Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits/archive/2012

February 2012

Category:Languages of Korea

split into Category:Languages of South Korea and Category:Languages of North Korea -- Liliana • 01:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see a point... both categories will contain the same three categories. —CodeCat 01:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

So do many of the British dