said, if we are to keep them, I feel rather strongly that the lists should be cleaned up -- despite Angr's comment, known-borrowed words have no place in any such list, even if the methodology has been entirely discredited. At the bare minimum, drilling down to root forms for these concepts would itself give us a list of terms needed for etymological purposes. I'm working through JA terms to add etymologies, which is how I wound up coming back to this list in the first place.  :)

Also, if we are to keep them, presumably we should only keep one per language, yes? And presumably in the Appendix: namespace?

Cheers, -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 15:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, I don't see any reason to exclude loanwords if a loanword is the most common term for a particular concept. The English Swadesh list itself has a large number of loanwords, including they, husband, animal, forest, fruit, flower, skin, egg, vomit, give, count, sky, mountain, and correct. One per language, yes, though there's nothing wrong with keeping some language-family lists too, though these need to be kept within reason. Some currently existing ones run off the right edge of the screen because they contain so many languages. AFAICT all Swadesh lists are already in Appendix: mainspace, which seems like the best place for them to me. —Angr 16:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Re: namespaces, my original comment in this thread concerns a duplication, with one such JA Swadesh list in Appendix:, and one in Wiktionary:.
  • Re: loanwords, my understanding was that the whole point of Swadesh lists was for historico-comparative research? If so, known loanwords would be irrelevant. I'm not opposed to keeping a list of modern terms for Swadesh concepts, but that wouldn't be a Swadesh list then, no? Would an acceptable compromise be to add a column with a header such as Modern equivalent? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
If anything, I'd rather have a separate column for native words that are now obsolete/archaic or that now have different meanings. To stick with the English examples, the native words deer, blossom, hide, spew, and reckon are all modern English too, so it would be odd to exclude them from the "Modern equivalent" column. They just don't mean "animal", "flower", "skin", "vomit", and "count" anymore, or are at least not the most common way of expressing those ideas. But they could be in a column to show that they are the modern English descendants of the Old English words that did have those meanings. —Angr 16:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I was thinking about something along the lines of the format at Wiktionary:Japanese Swadesh list. This includes some JA-specific headings, but the Usage and Notes columns could conceivably be used to convey this kind of information -- like for deer, to describe how it is used now and how that differs from the older meanings. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


Wiktionary:Sample entry[edit]

This was created as an example of how Simple Wiktionary (simple:Wiktionary:Main Page) formats entries. I started to update it to en.Wikt format... but it's redundant to Wiktionary:Entry layout explained#Additional_headings. Should we merge the two pages by deleting WT:SE, or merge them by moving the sample entry off WT:ELE and putting it on WT:SE? - -sche (discuss) 18:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I like it. I wouldn't get involved in trying to revise WT:ELE when Wiktionary:Sample entry could be so useful for the most basic questions. WT:ELE should be some kind of definitive manual for resolving many questions not faced by new contributors. At least one version of the Sample entry should be much simpler - therefore less complete. DCDuring TALK 01:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Meh, alright. Kept for now. - -sche (discuss) 06:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

"xx nouns lacking gender" to "xx terms with incomplete gender"[edit]

Sometimes we want things other than nouns to have genders, but I doubt we want another category for that. "terms" is better than "entries" because we also include genders in translations, which are not entries. There is also a difference between lacking a gender altogether and simply having an incomplete gender. For example, Slovene nouns divide masculine nouns into animate and inanimate, and this is normally specified as part of the gender (m-an, m-in). So if you specify just "m" for a Slovene noun, it's not a complete gender, but it's not lacking a gender either. So "incomplete" is more inclusive. The same applies to Dutch, where users may specify "c" as the gender but this should really be "m" or "f". —CodeCat 17:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Combining diacritics‎ - Category:Combining characters[edit]

This seems redundant to me. -- Liliana 19:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Support merger. - -sche (discuss) 23:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

sleep on it[edit]

Can we merge this into sleep on? I don't see why they should be separate since they have the same meaning. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. But this should remain as a redirect to sleep on. I think that many folks only come across the expression with it and may look it up that way. The same principle probably applies to many expressions. I suspect that many of the entries we have containing a verb and it merit similar treatment, though each would need to be inspected to confirm that. DCDuring TALK 17:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A. E. F.[edit]

B. E. F.[edit]

C. E. F.[edit]

Into A.E.F./B.E.F/C.E.F. Surely spaces alone aren't a good enough reason to have these as alternative form, could even merge the whole lot into the dotless forms AEF/BEF/CEF. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Moved. - -sche (discuss) 06:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Hereafter[edit]

Hereafter is stilted to say the least, and incomprehensible to many native English speakers. I propose that we use something like Category:Afterlife. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree. —Angr 13:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Support. - -sche (discuss) 08:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:CGK to Template:oko-Kore or Template:okm-Kore[edit]

To make it fit with the naming scheme used by our other script codes. —CodeCat 11:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Though it would fit with {{okm}} more ({{oko}} is from the period of time before Hangul was invented), I'd actually prefer it to be kept as is, because it's occasionally used outside Korean (Category:Cia-Cia language comes to my mind). -- Liliana 14:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The language code doesn't really have any significance as far as I can tell. For comparison, "fa-Arab" is used by a lot more languages than just Persian, look in Module:languages for all occurrences of "fa-Arab". We could (and maybe should) come up with a better naming scheme for scripts like these. —CodeCat 15:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Category:Regionalisms - Category:Regional terms by language[edit]

A big mess with lots of overlap and miscategorization. -- Liliana 23:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I think there was a similar proposal a while ago, I just don't remember where it went. Also there's Category:Dialectal terms by language to make it more interesting. —CodeCat 23:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

do you speak something[edit]

Good idea, crappy title, badly executed. Maybe do you speak... would be better. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that this is badly executed, I don't think it's more than a little bit worse than anything else. How about do you speak (something) or do you speak (language)? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Originally this was named do you speak...?. Of course, the question mark is not needed and should not be used there. —Stephen (Talk) 11:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:en:Skeleton[edit]

I think it should be moved to Category:en:Bones. --ElisaVan (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Support, but let's call it "List of bones". There are a lot of categories like this that could benefit from less ambiguous names. DTLHS (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
No preference; it's not exactly ambiguous what either skeleton or bones refers to. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

bee's knees[edit]

Suggest merging the bee's knees into bee's knees. Per redirect at the the cat's pyjamas. I'm not sure of Wiktionary SOP, so noting here. HTH. Quiddity (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest, instead. merging the other way: is bee's knees ever used in any other combination than with "the", as in the bee's knees? Chuck Entz (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I too would suggest unifying them as the bee's knees. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Proto-Slavic[edit]

I am proposing that entries such as *reťi (and *moťь, *noťь, *dъťi and others) and *meďa (and *svěťa, etc.) be renamed to *rekti (*moktь, *noktь, *dъkti) and *medja (*světja), respectively; i.e. as they usually spelled in academic works. Another inconsistency is that some entries have the intrusive *l, while others do not (compare *čaplja : *zemja). --220.253.179.121 10:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I support using -kt-/-tj-/-dj- in these cases. WT:ASLA already specifies that epenthetic l's should be included, so Appendix:Proto-Slavic/zemja needs to be moved to Appendix:Proto-Slavic/zemlja. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
There is no difference between -kt- and -tj-, the distinction is purely etymological. So I don't support making it. And WT:ASLA did not originally specify that the l should be included, Ivan unilaterally rewrote most of that page and it does not represent consensus. —CodeCat 11:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
If the difference is purely etymological, then surely the etymology section of an entry is the place to make it. I don't see any objections being raised to the inclusion of the -l-, and in consensus-building silence implies consent. Personally I'd prefer to exclude it because we should be giving the oldest reconstructable form (hence -kt-) and the -l- is "unetymological". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Surely if we want the oldest reconstructable form, we should be reconstructing PIE and not Proto-Slavic? Reconstructions should concern themselves with the latest common ancestor, not the earliest. There is no descernable difference between -kt- and -tj- in Slavic, both have the exact same outcome in all languages. So the comparative method that linguists use to make reconstructions will give one phoneme, which has been labelled as *ť on Wiktionary and Wikipedia. To reconstruct the difference between -kt- and -tj- requires "outside information", which is not always available. It would be a bit like reconstructing the distinction between short a and o for Proto-Germanic depending on their origin, even though these clearly merged. —CodeCat 11:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
And concerning -j- or -lj-, there is no clear linguistic consensus on whether -lj- is original or -j-, so we just picked one to standardise on. —CodeCat 11:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Internal reconstruction within the protolanguage and comparison with sister languages and protolanguages is also part of historical linguistics, and distinguishing tj < *kt from tj < *tj provides useful information. We don't have to put blinders on and look only at what's reconstructable from the daughter languages, especially since the majority of published sources don't either, and do distinguish the two types of tj. If we didn't allow internal reconstruction within the proto-language, we'd never reconstruct any PIE laryngeals at all except in words directly attested in Anatolian (and even then we would never reconstruct h₁ at any rate). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I think you're mistaken. While some linguists are in the habit of reconstructing laryngeals to account for any occurrence of *a or a long vowel, there are many who don't and disagree with this practice. Ringe for example explicitly argues that not all cases of *a should be reconstructed as *h₂e just for the sake of it. But there are many cases where the descendants rule out *a and require *h₂e, so then it can be reconstructed. This doesn't apply to Slavic *ť though. There are no examples of any discernable difference between *kt and *tj in any Slavic language, so trying to distinguish them is always going to be an irregular and incomplete process. And there's also a more esthetic argument: Proto-Slavic didn't allow syllables to end in an obstruent, and we don't have reconstructions with obstruent-final syllables anywhere. Yet *noktь has such a syllable, so it would be internally inconsistent if we used this representation, unless we somehow "decide" that *kt is actually a single phoneme. And if you get to that point then you might as well just respell that phoneme as *ť... —CodeCat 12:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
What cases are there where non-Anatolian descendants "rule out *a and require *h₂e"? Reconstructing kt in Proto-Slavic is no different than reconstructing ɸ in Proto-Celtic (or, as I said, h₁ in PIE—or for that matter e-vocalism next to h₂ and h₃); if we know from other evidence that it was there, there's no reason to exclude it, and certainly no reason for reconstructions to "concern themselves with the latest common ancestor, not the earliest". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Well actually, the Proto-Slavic we reconstruct here is not actually the latest common ancestor, it's later. As far as I can tell, we have certain sound changes applied to our reconstructions, even though they can be demonstrated to have occurred after certain other changes that we don't apply. For example, the liquid diphthongs were changed in a dialect-specific way before the vowels *o and *a differed in quality (because *or is lengthened to *ra in South Slavic). But the quality distinctions must have arisen before a whole lot of accent changes that happened in late Common Slavic, such as the creation of accent class B (which we reconstruct). But in all of these cases we represent "archiphonemes" that can be reconstructed for all Slavic languages based on comparative evidence. *or is an archiphoneme that should be understood as meaning different things in different Slavic dialects. The same should be done for *ť, for which comparative evidence gives only a single phoneme rather than two, so there is nothing beyond that to reconstruct. —CodeCat 14:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

конденсат Бозе — Эйнштейна[edit]

To конденсат Бозе - Эйнштейна. I think the common practice is to use plain hyphens in page names? —CodeCat 20:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Not universally. Hebrew, at least , uses U+05BE. I can't speak for конденсат Бозе — Эйнштейна.​—msh210 (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
WT:Entry titles does actually say to use the hyphen minus not any of the dashes. What does WT:ARU say? WT:Entry titles is quite new and therefore does not necessarily reflect a strong consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Not an easy one but I'd say keep as is. The form "Бозе-Эйнштейн" (with a plain hyphen) would imply that it is a name of one person, "" is implying that there were two people. Cf. names of people "Склодо́вская-Кюри́" (Skłodowska-Curie), "Бонч-Бруе́вич" (Bonch-Bruyevich) (these are hyphenated names). If something was named after Skłodowska-Curie and another person, the only would be to use "". Not sure about transliteration of "", which also has grammatical usage in Russian. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I found the applicable rule about "тире (tirɛ́)" (): тире (I should have known it!). "...ме́жду имена́ми со́бственными, совоку́пностью кото́рых называ́ется уче́ние, явле́ние и т. п. (уравне́ние Менделе́ева — Клапейро́на; матч Каспа́ров — Ка́рпов)" - "("" is used) ...between proper names, whose combination is used to name a teaching (doctrine), a phenomenon, etc. (e.g. Mendeleyev - Clapeyron equation, Kasparov - Karpov match). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep as is, then.​—msh210 (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Are we using typewriting or typesetting conventions for our main entries? Shouldn’t we be consistent in this?

Good English-language typography would use an en dash or real apostrophe in certain places (e.g., Bose–Einstein condensate, don’t) instead of a hyphen or neutered typewriter apostrophe (Bose-Einstein condensate, don't). I don’t know about Russian type-writing conventions, but in English usage the em dash is typically typed as a double hyphen (as конденсат Бозе--Эйнштейна), or perhaps a spaced hyphen (конденсат Бозе - Эйнштейна).

Anatoli, is the long dash always spaced in Russian typesetting? Michael Z. 2013-11-18 02:55 z

google books:"конденсат Бозе — Эйнштейна" shows both spaced and unspaced m-dashes (and some of the spaced dashes are short enough to be n-dashes, but that could just be the strange font. --WikiTiki89 03:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
After taking a closer look at more of the results, it seems that every combination of {n-dash, m-dash, hyphen} × {spaced, unspaced} exists. --WikiTiki89 03:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Missed the questions, sorry. The prescribed method is to space the long dash but this rule is not always followed, apparently. Re "Are we using typewriting or typesetting conventions for our main entries?". It's both typographical and correct web version. The long dash is often replaced with a short dash in informal writing but the long dash and spaces around are standard in this case. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:en-conj[edit]

This is an unused template that contains only a schoolboy exercise of the conjugation of do, mostly perphrastic, of course, and incomplete as a table of all periphrastic equivalents of all tenses and aspects that can be expressed in English. Thus it is misnamed and misleading. If anything it ought to be in the creator's user space, renamed as {{en-conj-do}}. DCDuring TALK 14:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If you plug in other terms, it outputs the forms of the verb you've plugged in. Observe: {{en-conj|love|loved||loving}} yields:
That doesn't mean we really need it, of course, but it does do more than you thought it did. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I was so annoyed that it didn't work as it used to, as the inflection-line template (or redirect thereto) for English conjugations, that I didn't bother to look. That it has no documentation makes that particularly easy. It needs the "principal parts" (3, 4?) in order to generate the periphrases that it covers.
Were it deployed in English L2s I think it would be a great way to ensure that we get fewer native speakers to use Wiktionary, to continue phase one of the linguistic cleansing process. DCDuring TALK 16:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you mean the inflection-line template for English conjunctions? That's now at {{en-con}}. Anyway, I have no objection to deleting this (it's unused anyway) since we already provide the principle parts on the headword line and everything is derivable from those parts, especially if we have an Appendix:English verbs for the benefit of learners. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Besides, it needs fixing: buried deep in the paradigm are "he will has" and "he would has". Chuck Entz (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I created a documentation that there are no more confusions and thus I think this discussion is finished, Keep as is. --Bigbossfarin (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. There is so little value to English conjugation tables that it doesn't seem to me that it merits taking a name that should be used for English conjunctions. Mindless uniformity across languages might be fine for other languages, but not for English on English Wiktionary. Why not rename it as {{en-conjugation}}? DCDuring TALK 14:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm split. The template is too well made to delete, but on the other hand it is entirely useless since we don't conjugate English verbs in entries (and I would be opposed to doing so). I guess I would support moving it to {{en-conjugate}}. But I definitely oppose moving {{en-con}} to {{en-conj}} and would also oppose redirecting {{en-conj}} to {{en-con}}. If {{en-conj}} doesn't contain a conjugation table, then it most certainly should not contain a conjunction template. This is not mindless uniformity, this is to avoid confusion. --WikiTiki89 14:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Another way to avoid confusion would be to rename "xx-conj" templates to "xx-conjg". We know have confusion among contraction, conjunction , and conjugation templates, which could be avoided by other shortcuts "xx-contr", "xx-conjct", and "xx-conjg". This template name has the most potential for confusion. DCDuring TALK 15:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you're right, but using different abbreviations for each language is much more confusing than having ambiguous abbreviations. --WikiTiki89 15:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
A discussion about the name of the templates you can already find here: Template talk:en-con. Since this discussion names of some templates for conjunctions were changed to "xx-con", see: {{eo-con}}, {{nl-con}}, {{arc-con}}, {{cmn-con}}, {{lo-con}}, {{nan-con}}, {{hy-con}}, {{ka-con}}, {{xcl-con}}, {{sh-con}}, and {{ur-con}}. So everyone who wants to use {{en-conj}} for header of conjunctions is wrong, and if you look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:en-conj there is not one content page which uses this template as header. I don't think that we have to move anything because it would be a big effort to change the lemma of all the listed templates. Greetings Bigbossfarin (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Could we rename -decl and -conj to -infl instead? Then the problem would be sidestepped. And "infl" is more general, because it can apply to things that aren't conjugation or declension, like Dutch pronominal adverbs or Irish prepositions. Declension and conjugation are primarily Indo-European-biased terms and don't fit well in many other cases, nor is it even clear what should be done when they're mixed together. —CodeCat 16:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

various places where WT:LANGTREAT and Module:languages are inconsistent[edit]

Module:languages includes codes from the individual members of several language/dialect groups which WT:LANGTREAT says, without citing any discussion, should be merged. Something needs to change: either WT:LANGTREAT should be updated to note that the individual varieties are allowed, or their codes should be removed from the module. The following language/dialect groups are affected:
(Note 1: whenever the merging of a particular dialect group had been discussed and that discussion was cited by LANGTREAT, I simply updated the module.)
(Note 2: Haida, Cree and Kalenjin face the same issue; I expect to write about them later.)
- -sche (discuss) 05:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

the Gondi lects[edit]

Stephen Tyler (not the singer), in his oft-cited works on Gondi, states "Though I have no real evidence, the general pattern seems to be for geographically adjacent Koya and Gondi populations to speak different, but mutually intelligible Gondi dialects. Where these populations are geographically non-contiguous, the dialects are not mutually intelligible. This same pattern probably prevails among all Gondi dialects." WP says "The more important dialects are Dorla, Koya, Maria, Muria, and Raj Gond." Ethnologue, meanwhile, as encoded only two varieties, ggo (Southern Gondi) and gno (Northern Gondi). Should we deprecate those two codes? Or deprecate the macro-code gon and recognise those dialects? Or allow all three? - -sche (discuss) 05:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Persian, Dari, etc[edit]

Although LANGTREAT notes that they should be subsumed into fa, the following codes still exist in Module:languages:

  • pes, for "Western Persian", the most common variety of Persian. We should merge it into fa because it *is* fa.
  • prs, Eastern Persian / Dari, the variety of Persian spoken in Iran Afghanistan. Its status as a separate language, and its very name 'Dari', were products of Afghanistani politics. Not even Afghani speakers of the language call it 'Dari' or consider it separate from Persian; we shouldn't consider it separate, either.
  • aiq, Aimaq, a variety spoken by nomads in Afghanistan and Iran. It is sometimes considered specifically a variety of Dari (which is itself little more than another name for Persian, as explained). It differs from standard Persian mainly in matters of pronunciation, something we usually handle with {{a}} rather than separate L2s.
  • haz, Hazaragi, another Afghan variety. WP summarizes scholarly opinion (with citations, for which look here): "The primary differences between Standard Persian and Hazaragi are the accent and Hazaragi's greater array of Mongolic loanwords. Despite these differences, Hazaragi is mutually intelligible with other regional Persian dialects."
  • deh and phv, Dehwari and Pahlavani, which it is hard to find information on because even WP simply redirects the words to "Persian".

As indicated above, my opinion is that we should merge all of those codes into fa.
Incidentally, LANGTREAT originally also banned Tajik (tg), but this was not supported by scholarship or by our own practice (we had hundreds of Tajik entries), so after two discussions, I updated the page to note that Tajik is allowed. LANGTREAT made no mention of Judeo-Persian (jpr), Bukhari (bhh), Judeo-Tat (jdt) or Tat (ttt), and past discussions of them have assumed they were separate languages, so I also updated the page to reflect that. - -sche (discuss) 05:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC) (fixed think-o)

The Persian lects are an interesting issue; they are on the whole pretty similar, but Persian and Tajik have separate literary and cultural traditions, and I believe Dari does too. I think it is best to keep them separate. The Jewish varieties are often written in the Hebrew script and have a separate cultural tradition, so I think it would probably be handy to keep them separate as well. All the rest probably ought to be merged into their macrolanguages, unless there are script conflicts I'm unaware of (it is, of course, easier to keep with one script per language). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The difference between Dari and Persian is not great AFAIK, there are some references on Wikipedia. Tajik should stay separate, not just because it's in Cyrillic. It's very different from Persian and has many Russian and Turkic loanwords. There is also a significant difference in phonology (vowels). Persian e, o and â are usually i, u and o in Tajik. ZxxZxxZ (talkcontribs) may be able to say a bit more. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
We also currently include "Parsi" (prp) and "Parsi-Dari" (prd), which Wikipedia suggests are spurious(!). - -sche (discuss) 05:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Dari, to merge Dari into Persian, we would have to figure out what to do with transliterations. In standard Persian, ē merged with ī into what we transliterate as i (no diacritic) and ō merged with ū into what we transliterate as u. In Dari, ē and ī and ō and ū are still differentiated. Furthing complicating the problem, standard Persian e, o, ey, and ow are pronounced i, o, ay and aw in Dari, although these differences are not phonemic. The other differences are not as much of a problem, but see a brief description at w:Dari#Phonology. --WikiTiki89 14:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The followed was copied here by User:-sche from User talk:Dijan:

Hi, Do you think Dari can be merged with Persian? See Wiktionary:Requests_for_moves,_mergers_and_splits#Persian, Dari, etc. {{context|Dari|lang=fa}} can still be used. CC ZxxZxxZ (talkcontribs). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

That has been the practice on Wiktionary. Dari should be under the Persian heading with {{context|Dari|lang=fa}} label. That is what we do already. Take a look at فاکولته, for example. Regarding the transliteration of long vowels, ZxxZxxZ (talkcontribs) has been trying to implement a classical Persian transliteration (which is pretty much used for Dari by scholars) as a standard for all Persian entries. So far, it's been a slow and selective process. I'm not opposed to it and it can easily be indicated as the standard Wiktionary practice in the Appendix:Persian transliteration. --Dijan (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you mind posting your answer on Wiktionary:Requests_for_moves,_mergers_and_splits#Persian, Dari, etc and perhaps address Persian/Dari vowel differences raised? Where can I look at the classical transliteration? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
By the way, if you happen to know anything about Parsi or Parsi-Dari (and about their relationship to Farsi and Dari), your input on that subject would also be appreciated over in the same section. :) - -sche (discuss) 00:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I support keeping Dari (and Western Persian) under Persian heading, but I'm not sure what to do about transliteration. By the way, Eastern Persian / Dari (prs) is the variety of Persian spoken in Afghanistan, not Iran, that of Iran is the first one, Western Persian (pes). --Z 17:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, yep, I've fixed my think-o. - -sche (discuss) 21:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I've merged pes and prs into fa. - -sche (discuss) 22:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I've deleted "Parsi" (prp) and "Parsi-Dari" (prd). - -sche (discuss) 06:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:English words with consonant pseudo-digraphs[edit]

Should be Category:English terms with consonant pseudo-digraphs. Ditto for Category:English words with vowel pseudo-digraphs. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've moved this thread out of the archive of unresolved discussions that went stale in 2010 in the hope that we can finally resolve it. - -sche (discuss) 06:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Category:US State Capitals[edit]

This category-rename request was listed on RFC all the way back in 2009, before this page existed (IIRC). I've moved it here in the hope that we can finally address it.

This topical category that is a subcategory of Category:Capital cities needs a rename, but there are several logical possibilities, so I wanted to get some input.

Category:US state capitals
The simplest rename, but still somewhat clunky and not well suited to be paralleled for similar topical categories covering other countries. Plus I'd prefer to avoid using US in category names.
Category:American state capitals
Better suited to paralleling, say for example in Category:Canadian provincial capitals, but unlike Category:American English, I don't think the ambiguity of American can be justified on the grounds of euphony.
Category:State capitals of the United States
Form that I'd happen to prefer. However...
Category:State capitals in the United States
... is the form used on Wikipedia, but the equivalent categories for other countries are a mixture of in and of so I don't see a compelling reason to blindly follow Wikipedia here.

In short unless consensus calls for another choice, I'll see about moving these over to Category:State capitals of the United States in about a week or so. — Carolina wren discussió 03:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I prefer an option not listed: Category:Capital cities of US states. --EncycloPetey 01:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should go with Carolina Wren's Option 1 and move this to Category:US state capitals. - -sche (discuss) 02:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see why we need this category. Isn't Category:Cities enough? --WikiTiki89 02:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Hm, this category is the one outlier in Category:Capital cities; we never actually had the Category:Canadian provincial capitals which Carolina wren mentioned. OTOH, extreme overcategorization of placenames does seem to be the fashion of the day; see the categories which were recently created, one for each of the various Divisions of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. I don't actually have a strong opinion on whether it stays or goes... just that if it stays, everything after "US" should be lowercase. - -sche (discuss) 06:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I would go as far as to say that we don't even need Category:Capital cities. If people want a list of capital cities, they can go to Wikipedia. --WikiTiki89 13:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The Rwanda-Rundi lects[edit]

We currently separate {{rw}}, {{rn}}, {{haq}}, {{suj}}, {{han}}, and {{vin}}, which can all be treated as a single language and often are; their separation seems largely political. The Wikipedia page Rwanda-Rundi language catalogues the differences between rw and rn: they are pretty minor, and a lot seem to have to do with regular spelling differences and tones, which are not even reflected in the standard orthography and could thus be relegated to pronunciation sections. To quote Zorc and Nibagwire's Kinyarwanda and Kirundi comparative grammar (2007):

The terms dialect and language are used loosely in everyday communication. In linguistic terms, the two are bound together in the same definition: a language consists of all the dialects that are connected by a chain of mutual intelligibility. Thus, if a person from Bronx, New York can speak with someone from Mobile, Alabama, and these two can converse with someone from Sydney, Australia without significant misunderstandings, then they all form part of the English language. Kigali [the capital of Rwanda] and Bujumbura [the capital of Burundi] are similarly connected within a chain of dialects that collectively make up the Rwanda-Rundi language.

Kimenyi's A Relational Grammar of Kinyarwanda (1980) explains that:

This language [Kinyarwanda, rw] is very close to both Kirundi [rn], the national language of Burundi, and Giha [haq], a language spoken in western Tanzania. The three languages are really dialects of a single language, since they are mutually intelligible to their respective speakers.

That seems like a strong case for merger to me, although I'd like to see if any academic sources disagree. (Pinging User:-sche as well, just to try it out.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I got the ping, thanks. :) I've just been busy. I'll look into this more closely soon, but on the face of it, it does seem like we could merge them. (And that reminds me that en.Wikt really needs to have a discussion about merging Nynorsk and Bokmal. It's bizarre that we manage to accept that Drents and Twents — and, to use the example above, the English of Alabama and the English of Australia — are not separate languages, but haven't managed to accept that Nynorsk and Bokmal aren't. But that's for another discussion...) - -sche (discuss) 06:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
But cf. Appendix:Swadesh lists for Bantu languages, which shows large differences between the two. -- Liliana 14:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:French plurals to Category:French noun forms or Category:French noun plural forms[edit]

Category:Portuguese plurals to Category:Portuguese noun forms or Category:Portuguese noun plural forms[edit]

Category:Italian plurals to Category:Italian noun forms or Category:Italian noun plural forms[edit]

Same for Aragonese, Asturian, Aromanian, Corsican, Emilian, Extremaduran, Friulian, Galician, Gallo, Guernésiais, Istro-Romanian, Jèrriais, Ladin, Ladino, Ligurian, Middle French, Mirandese, Neapolitan, Norman, Occitan, Old Spanish, Romansch, Sicilian, Tarantino, Venetian.

These languages have more than one form called "plural", as adjectives can also have plurals. So these categories have misleading names. This move was already done for Spanish and Catalan some time ago, so we might as well do it for all languages whose use of "plural" matches that of Spanish. I don't know if we should use "noun forms" or "noun plural forms", though. (Spanish uses Category:Spanish noun forms) —CodeCat 19:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer just to categorize them all as plurals. However that's not politically possible, and since it isn't, I'd prefer Category:French noun plural forms since we won't be including inflected forms like joueuse, which in terms of its formation is an inflected form, even if it's a lemma in its own right. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

take someone's point -> take the point[edit]

As the target seems to be the most common form. I'm also going to soft redirect with {{alternative form of}}:

And also note the exclamatory entry point taken. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

advice animal[edit]

Shouldn't this definition be moved to the plural form advice animals, which is more popular in terms of use? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Alternative forms by language[edit]

All categories here only contain other categories now, no entries. Most of the subcategories don't really fit the Wiktionary definition of an "alternative form", either, though. We treat an alternative form as a form that is more or less interchangeable, and has the same usage frequency and register. But that definitely doesn't apply to rare, dated or archaic forms, or to misspellings or proscribed forms, and so on. So this category and its subcategories should really be renamed. But to what? —CodeCat 16:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

no flies on[edit]

to no flies on someone.

See WT:TR#no flies on. DCDuring TALK 13:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. If it's established practice here that we can refer to nonconstituents as "phrases" (as suggested at the discussion linked to above), then I prefer to keep this entry where it is and call it a "phrase" rather than a noun. If I read "there are certainly no flies on him" and didn't know what it meant, no flies on rather than no flies on someone would be what I looked up. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
You could certainly make the case that this expression is not "really" a noun as it is virtually exclusively used as part of a predicate, ie, not as a subject of a clause or object of a preposition. DCDuring TALK 18:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
And the fact that it modifies another noun directly. No noun could syntactically fit in "There are ___ that man." —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I can think of one noun that would fit: no-fly zone. (sorry, I'll go now). By the way, Wiktionary needs an entry for the noun nonconstituent (non-constituent). Pengo (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Not moved. - -sche (discuss) 06:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

caula to caulae[edit]

caulae is a plurale tantum, no reason to have it in the singular. --Fsojic (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Merge Category:Euphemistic forms by language into Category:Euphemisms by language[edit]

I think we should merge Category:Euphemistic forms by language (and it's subcategories) into Category:Euphemisms by language (and it's subcategories). --WikiTiki89 17:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:krc:Karachay[edit]

Karachay is a regional division of the w:Karachay-Balkar language: Category:Karachay and Category:Balkar can be found in Category:Regional Karachay-Balkar. This category seems to be strictly an artifact of {{Karachay}} being changed to use the topical category system rather than the regional category system, which was continued in module:labels/data. I'm guessing it was originally done that way to avoid automatic generation of Category:Karachay Karachay-Balkar.

Given that everything in both Category:Karachay and this category are all in the Karachay-Balkar language (language code krc), this seems like a misuse of the topical category system. This was brought up last year in the Beer Parlour (Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2013/May#Karachay and Science context labels, but apparently ignored- probably because it was the wrong venue.

We should change the label "Karachay" to a regional label with plain_categories="Karachay" in the module, and merge this category into Category:Karachay. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Category names containing "US"[edit]

I believe that the punctuated U.S. is the more formal usage, and has the advantage of not being mistaken for an all-caps instance of the word, "us". I therefore propose to move all categories containing "US" (e.g. Category:US State Capitals, Category:fr:US States, and Category:Southern US English) to titles containing "U.S.". By my count, this covers about 50 categories in total. If approved, I will be glad to do all of the renaming and recategorization. bd2412 T 21:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I actually think we'd be better off renaming them to categories containing the unabbreviated "United States". --WikiTiki89 21:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I would absolutely agree with that, as it eliminates all possible ambiguity. For states, we would have to change it to "States of the United States" to avoid the alliteration of "United States States". bd2412 T 22:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
We wouldn't have to, but I agree it would make it less awkward. Anyway, I see no problem with "States of the United States". --WikiTiki89 22:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. At least part of the time, people have to type these category names by hand, and even a couple of extra characters every time can be a nuisance (I'm surprised you aren't going all the way and suggesting "the United States of America").
I fail to see how the "US" in category names could ever be mistaken for a pronoun- do you really think people are going to look at Category:US States and mistake it for a colloquial version of "we states"?
It looks very much to me like a solution in search of a problem, with no real benefit, unless you can call forcing people to do more typing a benefit. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Our category names, being part of the visible public product, should at least look formal and professional. bd2412 T 04:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Support renaming to "United States". Note that we do currently have Category:Languages of the United States of America (rather than Category:Languages of the United States); I don't know if it should be renamed for consistency. - -sche (discuss) 18:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
For an English-speaking audience, "of America" is indeed probably superfluous. bd2412 T 21:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Is there any further comment/opinion on this? bd2412 T 00:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Attributive US and noun United States. So US state capitals (caps sic) and Languages of the United StatesMichael Z. 2014-03-16 04:11 z
Is that just an opinion on whether United States should be spelled out, or is it also addressed to the question of whether we should use a punctuated U.S.? bd2412 T 18:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Both. These are also the forms recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style. Michael Z. 2014-03-17 21:56 z
I see no reason to abbreviate. --WikiTiki89 21:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/leb-[edit]

Hi... perhaps it is not of my concern, but I do believe Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/leb- and Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/leh₂b- should be merged, or, rather, that the former should be supplanted by the later. Would someone verify this for me? Perhaps provide reasons for not doing so? I'm no one to say, but I understand that *leb- is an alternate form of *leh₂b-; the descendants of the former are among the descendants of the later, at least, and I'd expect leb- rather the lab- as Italic reflex if the PIE should be *leb-... I might be wrong... Any way, thank you for reading this... 179.234.186.128 02:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Merging cbk-zam (Zamboanga Chavacano) into cbk (Chavacano)[edit]

Pretty much every source I could find referred to Zamboangueño et al. as varieties or dialects, not languages. Two of them in particular make it very clear:

“The result of the study showed that while there are observable differences in certain language features beween and among the four variants, they are nonetheless, mutually intelligible with each other even among native speakers who do not have any special language training. Thus, for the purpose of this pilot study, al four variants were identified as dialects of PCS.” Sister María Isabelita O. Riego de Dios, A Pilot Study on the Dialects of Philippine Creole Spanish

“The two variants of PCS share enough distinctive differences from regular Spanish or regular Philippine usage that they must be considered historicaly related dialects of the same language” Charles O. Frake, Lexical Origins and Semantic Structure in Philippine Creole Spanish

Ungoliant (falai) 07:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Meänkieli (fit) and Kven (fkv) into Finnish (fi)[edit]

Finnish dialects

I think that linguists consider these to be dialects of Finnish, so that would make these pluricentric standards of a single language. I don't know if keeping them separate would hold any value? —CodeCat 14:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's ping our active Finnish speakers to see if they have input: User:Hekaheka and User:Makaokalani. 23:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC) (updated - -sche (discuss) 06:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC))
The impression I get from the example at w:Meänkieli is that the differences are very minor, no more than there might be between Croatian and Serbian. I notice systematic loss of -d- and Finnish -ts- corresponds to -tt- in Meänkieli. They definitely look mutually intelligible. Kven looks a little more different, but it might also just be the spelling; I don't know how hard it would be to the average Finnish speaker. —CodeCat 23:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I know maybe a dozen words of Finnish, so I can't judge for myself, but the impression I get from the Wikipedia articles is that there's an equal or greater range of variation between dialects in Finland as there is with these dialects- if these dialects were on the other side of the Finnish border, they would probably be considered just part of the normal dialectal variation (I'm sure there are some differences due to their isolation from the influence of standard Finnish, as well). They have special status because they're in Sweden and Norway surrounded by Swedish and Norwegian. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Finnish wasn't even a single language to begin with originally. There's several dialect groups that form a continuum, but it's not easy to draw clear lines. Savonian (eastern) dialects for example might well be closer to Karelian (considered a separate language) than they are to western Finnish. —CodeCat 00:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
My impression is the same as Chuck's, that these could be merged. By my (quick) count, we have 11 Meänkieli entries and 14 English entries with Meänkieli translations, and 19 Kven entries and 8 entries with Kven translations. - -sche (discuss) 02:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
For more information see w:Finnish dialects and also w:Peräpohjola dialects. The map to the right may also help. —CodeCat 03:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Blue indicates areas where Finnish is spoken by the majority, and green indictes minority. Meänkieli and Kven are considered Finnish on this map

I somehow missed this discussion when it was active, but better later than never. I have the following comments:

  • The map is outdated. There's practically no Finnish-speaking population left in the areas which were annexed by the Soviet Union during and after the WWII. The map on the right is more up-to-date.
  • There's some Ingrian population left in the St. Petersburg area, but their number and share of population (less than 0,5‰ in Leningrad oblast) is drastically reduced due to 1) inflow of Russians to St. Petersburg, 2) Stalin's terror in the 1930's and 3) emigration to Finland between 1990 and 2011.
  • I'm not sure of Kven-speakers, but the speakers of Meänkieli tend to be quite strong in their opinion that they are not Finnish-speakers. It is probably true that if the border were in another place, Meänkieli would be considered a Finnish dialect. But then again, it would hardly be the same language as it is today - it would have preserved less archaic features and there would be much less Swedish influence in it. If ISO regards it a language, how could we be wiser?
  • Meänkieli is an official minority language in Sweden, and is regarded as distinct from Finnish which also has a (separate) minority language status there.
  • "Finnish wasn't even a single language to begin with originally." -- Show me one that was!

--Hekaheka (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's take a look at our current 15 Meänkieli and 20 Kven lemmas:
  • Meänkieli:
    • Six words indistinguishable from Standard Finnish
    • Two words indistinguishable in shape from Standard Finnish but with dialect-specific meanings
    • Four words with some phonetic peculiarities specific to Northern dialects
    • Two words widespread across Finnish dialects
    • One word that might be specific to the variety, or might be one of the previous
  • Kven:
    • Seven words indistinguishable from Standard Finnish
    • Seven words widespread across Finnish dialects
    • Five words with some phonetic peculiarities specific to Northern dialects
    • One narrow-distribution loanword from Norwegian
So yes, Symbol support vote.svg Support. We could well treat these as Finnish dialects, though I think to account for any local neologisms and such, they would deserve categories of their own under Category:Regional Finnish. --Tropylium (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

clean-shaven[edit]

"Having no beard or mustache" and "Having had facial hair completely removed." are the same thing. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not obvious that they are.
I don't even know what "completely" and "facial hair" are supposed to mean when used together in this context. Does "facial hair" as people use the word normally include the follicle, the portion below the skin? If it does then "complete" removal would at least require a depilatory.
Can I be clean-shaven if I don't have a beard or mustache, but haven't shaven for three days? What if I did a bad job shaving? This seems like a case for sharpening the definitions by RfV's. Keep, cite and revise, or RfV. DCDuring TALK 13:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
most dictionaries seem to have only one sense, if they have the term at all, but AHD has two defs:
  1. Having the beard or hair shaved off.
  2. Having recently shaved.
These each seem better than our corresponding definitions. DCDuring TALK 13:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The women and children are not clean-shaven although they are "having no beard or mustache". Thus the first definition should go, whatever else happens. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:grc-conj-perfect-σ[edit]

Templates Template:grc-conj-perfect-σ and Template:grc-conj-perfect-dental are identical. ObsequiousNewt (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:-er to Template:en-er[edit]

This is an English-only template, so the name should reflect that. —CodeCat 15:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Its main advantage over {{suffix|foo|er|lang=en}} seems to be its brevity. I see little point in having it if it is renamed (or, TBH, even if it's not). It might be better to expand it to allow a lang= paramater (either adding lang=en to all current uses, or setting it to default to lang=en if no lang= is set). It could then be used for German and other languages. - -sche (discuss) 06:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:rank to Template:en-rank[edit]

Same as above. —CodeCat 17:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Komi language[edit]

Merge Komi-Zyrian (kpv), Komi-Permyak (koi), Komi-Yodzyak (no code) with Komi (kv). Komi-Zyrian is dominating over others. Currently, they all use the same alphabet but there were differences in the past. There's very little information on the grammar differences but they are mostly considered dialects, not separate languages. Merging kv and kpv should be straightforward, Zyrian is the language of Komi Republic.-Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 10:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it has been planned as far as Komi-Zyrian and Komi-Permyak are concerned, see WT:LANGTREAT: "kv and kpv refer to the same lect; one will eventually be deleted.". Apparently, there are differences with Komi-Permyak but those can be labeled as "Permyak", similar Serbo-Croatian or Albanian varieties. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Added: Wiktionary:Komi transliteration, Module:kv-translit, which handles both Zyrian and Permyak. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Komi-Permyak has a distinct written tradition and should not and cannot be merged. Your statement that Komi-Zyrian is dominating shows your pro-Russian and anti-minority POV which should never be a basis for consensus on this wiki. Komi-Zyrian can be handled under {{kv}}, yes. -- Liliana 12:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Do you have paranoia or something? I'm not Putin and not suppressing any minorities. Komi-Zyrian is a language of majority of Komi people in Komi Republic, has a much larger number of speakers and much more materials written in this variety of Komi. Komi-Permyak is used by a minority in Perm Krai and has only 63,000 speakers. By all means, I'm not forcing anyone to merge, this is only a suggestion. They are mutually comprehensible and each of them has dialects. It's possible to merge Komi varieties like it's possible to have one L2 header for Albanian, Norwegian or Serbo-Croatian, marking varieties accordingly: тӧлысь (Zyryan)/тӧлісь (Permyak), выль (Zyryan)/виль (Permyak). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 12:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
That was completely rediculous and has no place on this wiki. It shows your anti-Russian bias more than Anatoli ever showed any pro-Russian bias. —CodeCat 13:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I can't help to have some Russian bias, though. This is my language, my culture. I can help with the Russian language and Russia-related topics, even if Russian may now be interesting perhaps as a "language of enemy" for some. I don't blame people for criticizing Russian politicians looking at Russia with suspicion. I don't support Russian politics and propaganda but I don't have to apologize for being Russian either. :) Certainly I shouldn't be blamed for being against minorities. Why would I add contents for minority languages, if I wanted to supress them? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 13:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
There is one problem: as WT:DATACHECK reveals, "Komi-Zyrian language (kpv) has a canonical name that is not unique, it is also used by the code kv." Presumably one of the two needs to be retired (or, failing that, at least renamed). - -sche (discuss) 18:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Komi-Zyrian is less ambiguous and clear. Although I favoured "Komi", perhaps we should retire it and leave Komi-Zyrian for kpv and kv and Komi-Permyak for koi. Komi-Zyrian is implied if Komi is used. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I switched about half of our kv entries to use kpv, and then I got distracted. I'll try to finish sometime soon. (See also User talk:-sche#kv_language_code and Category talk:Komi language.) - -sche (discuss) 04:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Everything that needed to be done seems to have been done. - -sche (discuss) 02:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Japanese humble language[edit]

Category:Japanese humble terms

I noticed the nonexistent topical category Category:ja:Humble in Special:WantedCategories, and checked, as I often do, whether there was an existing category that already covered the subject. I found these two. The first one was created by User:Haplology, and has more information about Japanese culture, while the other one was created by User:Atitarev along with Category:Korean humble terms, and is more suited to a multi-language series of categories.

It seems to me that Category:Japanese humble terms fits our naming scheme better, so I propose we merge both into that one, and that we convert it and the Korean category to use {{lexiconcatboiler}}, which is designed for this kind of thing. That means creating a category called Category:Humble terms by language with a general description of humble language in its subtemplate. We can then add language-specific details to the Japanese and Korean categories.

I suspect that there aren't many languages that have such well-developed and institutionalized humble lexicons as these do, but I'm sure there are an awful lot of languages that have at least a few such terms- "your humble servant" comes to mind as an English example. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It's only to do with two languages - Korean and Japanese. Note: some people mix "honorific" with "polite" or "formal" but the exact concept currently exists only in Japanese and Korean, even if other languages have similar ideas, "honorific" and "humble" are opposite and used in out- and in-group references.
I have posted on User:Haplology's page some time ago, which is now archived. You can see here: [1]. Haplology admitted that the structure wasn't perfect and needs fixing.
The current setup:
In my opinion it should be:
Which matches Japanese more closely.
@Eirikr: might add more to it. I didn't get around to fixing it but I will. It's not a big list. Korean can and should be structured the same way. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The suggested structure above (2) shows that honorific and humble terms are both part of the respectful formal language but honorific is used in reference to outgroup and humble - to ingroup. The concept and usage are critical in formal communication in Japanese and Korean languages. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
We could also put them directly under Category:Japanese formal terms, if that works. —CodeCat 01:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not the same, although if it's related. Category:Japanese honorifics should be a subcategory of Category:Japanese formal terms. "Formal" is opposed to "colloquial" but respectful language is a specific variety, which needs special training, including native Japanese students. E.g. おっしゃる (ossharu, honorific) shows respect to the 2nd/3rd person or outgroup and is never used in self-reference in the polite speech, whereas 申す (mōsu, humble) is used to self-reference or ingroup (even if one talks about own CEO!). Formal words are used regardless who/what they refer to in the formal language, like in any language. An interesting example might be that a person talking to an outsider about own general manager without polite "-san" (e.g. simply Yamada, not Yamada-san) and using humble terms. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Sardinian templates[edit]

Category:Campidanese_Sardinian_language Category:Gallurese_Sardinian_language Category:Logudorese_Sardinian_language Category:Sassarese_Sardinian_language

merged into

Category:Sardinian_language

We are not supposed to treat dialects as independent languages. How are these not dialects? --Æ&Œ (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I support a merger of Campidanese (sro) and Logudorese (src) into Sardinian (sc), for reasons I outlined on my talk page and repeat here for others' benefit: those two lects differ from each other, quoth WP, "mostly in phonetics, which does not hamper intelligibility among the speakers". They are perhaps comparable to the dialects of Irish, with standard Sardinian (sc) existing as a unification of the dialects (again, comparable to Irish). Notably, we already include standard Sardinian (sc) — which means the additional inclusion of sro and src is quite schizophrenic.
There is some disagreement over whether Gallurese (sdn) and Sassarese (sdc) are dialects of Sardinian, dialects of Corsican, or languages separate from both Sardinian and Corsican. I would not merge them at this time. - -sche (discuss) 03:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Wiktionary:Foo → Category:Wiktionary foo[edit]

I have just finished moving Category:Wiktionary:Language considerations to Category:Wiktionary language considerations in accordance with the discussion above. But that's not the only category that's using "Wiktionary:" as a pseudonamespace. I therefore propose all of the following moves:

If there is consensus to make these name changes, I also request someone with a bot to do it, because the move I did by hand wasn't particularly big, but it sure was tedious. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe some of these should have "Wiktionary" removed from the names. Not sure which though. —CodeCat 14:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Category:Help already exists and it isn't clear what the difference is between it and Category:Wiktionary:Help, so those two probably really should be merged. The same goes for Category:Pronunciation and Category:Wiktionary:Pronunciation: they both exist, but seem to have the same function. Category:Statistics is a topic category covering things like Category:en:Statistics and Category:de:Statistics, so it can't be merged with Category:Wiktionary:Statistics. Category:Translation seems like a good potential topic category too, even though it isn't one yet, so I'd rather keep that one free at least. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Kichwa[edit]

Hello everyone. I'm curious as to how one would go about requesting an exceptional code for the standard Kichwa language? There are several SIL/Ethnologue codes for various Kichwa dialects (Imbabura (qvi), Chimborazo (qug), Cañar Highland (qxr), etc), but not one is for the standard Kichwa language that's taught in schools and used by the government in Ecuador. There is a common Quechua code (qu) is currently used for Quechua Wiktionary and Wikipedia, but both projects are exclusively written in standard Southern Quechua. Both Kichwa and Southern Quechua are part of the Quechua II branch of the Quechuan languages, but they are different dialects with different standardized grammars and different standardized writing conventions. --Dijan (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... how mutually intelligible are Kichwa and Quechua? It wasn't that long ago that the various Quechua dialects' codes were removed from Module:languages, though I'm having trouble locating the discussion(s) that led to that.
If Kichwa is to be included, we could either (1) pick the code of one of the Kichwa dialects and use it for all of Kichwa (the way we use gcf for all of Antillean Creole), or (2) design our own code, like qwe-kch, according to the system outlined in WT:LANGCODE, point 3.3. - -sche (discuss) 04:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
They are mutually intelligible for the most part (similar to differences between Danish and Swedish), but they are also significantly different from each other to be considered separate. Linguistically, Kichwa belongs to a different subgroup of Quechua. The grammar of Kichwa is more simplified (loss of possissive suffixes, loss of the voiceless uvular fricative, etc) and the vocabulary is affected by native languages spoken before the Incan conquest of the territory of today's Ecuador and Colombia (meaning, Quechua was imposed as a foreign language, whereas it is a native language in the regions where Southern Quechua is spoken - in southern Peru and Bolivia).
I was referring to designing our own code and using that as an umbrella for all the Kichwa varieties - which now all use a standardized alphabet different from the Peruvian varieties (such as Southern Quechua), but I couldn't find the procedure for it.
There was an attempt to create a separate Kichwa Wikipedia, but apparently no one got around to it and it got complicated as somone pointed out that an official ISO code must be requested specifically for the standard variety. And for some the problem was that it was trying to use the Chimborazo (qug) code (which is one of the most widely spoken varieties of Kichwa). Apparently the issuing of codes is very strict on Wikipedia. --Dijan (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Middle Chinese language (ltc) and Category:Old Chinese language (och)[edit]

These two languages are being merged as the rest of Chinese topolects per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-04/Unified Chinese into one L2 "Chinese" - PoS are added if there is a pronunciation for a given topolect. The reconstructed pronunciations will be updated from a reliable source and existing transliterations removed but there will be no PoS categories for them, which are applicable to modern Chinese topolects in the modern classification. See for example (expand "Pronunciation" section to see Middle Chinese, Old Chinese pronunciations). As a result, Category:Middle Chinese language (ltc) and Category:Old Chinese language (och) will have to go or be moved to appendices. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Category:en:Names into Category:English names[edit]

And likewise for other languages. There is nothing particularly topical about names as such. Of course the entities that they refer to have a topical element, but that is distinct from the name used to refer to them. That is, "Canada" is both a country (as a concept; topical), and the English name for that country (as a word; lexical). So I propose that a stricter split is made between these two things. I think that since we already have another category tree for names of people, we might as well extend that category tree for names of other things as well. —CodeCat 17:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

After thinking about this some more, I'm not sure about this proposal. I was mainly led by the name of the top-level categories, "Names" and "Place names". These are clearly about the nature of the word rather than what it refers to. A place name is a word for a place, not a place itself. For personal names it's more practical to treat names as types of words, because there are many individuals named "Alice" or "Bob" and putting them in some category like "People" is hardly going to be useful. But at the same time, it's not so clear for things like "countries", or "cities" because by and large these terms are unique in what they refer to. Thailand is clearly the name of one unique place, not a name for many places to be assigned as one sees fit. This means that categories for "countries" would not really contain anything different from categories for "names of countries". Sure, the focus is different (topical versus lexical) but the end result would be the same. So I'm wondering what the best approach would be here. —CodeCat 12:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Information_desk/Archive_2013/July-December#Question_about_given_names_and_surnames is semi-relevant. Most (but not all!) people seem to agree that there's a distinction between "en:Names" (and "en:Surnames", etc) and "English names" ("English surnames", etc), but not everyone agrees on what that distinction is. - -sche (discuss) 02:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Earlier today, I stumbled on a good example for discussion: Yazdegerd, which seems to be strictly used to refer to Persian emperors who died before the English language even existed. It seems odd to lump this in with names of clearly English origin and usage such as Smith. Yes, it occurs in the English language- but I somehow doubt that the average speaker of English would ever describe it as an English name. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Most people here agree that place names are topics and personal names are parts of speech. So it doesn't matter which one you use for the top category, the topic/POS division never made sense with names anyway. Names of foreigners used in another language, like Yazdegerd, have always been a problem. I would place it in a "Category:en:Middle Persian male given names" (cf. Category:en:Persian male given names), but Anatoli always uses the from= parameter and now Vahagn has taken it up too. It might help if Template:given name and Template:surname had a parameter for transliterations. But you'd still have to decide the category name and the definition ("A Middle Persian male given name? A(n English) rendering of a Middle Persian male given name?") CodeCat, please don't make any major change before bringing it up in Beer parlour, otherwise you'll just add to the chaos. Very few people read this page. And be prepared that the discussion will go astray and there will be no consensus, as in the link given by -sche. People who never edit names often believe that there's a miraculous simple rule that will solve everything. --Makaokalani (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

*sъ(n)*sъ, *sъn[edit]

*kъ(n)*kъ, *kъn[edit]

*o(b)*o, *ob[edit]

I think it is bad practice to have parentheses in the entry titles. We should move these pages to one form and have the other be an alternative form. --WikiTiki89 17:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this one way or the other, but the entry titles are inherently unattested, so I don't see harm in notation that enables the content to be fully centralized on one page. And the parenthetical notation is easy to understand, IMO; certainly there are weirder naming schemes out there, like Sino-Tibetan's — it has entry titles like Appendix:Proto-Sino-Tibetan/(s/r)-ma(ŋ/k) and Appendix:Proto-Sino-Tibetan/p(r)an/t ~ b(r)an/t. - -sche (discuss) 18:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow, that's even worse. I would say those should be moved as well, but they are also a different scenario, since they indicate different reconstructions, whereas in the cases that I nominated, they just indicate alternative forms. --WikiTiki89 19:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
@CodeCat: As the creator of those entries, I was hoping to get your input here. --WikiTiki89 17:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it's ok to move them, but which one should the main lemma be on? —CodeCat 17:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd say the one with the final consonant, since it's unpredictable. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Template:term into Template:m[edit]

We still have both of these templates that does the same thing, but the parameters are named differently. I propose to merge them into {{m}}. The only difficulty is that there are still thousands of instances with {{term}} without a language specified, which can't be converted unless we use "und" as the code. So I will leave those alone for now, unless everyone is ok with converting them to {{m|und|...}}. —CodeCat 12:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

What actual good is accomplished, apart from tidying? DCDuring TALK 12:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. —CodeCat 12:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Please create a vote, and post a meaningful rationale on the talk page of the vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Renaming a template doesn't require a vote. —CodeCat 13:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am very concerned about continued arbitrariness of changes in templates and modules where one person's possible neuroses could cause needless inconvenience for other users. DCDuring TALK 13:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What harm is there in letting {{term}} stay? --WikiTiki89 20:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Confusing new users by having two different templates, with different parameters, for the same purpose. —CodeCat 21:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't think it's that incredibly confusing. --WikiTiki89 21:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
        • I certainly see no benefit in keeping them both, other than inertia. —CodeCat 21:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
          • If it ain't broke, don't fix it. --WikiTiki89 21:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
What you call inertia, others might call backward compatibility. For most, {{m}} is an improvement over {{term}}, but the cumulative effect of all the recent changes is bound to have an impact on a lot of users just from the sheer number of new things to keep in mind. People develop habits and "boilerplate" to streamline their workflow, and forcing changes just makes routine tasks harder. This reminds me of a scene in Monty Python's Jabberwocky, where Michael Palin's character tries to help out a blind cooper by rearranging his workshop: it's set up for a far more efficient workflow, but nothing is where the blind man thinks it is, and everything goes horribly, horribly wrong.
It's one thing to deprecate a heavily-used template like term and to replace uses of it with the new one. It's another entirely to delete it and cause problems for intermittent editors who haven't gotten the message yet and have to learn how to edit all over again. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
So would you be ok with bot-replacing the template now, and re-nominating it at some later date? —CodeCat 22:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Is this really the most interesting thing you can find to do? DCDuring TALK 23:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Why does it matter to you what I find interesting? —CodeCat 23:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Because I would like to be able to trust you not to do things that cause me personally inconvenience and seem to put the aspects of the project at risk. DCDuring TALK 01:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
We both want to improve Wiktionary. We just have different ideas on how that would be achieved. My view is that reducing the number of templates also reduces the mental load of new users trying to learn how to make entries. Making sure that similar templates share the same parameters also helps, because it makes their use more intuitive. This is why {{m}} was created and why it has the same parameters as {{l}}, why I merged the category boilerplate templates, why I made this merge proposal, and why I hope that we will merge {{context}} into {{label}} one day. —CodeCat 01:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem with the creation of new improved templates, just with the elimination of old ones. Can you provide any information on the number of edits made by new users vs the number of old users? DCDuring TALK 07:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Even for established users, having multiple templates that do the same thing but with different parameters is confusing. When {{term/t}} was first introduced, I thought that it was only to be used with reconstructed terms (because it was primarily being used as a replacement for {{recons}}), while {{term}} was to be used with attested terms. It was a long time before I either figured out or someone told me that the two have the exact same function, just with different parameters, and it didn't matter which one you used. So then I always used {{term/t}} (and now {{m}}) so I didn't have to keep typing "lang=" all the time. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm with CodeCat on this one. Mulder1982 (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Of the 33 million total edits ever made to Wiktionary only 6.5 million are made by registered non-bot users, also excluding AF, IW, and Keenebot2. The 67 non-bot contributors at Special:Statistics made about 4.2 million of them, about 65%.
    • Most systems (of many types) show an 80/20 effect. (80% of the work done by 20% of the people) SemperBlotto (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
      I didn't know how many people are or were contributing. That addresses one of the premises of the argument justifying the merger. But there are no statistics that justify eliminating a template that folks are accustomed to. That is simply the product of an urge-to-merge. DCDuring TALK 14:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
      That's a chicken-and-egg argument of course. —CodeCat 15:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
      You never make explicit arguments, let alone coherent ones. Others have to guess what arguments you must be trying to make. In this case do you have any evidence that deleting old templates, rather than simply deprecating them, has any favorable effect on broadening our contributor base. In particular, any evidence that one-letter template names are better for that purpose than whole-word template names? DCDuring TALK 15:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
      Templates will be used as long as they exist and are already present in many entries. So they have a kind of inertia behind them. If that alone is a sufficient argument against deleting them, then we would be stuck with (possibly bad) design decisions made a decade ago when Wiktionary was first created. Things need to change if Wiktionary is to improve, you can't keep things the same and improve at the same time. This is the same for all software; some changes will break things that people are used to, and they will need to adapt.
      As for arguments, Angr already gave some arguments above. And you never suggested at any point that deprecating {{term}} would be a good intermediate step, you just opposed altogether, so you shouldn't be surprised if people understand your position to be "we should keep both {{term}} and {{m}} side-by-side indefinitely". And there is no reason to do that of course, other than "we're used to it", which is hardly an argument because it doesn't improve anything as I noted above.
      And just to point out this move proposal is not about the name at all, I don't know where you got that idea from. —CodeCat 15:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
      Yes, we are cursed with history, users, and their habits. A successful project can never offer a tabula rasa; that's what new projects and revolutions are for. The biggest improvements to Wiktionary will always be better content to attract more users, some of whom may become registered users, contributors, etc. If I could trust that you cared in the slightest about habits and could change things without breaking them or causing loss of functionality which you often seem to not recognize or not understand, I could accept the conventional wisdom above about change and contribute some of the same: "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs", etc. But I just don't, based on experience to date.
      YOU were the one proposing a change. I expect YOU to make more cogent arguments than someone who seemed to come to conclusions different from what he was supposed to about the other reforms you have pushed. Presumably Angr was misled by the BP and GP discussions in which you adumbrated your proposal in your customary style. In any event, he expressed only his preference for having template parameters work in a particular way for the templates he uses. Perhaps an increasing number of users will use {{m}} and competing templates will cease being added. At close to that point, and not before, it would make sense to replace all instances of {{term}} with {{m}}, unless something better comes along.
      Deprecation is simply the standard practice for pushing something into decline when the advantages of the "new way" are insufficient to win full user support. At least it was before you apparently decided more draconian measures are necessary for tidyness.
      It may not be "about" the name, but it has appropriated this name. If you think the functionality should be transferred to something with a better name for users, make the proposal. DCDuring TALK 17:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
      More likely, Angr simply glossed over the BP and GP discussions as being tl;dr on everyone's part, not just CodeCat's. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
      It can't have been CodeCat if it was TL. CodeCat post are terse, to the point of being uncommunicative. TL is usually my department. DCDuring TALK 19:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    • That bot vs. non-bot statistics is rather misleading. Since inflected forms are typically entered by bots, they easily get their "points" there. Furthermore, interwiki bots easily collect editing "points", since they iteratively add interwikis, thereby adding nothing of lexicographical value. Ditto for autoformat. Bots are useful, but they do not create the lexicographical content. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
My experience with {{term/t}} exactly matches Angr's, lol.
Testing I undertook in investigation of a problem reported in the Grease Pit reveals that Template:term eats more resources and fails more quickly than either Template:m or Template:l. See Wiktionary:Grease pit/2014/August#Pages_Running_Out_Of_Time_and_Memory. It also requires more typing.
I oppose the notion that decisions about template usage should be made by WT:VOTE. (Der Amtsschimmel wiehert!)
If other people want to keep Template:term around, I don't have any strong feeling that it should be deleted. (Replacing it with Template:m on pages that make extensive use of it, so as to gain the time- and resource-savings mentioned in the Grease Pit, is straightforward.) - -sche (discuss) 20:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the best course of action is to deprecate {{term}} and replace it in entries when it's used so that people who learn by copying existing entries don't have examples to learn from. My main concern is with people who've always used {{term}} and will have difficulty editing if it suddenly disappears, not with those who just like it because they're used to it. I think we're better off eventually deleting it, but only after it ceases to be widely used. I agree that DCD has some real reasons to distrust and resent CodeCat's methods in general, but in this case, the new template is actually easier to use once one becomes familiar with it- and that's even comparing it with {{term}} as it was back when one wasn't expected to always type "lang=en" for English terms. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Analysis[edit]

and all its subcategories. "Analysis" is a very vague name, and lots of fields have aspects called "Analysis" (just look at the list under w:Analysis#Applicants). This category seems to be about mathematical analysis, and so should be renamed Category:Mathematical analysis. I don't mind if the context label remains "analysis" (at least as long as no other field wants to use that word too), but it should display as "(mathematical analysis)" rather than just "(analysis)", which simply isn't specific enough. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Support. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Support DCDuring TALK 17:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Japanese romaji to Category:Japanese romanizations[edit]

(Notifying Eirikr, Wyang, Haplology, Atitarev):

"Romaji" is just the Japanese word for romanization; it does not actually indicate a specific transliteration scheme like the name "pinyin" does for Chinese. Since we already have Category:Chinese romanizations, Category:Egyptian romanizations and Category:Gothic romanizations, I propose moving the contents of Category:Japanese romaji to Category:Japanese romanizations and deleting the former when it's empty. —CodeCat 20:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There are various romanization for Japanese as well but only form was adopted. Although the word "rōmaji" is used, it's based almost entirely on Hepburn romanisation. Perhaps, like pinyin it can remain a subcategory of Category:Japanese romanizations but Category:Japanese romaji should have a description what it's based on? Adding "Hepburn romanisation" to the category name seems awkward. I don't foresee any other scheme for Japanese to be adopted but it's again about the name, "romaji" is favoured by most linguists and learners of Japanese. Will wait for more comments but I think Wyang will oppose romanisation entries. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there's a need for a subcategory if there is only one scheme. —CodeCat 00:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it makes to use consistent category names. Undecided for now. (Notifying TAKASUGI Shinji, Whym, Haplology): , (Notifying Tooironic, Kc kennylau): . --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Support. Japanese romaji sounds redundant because romaji practically means Japanese romanizations. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

citing book templates[edit]

This task is within the scope of the project Citations and quotations.

{{cite book}}, {{quote-book}}, {{cite-book}} all do really similar things, but slightly differently. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 22:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Support merger/standardization. --Bequw τ 21:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah sounds good, but difficult for relatively small benefit. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I've made {{cite book}} redirect to {{reference-book}} (which I beefed up to handle a few extra extra parameters), since neither of these were used really with quoted passages. Their formatting styles were different so please edit it to make it more like others if possible.
Right now we usually use quote-* templates between definitions and we use cite-* for unordered lists (usually Citation: pages). Ideally one set would direct to other just with a different predefined indent. --Bequw τ 21:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Or we could eliminate the whole "indent" concept: it's not actually necessary. {{grc-cite}} doesn't use it, for example. —RuakhTALK 15:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Redirected {{quote-book}} to {{cite-book}}. Apparently that was all needed to be done. Hopefully nothing broke --Type56op9 (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    That redirection was undone, but it would still be good to merge these templates. I've therefore moved this back to the main RFM page, out of the archive of unresolved requests. - -sche (discuss) 21:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    Why bother? Some folks are accustomed to one, others prefer another. One or more could be deprecated in documentation and categorization to discourage use. Merging to combine features runs the risk of complication. If someone has a new, improved version, let it prove its superiority by outcompeting the others. DCDuring TALK 23:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Appendix:Indo-Iranian Swadesh lists (extended)[edit]

split to Appendix:Iranian Swadesh lists and Appendix:Indian Swadesh lists--Kaiyr (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The second one should be Appendix:Indo-Aryan Swadesh lists per Category:Indo-Aryan languages, but I see Appendix:Indo-Aryan Swadesh lists already exists and needs cleaning up. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:ja-romanization of[edit]

Above it was noted that all our Japanese romanizations follow the Hepburn scheme. But the form-of template currently just says "romaji reading of", which is not really very specific, as "romaji" just means any kind of romanization. This is not even technically correct because you can't really call something a "reading" if you're just romanizing. I believe it would be clearer if it said either "romanization of" or "Hepburn romanization of". If we include the name of the scheme used, this would remove any ambiguity that users might have. But it also opens the door to possibly introducing other schemes for Japanese if we ever desire to. Either way, being explicit about it is good. —CodeCat 21:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The option "romanization of" seems good and close the door to possibly introducing other schemes for Japanese :) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

German rhymes -iːʀən/-iːʁən/-iːɐ̯n[edit]

These three pages all deal with the same rhyme ending. Please check which one follows the local IPA rules for German and merge them. Cheers, Kronf (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

They should be at Rhymes:German:-iːʁən. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
In this case, Rhymes:German:-eːʀən and Rhymes:German:-øːʀən should be moved, too. --Kronf (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought we used /ʀ/ for German. At least, that's what I see in actual entries. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Updated to reflect the new naming scheme of rhymes pages, the preceding links are: -iːʀən/-iːʁən/-iːɐ̯n, which Angr says should all be Rhymes:German/iːʁən, prompting Kronf to say Rhymes:German/eːʀən and Rhymes:German/øːʀən should also be moved. (I'm providing this so people can see they're all still blue links.) - -sche (discuss) 22:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

"entries needing reference" categorization[edit]

This is a little strange, because all of these are redlinks at the moment, but templates have been modified to generate cats using this naming scheme, and I would like them all to go away. While it might seem nice to unify things, having diverse templates using the same cats means you have to generalize away all the useful information and you end up with mumbling and hand-waving.

I'm sorry, but "English entries needing reference" makes no literal sense, and it's impossible to tell from the cat name what's supposed to go in it- you might as well call it "English entries needing something or other". Please change it to something that makes sense before we create a lot of really lame categories that will have to be deleted. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Entries are placed in those categories by {{rfv-etymology}} and {{rfv-pronunciation}}. Both templates specifically ask for a source, so the name seemed appropriate. Before I changed them, these templates just categorised in the generic "needing etymology" and "needing pronunciation" categories, which was not really any more helpful. —CodeCat 10:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
But your solution just substituted one problem for another, by eliminating any reference to etymologies or pronunciation: providing references for an etymology is quite different from providing references for a pronunciation. Also, treating reference as uncountable makes the category names look like typos- does anyone use reference that way? Can one ask, "how much reference do you need?"
A few possible alternatives (the equivalents for pronunciation are left as an exercise for the reader...):
  1. [] etymologies needing to be referenced
  2. [] etymologies needing references
  3. [] etymologies needing referencing
  4. [] etymologies needing to be sourced
  5. [] entries with etymologies needing to be referenced
  6. [] entries with etymologies needing references
  7. [] entries with etymologies needing referencing
  8. [] entries with etymologies needing to be sourced
  9. [] entries with unreferenced etymologies
Chuck Entz (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer "entries needing etymology reference" or "entries needing etymology source". The name doesn't treat it as uncountable; it just leaves out the article as a shorthand. A plural doesn't seem appropriate as it would imply that more than one reference is needed. —CodeCat 10:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Chuck about the missing article. It seems non-native or needlessly telegraphic to drop it. What do we hope to accomplish by dropping it as no human keystrokes are involved? Are we suddenly concerned with server resources, download times? As to the implications of the plural, there is no more implication than there would be using the singular. DCDuring TALK 13:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I wholeheartedly agree with Chuck. We need more specificity of categories not less.
Whether the prefix to these types of requests should be "rfv" is another question that should be addressed while we have fewer than a hundred of these. Are we fairly sure this prefix will turn out to be adequate? DCDuring TALK 01:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The template names go back 7 or 8 years, and I seem to remember discussions as to whether it was a good idea to link etymologies, which take citations in the Wikipedia sense, with rfvs, which take citations in the Wiktionary sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The only alternative I know of that has some installed base is {{fact}} (45 transclusions here, and lots of pedians who have the habit), which would need to be followed by "pron" or "ety" (or "usage" etc?), but that might quickly get us part ways back to where we are now with a template likely to be overused and with an undifferentiated category. I suppose that if we made {{fact}} generate a screen that required the users to say what type of problem concerned them or could detect the previous heading in an AF-type bot run, we could make that work. Some new prefix, like "ref", could work. DCDuring TALK 02:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I would add that the subject nouns are plural, so one could just as easily say that using a singular object would imply that one reference or source would do for all the entries in the categories- but that would be silly, too. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I've created the "needing reference" categories as they were originally named. This does not mean I'm enforcing that particular state of affairs (in case someone gets the wrong idea - you know who you are), it's only so that they aren't left in a redlinked state for ages, filling up Special:WantedCategories. They will presumably be deleted again once there's an agreement on what to name them. I do want to note, though, that as far as omitting the article goes, we already have "entries needing inflection", "entries needing definition", "entries needing etymology", "entries needing pronunciation", "entries needing audio pronunciation", "entries needing quotation" and "terms needing transliteration". I think that whatever name is chosen should fit with the existing names, or else all these should also be renamed to maintain consistency in the naming. —CodeCat 20:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Zootomy and Category:Phytotomy[edit]

I request that these categories be moved to Category:Animal anatomy and Category:Plant anatomy respectively. The fuller names are more easily understandable and far, far more common (per b.g.c ngrams) than the terms "zootomy" and "phytotomy". Even Wikipedia uses the more understandable names for their categories. All language-specific subcategories are of course nominated too. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

We now also have Category:Body. The anatomy categories are really meant for technical/medical jargon used in the field of anatomy, not for categorising simple parts of the body generally. I do support the rename, but this is something that should probably be looked at too. —CodeCat 19:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Is Category:Body also for animal bodies? Would we put horn and antler and tail there? Either way it's not really an appropriate place for leaf and stem and petal, which aren't technical jargon but ought to have a home somewhere in our rather chaotic category hierarchy. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Animal bodies share many terms with humans, but the terms for plant bodies are normally entirely separate, so maybe "Animal body" and "Plant body" categories should be created. The former would be a subcategory of "Body", while the latter would be a sister category. When I rearranged many of the categories, my aim was always to split things up in the way that the average human would do. So the categories specifically reflect an anthropocentric view of the world rather than a scientific one necessarily. —CodeCat 21:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I like the idea of having some topic categories for technical terms and other topic categories for everyday terms. When I'm deciding where to categorize a term, I often look at Wikipedia to see where they categorize something, and then try to find the closest corresponding category here. And they definitely categorize Horn (anatomy) and Antler and Tail in :Category:Animal anatomy (or a subcategory of it) and Leaf and Plant stem in :Category:Plant anatomy. (Petal is only in :Category:Plant morphology for some reason; I'm unsure what the difference is supposed to be.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that we have many topical categories that only exist because there is a label that categorises terms in them. For example, {{label|en|anatomy}} will add things to Category:en:Anatomy. As these labels are meant to be used to indicate technical jargon, we've now ended up with a whole category tree full of science terms, including this one. We have never been very consistent in how labels are used, which has caused a proliferation of entries using labels just to categorise, rather than to indicate jargon. It doesn't help either that there has never been any kind of conclusive discussion on what topical categories are meant to achieve in the context of a dictionary, nor how they are delimited from other kinds of categories. Until we answer those more fundamental questions, issues like this will never be solvable. —CodeCat 22:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:English locatives to Category:English location adverbs[edit]

This seems more appropriate, given that the category only contains adverbs. I can't think of anything that might belong here that is not an adverb. —CodeCat 23:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

To move this to some called "adverbs" makes a stronger statement than some grammarians would make. A word like home need not be treated as an adverb. Furthermore prepositional phrases can be locatives but it does some violence to their function to call them adverbs. DCDuring TALK 00:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
As a further illustration an expression like where the sun don't shine a clause that is obviously a locative, as are where angels fear to tread (a clause, from, but not an alt form of the proverb), every which way (a noun phrase), and where it's at (clause). If the membership criteria are not explicitly, clearly, and reviewably specified in such a way as to exclude these, the change seems simply wrong. DCDuring TALK 19:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why they would need to be excluded. They are location adverbs to me. —CodeCat 20:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
You have confused semantic function and word class. DCDuring TALK 23:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Why is it necessary to distinguish them? —CodeCat 01:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Only to be nice to users by avoiding needless confusion and redundancy. In English almost any word can assume almost any function in at least some cases, often attestably so. It is not that Adverb is all that well-defined a word class in English to begin with. We use it because we need to provide hooks from our content to what users may remember from their schooling. DCDuring TALK 04:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Nominator has not made the case for the move IMO, at least not to my satisfaction. Purplebackpack89 22:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:English temporal location adverbs to Category:English punctual adverbs[edit]

I think "punctual" is the more common way to describe these? —CodeCat 23:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

"Temporal adverb" is much, more common, though it may include a more diverse group of adverbs DCDuring TALK 00:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe that we are making a mistake to treat all of these in subcategories of parts of speech. We can be free of the tyranny of the word classes that users are familiar with for purposes of categories of this kind, though sadly not for headings. There are nominals that are not nouns, MWEs that are not phrases of any kind. Forcing a category structure to be hierarchical is convenient in a bureaucratic kind of way, but it does a great deal of violence to the reality of things. DCDuring TALK 00:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
There was Category:Latvian temporal adverbs, which I renamed to Category:Latvian time adverbs while also creating Category:English time adverbs. I did this because "temporal" seems like a higher-register word, which is like the distinction between "location" and "locative" - and we already had Category:English location adverbs as noted in the discussion below. So I figured that "time" was a better lexical counterpart to "location" than "temporal". Using "temporal location" is confusing as it gives the impression that these adverbs indicate a place, which they don't of course. But it also misses the point of the category. The defining characteristic is that these refer to punctual moments in time, analogous to adverbs which denote stationary position. They contrast with adverbs like "yearly" or "for a year" which denote frequency and duration respectively. These, of course, are also temporal location adverbs, but they don't belong in this category as they have their own categories (Category:English frequency adverbs and Category:English duration adverbs), so the suggested new name is an attempt to make this more explicit. —CodeCat 21:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Note that the other categories both use nouns attributively instead of adjectives, eg, not "frequent adverbs", but "frequency adverbs". The nouns are chosen because they have a different meaning than the adjectives. "Punctuality" obviously doesn't cut it. Can you think of any other one- or two-word nominal that would be better than "temporal location"? DCDuring TALK 14:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Ain't broke. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    • It is, see my reply above. —CodeCat 21:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
DCDuring is right that "temporal adverbs" is a lot more common than "punctual adverbs". The latter phrase gets only 50 non-redundant raw Google hits, and 47 Google Books hits; the former phrase gets at least 43 pages of Google Books hits (43x10 = 430 hits) before the hits stop actually containing the phrase. "Temporal location adverbs" is the least common of the bunch, getting only 6 Books hits, and it's a moronic / oxymoronic name, because it states that the adverbs refer to places, which they do not. So the question is whether it's sufficient to relabel these as "temporal adverbs", or necessary to give them the narrower label "punctual adverbs"? Are there enough of them that the narrow categorization is necessary? Is the narrow label one people will understand? - -sche (discuss) 22:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, as it is now, we have Category:English time adverbs, but it's a parent category to various other types of adverbs with an aspect of time. The adverbs in question here are just one type. So it wouldn't make so much sense to have "temporal adverbs" as a subcategory of "time adverbs". But it also wouldn't make much sense to have "frequency adverbs" as a subcategory of "temporal adverbs" if the latter is meant to indicate points in time specifically. —CodeCat 17:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Systematics[edit]

This poorly maintained category should be combined with Category:Taxonomy. The poor maintenance arises from the overlap conceptually as well as the poor choice of name for this category. In addition, for some undocumented and unfathomable reason Category:Taxonomy was made a subcategory of Category:Systematics. I think this is symptomatic of the unmaintainablity of the category. DCDuring TALK 19:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Support. —CodeCat 20:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we should merge the two. In the English categories, at least, the members seem to be correctly apportioned between the two, with a handful of exceptions. I do think they should be made sister categories, rather than one being under the other. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I would support that too. —CodeCat 20:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
What are the criteria that distinguish membership in the categories? Many dictionaries have them as synonyms in one or more of the variously defined senses and subsenses, two of which BTW systematics lacks. DCDuring TALK 13:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Citations:zzxjoanw[edit]

This is not a citations page but a full entry with etymology, pronunciation, a headword line and a definition line. It should be moved to the appendix namespace. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Definitely. Appendix:English ghost words? Or Appendix:English dictionary-only terms/zzxjoanw? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Appendix:English dictionary-only terms/zzxjoanw sounds good. Appendix:English ghost words would become too crowded if more words were added. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requested entries (Japanese) and Wiktionary:Requested entries:Japanese/Non-romaji[edit]

Both pages do the same thing - request new Japanese entries Wiktionary:Requested entries (Japanese) and Wiktionary:Requested entries:Japanese/Non-romaji. The latter should be removed, IMO but the former has a lot of rubbish - rōmaji entries or English entries derived from Japanese. I suggest to disallow rōmaji entry requests. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The romaji on the Wiktionary:Requested entries (Japanese) page is there by design and intent -- users who cannot read or write Japanese might still have a valid reason for wanting to request entry creation, and romaji (i.e. the Latin alphabet) is the only script that we can safely assume that our users can read and write. As such, I must disagree with your request to disallow romaji requests.
I also noticed that you added an RFC to the Wiktionary:Requested entries (Japanese) page, apparently as an objection to the presence of romaji. I could certainly support a general call to clean up the request page in general, but the presence of romaji alone is not sufficient reason for an RFC. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

-rix[edit]

Should be: -trix

While -or does seem to be a real agent suffix, -rix doesn't really exist. As it turns out, the main masculine agent suffix in Latin is -tor, and -trix is the feminine counterpart. As far as I can tell, there are no Latin agent nouns that end in -rix except those ending in -trix. That's why the Latin section at -rix was moved to -trix some time ago.

For those who might think that English is different, look at the dozens of derived terms in the -rix entry, and in Category:English words suffixed with -rix, and you will be struck by an amazing "coincidence": the last letter before the "suffix" is always "t". Chuck Entz (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

What about ambassadrix, toreadrix, and vendrix? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I did miss those, but do three rare words (I doubt the last two even meet CFI) disprove the overwhelming pattern shown by everything else? I would call those modification by analogy with the all the -trix forms, which may well result in eventual reanalysis of -trix into t + -rix if the whole class of feminine agent nouns don't disappear first.
Well, those three formations are undeniably formed with -rix; but can you show me any that were undeniably formed with -trix in English (they have to be terms that definitely weren't borrowed, and in which the t was not part of the word to which the -trix was suffixed)? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
No foolin' about Latin, Chuck? I always assumed that, in Latin, the "t" was from the past participle. But this Lewis and Short search shows that past participles with stems ending in "s" form a female agent word by adding "-trix" to the stem, even when "-or" forms the male agent. DCDuring TALK 21:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
That's because the cluster -sr- is not allowed by Latin. The -t- could simply be considered an epenthetic consonant. —CodeCat 23:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I thought about that too, but -sr- becomes -br- in Latin (funebris < *funesris), not -str-. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
It's probably more correct to say that -tor (originally -tōr, as still in the noun stem) is originally a PIE-derived agentive suffix which is added to the same weak grade of verb as the past participle, hence it was reanalyzed as past participle + -or. This would mean that -trix is a real ending, formed from the weak grade of -tōr (-tr) + feminine ending -īk-. This would mean that the original formation would have either *-strīk- (added to a root ending in -s) or *-ttrīk- (added to a root ending in -d or -t). Unclear what the resolution of *-ttr- is in Latin but *-str- is a possibility. Even if the regular resolution is *-br-, that would have been reformed by analogy to something like *-str-; extensive analogy has applied to Latin morphology at various stages. Benwing (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Strange things tend to happen to dental stops in Latin around other dental stops and/or s. I think there's no question that -tor/-sor is the main source for Latin agent nouns ending in -or, including many with no explicit t, and that -trix is its feminine form. The PIE pedigree for these forms is quite solid- this isn't something I just dreamed up (see *-tōr and *-tḗr). Chuck Entz (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The affricate -ts-, which resulted from PIE -tˢt- and -ts-, was preserved at least into post-Proto-Italic times, because different Italic languages have different outcomes of final -ns, -nts and -nt (see w:Proto-Italic). Furthermore, the combination -sr- was really -zr- (like in *swezrīnos), so there was no danger of merging. I suppose it's possible that -tsr- > -str- is a regular development, but it's also possible that the split dates to post-PIE, with -tˢt- > -ts- normally but -tˢtr- developing to -str- rather than -tsr-. —CodeCat 13:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

Khanty words with /ɬ/[edit]

Requesting a move of a dozen Khanty words:

These have /ɬ/, which is however written ӆ and not ԓ (this is instead, I believe, /ɭ/). Quite a few current entries are sourced from a dictionary (Kononova 2002) which uses a rather ԓ-like but regardless clearly el-with-tail glyph. --Tropylium (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

(Listed here in case anyone wants to argue that ԓ for /ɬ/ is actually a competing dialectal standard that should have precedence. --Tropylium (talk))
I think you are mostly going to talk to yourself in this section. Move, if Tropylium says so. --Vahag (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I would say just go ahead and move them yourself. Unless there's a chance that other languages will have terms using the original spellings, the redirects that you leave will actually be useful for those who make the same mistake when searching. Given the similarity of the characters, I have a hunch scannos from online books might be a major source of these. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, w:Khanty language uses both letters (Ӆ ӆ and Ԓ ԓ). Are you certain that these particular words are spelled with Ӆ ӆ? —Stephen (Talk) 15:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Admiraless[edit]

Move to admiraless. A common noun. Most of the citations are capitalized as an honorific, proper noun, or part of a title. See how many of these [a]dmiralesses are accompanied by capitalized [a]dmirals. Michael Z. 2014-11-24 02:26 z

It would not be easy to attest admiraless as a common noun. The only use I found searching Books for "an admiraless" or "admiralesses" was:
  • 1907, Weymer Jay Mills, The Van Rensselaers of Old Manhattan: A Romance, page 60:
    The master wants to marry me —— he's sending me a suitor. Me, Toscin — who's been but five days in York. And the man's an Admiral—Admiral Pouffton. Oh, heavens! what a rare show I'd be as an admiraless!
Perhaps singular determiners would lead to more. DCDuring TALK 02:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Why don't we just move? It's not a proper noun. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Evidence? DCDuring TALK 05:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
User: DCDuring There are no citations of [a|A]dmiraless as a proper noun.
Citations for admiraless 1719 and 1959 have lowercase initial. Citation 1894 is set in title case as part of an article title. Citations 1887, 1899, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1911, and 1983 are common-noun uses with capitalized initial as a matter writing style, where a noun corresponding to an honorific is capitalized, in an archaic or quaint way that modern style guides eschew. (In citations 1898, 1992, and 1993, and possibly 1983, the common noun is styled with initial cap as part of an honorific title, however this is also usage, and we do not define such a title as inherently capitalized nor as a proper noun, e.g. Admiral#English, General#English, Lance Corporal#English, Professor#English, Minister#English, Constable#English, Director#English, &c.) Michael Z. 2014-11-24 15:32 z
I accept the 1907 cite above and the 1959 cite, preceded as they are by the indefinite article. The 1719 cite seems good on semantic grounds.
But I dispute that there are not cites of Admiraless as a proper noun. A proper noun is not the same as a proper name. In several of the cases, Admiraless stands alone as a proper name of an individual. In most of the others it is a component of a proper name. In this behavior it is similar to English given names, which we present as proper nouns. I can't defend not classifying as proper nouns all titles that can be used both standalone referencing an individual and as part of a longer proper name.
As a matter of policy, I don't think that we should reason by declaring without evidence that the word to be in a word class (ie, "like" other words) and then argue from the behavior of the words in the class. For all seven of the terms in the list with which you close your comments, it is quite easy to attest to their use with the indefinite article and in the plural, probably in both upper and lower case. We did not have sufficient evidence on Admiraless when this RfV began. Admiraless could have belonged in a class of proper nouns that are not attestably ever used as common nouns and are only used to construct honorific proper names and, standing alone, as abbreviated references to the person so honored. DCDuring TALK 17:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, now we also have 1927, a third clear citation supporting a move to l.c. common-noun entry.
I suggest we agree to move the entry, and we can discuss the merits of adding proper-noun senses for this and similar terms (President#English does exist).
I can’t agree that “Admiraless stands alone as a proper name of an individual.” It is no more a proper noun, or like a given name, than any other common noun used with the definite article: “the admiral,” “the poodle,” “the delicious Sunday breakfast,” or “the hammer I was using.” (To be fair, I have never heard a convincing argument that proper nouns are a class of word rather than a kind of usage of practically any noun.)
And I understand your point about policy, but we should not also jump to unreasonably complicated conclusions from simple absence of direct evidence for simple ones. After all, the word is formed with -ess, and no citation attests that admiraless is anything but the female counterpart of admiral. Several citations support this view with parallel constructions like the “Admiral and Admiraless,” or explanations like “honorary position of an admiral.” Michael Z. 2014-11-24 19:07 z
everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler. We do not actually have three cites for either the "wife of an admiral sense" or the "female admiral" sense as a common noun. The "wife of an admiral" sense is not the female counterpart of an admiral. The truly simplest resolution would be to drop the common noun sense altogether, except for the citations.
I'd like to hear from someone else on this. DCDuring TALK 19:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
“Female counterpart of [the term] admiral” is a simpler, non-gloss, definition that encompasses both “female admiral” and “wife of an admiral.” Michael Z. 2014-11-24 19:52 z
Under which MWOnline definition of counterpart?
1 one of two corresponding copies of a legal instrument: duplicate
2   a: a thing that fits another perfectly
b: something that completes: complement
3   a: one remarkably similar to another
b: one having the same function or characteristics as another
college presidents and their counterparts in business
Feel free to find definitions from any (non-wiki) source, of course. DCDuring TALK 22:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
If that were true, then the husband of the person referred to in the "female admiral" sense would be an admiral. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Counterpart in the same old-fashioned way that Mrs. John Smith is the female counterpart of her husband. I am not suggesting that that is the best definition for Wiktionary, but it is a simple explanation of the term. Incidentally, OED (2011) defines this term with a single sense that includes the meanings wife of an admiral and female admiral. Perhaps this understanding of it also assumes that the office, position, title, or rank of admiralcy is not exactly just a person. Michael Z. 2014-11-27 21:22 z

it does exactly what it says on the tin[edit]

Move to: do exactly what it says on the tin.

The single citation doesn't actually fit the pattern, since it apparently uses a noun in place of the first "it". But more importantly, "do exactly what it says on the tin", "doing exactly what it says on the tin" and "did exactly what it said on the tin" are all citable (as is the grammatically inconsistent but still logical "did exactly what it says on the tin"). This should be a verb, not a phrase, and the 'it' needs to go. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be even briefer: what it says on the tin, with redirects from and usage examples of the most common extended variations? Just alternates with exactly and neither is essential in use. BTW, the expression is surprisingly recent, apparently with 99% of the Google Books usage being after 2000. And substituting 'can' for 'tin' does not lead to clear examples of idiomatic usage. DCDuring TALK 14:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
One can also find "more or less", "pretty much", etc as qualifiers and what it says on the tin as object of verbs like deliver and as part of a predicate with forms of be. In whatever form the phrase gained its initial popularity, what speakers find peripheral seems to have been discarded or substituted for in a significant portion of usage. Also, it can be found in the past tense: "Many funds proved unable to do what it said on the tin: they could not hedge effectively against volatile markets." (about 'hedge funds') DCDuring TALK 15:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
That would also be a good solution, although the noun is a bit more nebulous to define (as with way out of a paper bag - while I understand why the noun was split off, the definition is quite weird since people think of it as a construction, not a verb + noun phrase). The recentness is not a surprise - the Ronseal adverts that coined the phrase only started in the late 90s. Also unsurprising is the fact that it appears to be about twice as common in UK writing than US writing according to Google Ngrams, and even more UK dominant from a random sample from Google books. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
There two kinds of definitions: gloss and non-gloss.
  1. A gloss might be: "the performance or characteristics implied by a label or name, especially for something whose characteristics cannot be otherwise immediately determined, as an item for sale in concealing packaging"
  2. A non-gloss might be: "Used in expressions that indicate that something is what it appears to be or performs as promised."
Improvements and/or suggestions welcome. DCDuring TALK 20:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The words on the Ronseal tin that are legible in the YouTube are: "Ronseal Decking Stain". Doesn't it seem odd that there should be possible multiple interpretations other than that intended, eg, 1., that Ronseal stains ("soils") decks; 2., that Ronseal is a stain that decks ("knocks down") (say, the person applying it, as due to toxicity of fumes). DCDuring TALK 20:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It's often shortened to "as it says on the tin". Donnanz (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]

drôle[edit]

I can't decide whether to move un drôle de to well, un drôle de or to somehow define it as an adjective and move it back into the adjective section. However, it can't stay as it is. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Dance and Category:Dances[edit]

Can these two categories be merged? It can be a problem deciding which one to use, or whether to select both. Donnanz (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

For some reason we have a bias toward toward using plurals of countable nouns in Category names. Clearly there are words connected with dance that are not dances. DCDuring TALK 13:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
In this case having Category:Dances as a subcategory of Category:Dance seems fine to me. DCDuring TALK 15:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not happy with that, it just adds needless complexity. I will use just Category:Dance for Bokmål and Nynorsk. Donnanz (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Terms for actual dances should go in Category:Dances. —CodeCat 19:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I feel that in some languages where there are few entries (at present) that can go into either category it is better to list them all under one category (Dance). Or maybe there should be a more comprehensive category named "Dancing", replacing both "Dance" and "Dances". Donnanz (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is going to go back when there are more entries, and recategorise them all. So they should be put in the category where they should eventually be, right from the start. —CodeCat 13:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
It shouldn't be a problem to change the category if necessary. I'll do it my way - Frank Sinatra-style. Donnanz (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Help:Interacting with humans[edit]

Not an RFM as such, but I figured I should bring up that User:Type56op9 moved Help:Interacting with humans to Help:Interacting with other users -- not a change I disagree with as such, but it was made without any regard to policy. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 21:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

What policy in particular do you feel was ignored? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I... probably shouldn't speak to policy. There wasn't any discussion I could see though, aside from a comment by Mglovesfun on the talk page five years ago. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 17:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

satin#Latin[edit]

Lewis and Short do not have this. They have satin'. If you think this should be RfVed, I would not object. DCDuring TALK 19:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I doubt an RFV will be helpful here. The original manuscripts will definitely not have an apostrophe on this word; modern editions may or may not depending on the editor's preference. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year[edit]

Happy new year

January 2015[edit]

Request to transfer a page from Wikipedia[edit]

Since I am not qualified to do so, could someone please transfer this page/word to the wiktionary? Ineuw (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ineuw: Sorry for the late response. Since Wiktionary already has an entry on scalenohedron (and our entry in fact seems to be more detailed than WP's), I would just delete the WP entry at this point, possibly expanding the Wiktionary entry if the WP entry is correct that the shape doesn't have to have twelve sides. - -sche (discuss) 02:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Probability, Category:Probability theory and Category:Statistics[edit]

The terminology of probability theory and statistics overlaps so much that there is little point in maintaining the two disciplines as separate topical categories.

I also cannot see the point of maintaining Category:Probability separately from Category:Probability theory — unless it is meant to contain terms used in informal discussions of probability (as opposed to mathematical formalisation thereof).

Also, Category:Linear algebra and Category:Vector algebra are one and the same. I would suggest deleting the latter, except I am too lazy to do a separate nomination for those.

Asking Msh210 to weigh in, just in case. Keφr 19:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, w:vector algebra, q.v., and linear algebra are identical. Probability theory is a far cry, to my mind, from statistics. In particular, their uses are different: lots and lots of people use statistics, and the words that are relevant to statistics, without knowing or caring anything about probability theory. Perhaps one topcat for statistics and applied probability and another for probability theory? But they'll share quite a few words. Perhaps instead one for statistics and one for probability? They, too, will share quite a few words. So I don't know the best course of action. Maybe we should keep the three categories we have now, but rename "Probability" to "Applied probability". If we do decide to have separate topcats for applied probability and for probability theory, then perhaps merge the latter into category:Measure theory?​—msh210 (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I have speedy-merged "Vector algebra" into "Linear algebra". Only three entries were affected: [[գրադիենտ]], [[ristitulo]] and [[vektoritulo]]. Keφr 18:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
As for "lots of people use words relevant to statistics without caring about probability theory" — can you clarify that with an example? Keφr 18:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Practical statisticians, like w:Gonçalo Abecasis and w:Nate Silver, probably know little (and care little) about σ-algebras and probability measures.​—msh210 (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I think these particular two terms would actually fit better in Category:en:Measure theory than in Category:en:Probability theory anyway (yes, even the latter). They are not "purely probabilistic" terms — in fact, I doubt any such terms exist, otherwise I would not propose this merger. Keφr 22:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe they would fit better there. As I said above, "If we do decide to have separate topcats for applied probability and for probability theory, then perhaps merge the latter into category:Measure theory".​—msh210 (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
In that case, the question to ask is what terms are characteristic to "applied probability" as opposed to "pure" probability and statistics. Right now Category:en:Probability contains terms like mgf, stochastic matrix and evens — of which only the latter seems rather non-statistical. On the other hand, it would be awkward to find probability distribution in a category whose name does not mention probability. Keφr 15:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
@Kephir: I think you are wrong about no purely probabilistic terms existing. But, even if you are correct, that doesn't in and of itself mean that Category:Probability should be deleted. Msh and I have posited that statistics-only terms exist. Statistics-only terms shouldn't be in the same combination of categories as statistics-and-probability terms; probability could continue to exist as a subcategory of statistics even if no probability-only terms were found to exist. Purplebackpack89 00:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
In defense of the quote "lots of people use words relevant to statistics without caring about probability theory", there are lots of statistics that can be discerned without using probability. Rates, and to a certain extent averages, concern probability, but statistics is also enumerations and changes, which can be calculated without using probability. Purplebackpack89 23:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge appendix:proto-germanic/wisundaz to appendix:proto-germanic/wisundz[edit]

Most sources I found seem to reconstruct this word as a consonant stem (See talk page for *wisundaz before moving.) Some information regarding the etymology of the word may need to be looked over more (Not all the sources on the talk page agree on the etymology of this word.).Nayrb Rellimer (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Move *kelþą to *kelþaz[edit]

Orel 2003 pg. 212 reconstructs *kelþaz as the proto-form. The z-stem reflex of the noun survives into Modern English even to the present day. Note that already a discussion has started on the talk page for *kelþą about there being two conflicting entries for the same word.Nayrb Rellimer (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015[edit]

Template:ast-noun-mf[edit]

Into {{ast-noun}} by adding optional parameters, such as {{fr-noun}}, {{es-noun}}, {{it-noun}} (etc etc etc) have. Bit of a no-brainer. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:ast-adj-mf[edit]

Into {{ast-adj}} by adding optional parameters, such as {{fr-noun}}, {{es-noun}}, {{it-noun}} (etc etc etc) have. Bit of a no-brainer. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

man of one's word[edit]

Why use a gender-neutral pronoun with man? Does anyone say "she was a man of her word"? It should be moved to man of his word (currently a redirect to this), and there should be a parallel entry for woman of her word. I'm not saying this should be a redlink, but there are only a few hits for man of one's word in Google Books compared to clear widespread use for man of his word, so the latter should be the lemma. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the "one" form was probably picked because "I'm a man of my word" and "You're a man of your word" are also pretty common. I wouldn't necessarily object to the move though. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Lots or redirects to one or more lemmas should it. I suppose person of one's word is gender neutral and would work with a lot of redirects. For "person" would we need "boy", "girl", "lady", "lad" in addition to "man" and "woman" and plurals including "people"? DCDuring TALK 23:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
It's like we need some kind of template language to allow snowclone headwords like person1 of pronoun-for-person1's word, which would then automagically match user searches for thing like "DJ of his word" and "woman of my word", etc and take the user to the right entry, whatever that might be. Pengo (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
For many of the most common constructions the invariant words are also stopwords for almost any search engine AFAIK, like articles and determiners, prepositions, and pronouns, ie, the PoSes that are virtually closed sets. In this case "a X of X's word" ("Xs of Xs' word" for the plural) gives the search engine only word to work with. We could have a construction space that had presumably fewer of these to work with, so the failed search screen would more likely yield what the search sought. If we educated users to look at derived terms and had a rigorous process for making sure that all derived terms appeared in the entries the search engine actually hit, we would have an adequate system for repeat users, if not for all users. DCDuring TALK 22:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking more for Wiktionary's own search engine, if someone entered "lady of her word" it could auto-redirect to "person of one's word" with an auto-redirect message saying "auto-redirect: matched this phrase pattern". Other search engines would probably be more useful though. Blue-sky stuff anyway. Pengo (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I was too, but I misremembered it as having stop words. (Apparently stop words have been an option for some Mediawiki search engines, but not so much lately). At present, searches for "woman/lady/girl/boy of her/his word" yield an empty search result page if enclosed in quotes and a long results page if not quoted, usually not including [[man of one's word]]. The simple expedient of including the single words woman, lady, girl, and boy would be an improvement. I am often surprised at the capability of Cirrus search, though the power is not displayed to those who don't know the filters and doesn't seem relevant for this matter. DCDuring TALK 01:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I would define it at person of one's word with redirects from man, woman, etc, as DCDuring seems to be suggesting. - -sche (discuss) 21:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I was suggesting, though I was hoping for a better idea. I suppose it doesn't really matter for most purposes what the lemma entry was, so we may as well be gender-neutral.
Perhaps the better idea I was awaiting is to make the lemma [[of one's word]]. Stripping gendered pronouns to the greatest extent possible approaches gender-neutrality to the greatest extent possible and leaves less uncertainty about might need to be attested. DCDuring TALK 22:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, I had thought about of one's word, too, as that would even cover rare cases like google books:"a company of its word". But perhaps that's too much stripping, too much abstraction. - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I still think we would need redirects at least from the singular personal pronoun versions. DCDuring TALK 23:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes (@DCDuring and @Pengo), like many highly variable idiomatic expressions, this one would need to have a lot of redirects pointing to it from common variants (and perhaps even uncommon but attested variants — redirects are cheap), including man of his word, woman of her word, gentleman of his word, lady of her word, (man?) of my word, of your word, of his word, of her word, and of their word. - -sche (discuss) 02:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Yep, not to mention the plural forms (men of their word, etc) Pengo (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd settle for the singular personal pronouns on the grounds that few would ever look up the others and that we could semiautomate the creation of redirects for many such MWEs so that we actually had the most common ones for many of these rather than just have a complete set for one or a few. This would seem like a reasonable item for Wiktionary:Todo. DCDuring TALK 13:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:English male given names from Celtic[edit]

Category:English female given names from Celtic[edit]

Celtic what? This gives the impression that there's something called "Celtic" from which names are derived. You can certainly find works from the 19th century that talk this way, but they're full of truly awful etymologies that are absolutely painful to read if you know anything about historical linguistics. These categories should be moved to the equivalents with "Celtic languages" rather than "Celtic" Chuck Entz (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:English male given names from Germanic[edit]

Category:English female given names from Germanic[edit]

Category:English male given names from Slavic[edit]

Category:English female given names from Slavic[edit]

As above. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Support the name change into Celtic/Germanic/Slavic languages, if somebody else does the job. That was just shorthand. --Makaokalani (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:en:Gourds and allies[edit]

What a terrible name for a category! Allies, please. --Type56op9 (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been struggling to come up with category names that are both understandable to non-botanists and correspond to reality. I'm open to suggestions (of course, even if I weren't, one doesn't own things on a wiki, anyway). Chuck Entz (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Allies reminds me a bit of Victorian naturalists sorting their specimens plundered from all over the Empire. It is brief, but something like "related plants" makes even fewer assumptions about users. DCDuring TALK 14:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Now for a substitute for "Hyponyms" and its allies. DCDuring TALK 14:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Seafoods[edit]

Category:Seafood[edit]

Merging these (and subcategories) is a no-brainer - the only question is which to keep. DCDuring tagged Category:Seafoods back in 2011, but it never got moved. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Foods and its subcategories (Category:Soups, etc) are plural, so I think Category:Seafoods is the one to keep. - -sche (discuss) 16:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Merged at Category:Seafoods. - -sche (discuss) 22:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Carborundum[edit]

to carborundum

While "Carborundum" is a trademark, as the cites I've added show, it's totally genericised in everyday use, and spelled invariably without the uppercase "C". Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Ngrams confirms that the lowercase form is more common. I've moved the content, but the uppercase form seems to be attested, too, so I've left it as a soft redirect. - -sche (discuss) 20:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

built-in[edit]

built-in and builtin are alternative spellings of built in. The former two entries should be "alternative form of built in" and nothing else.--Sae1962 (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)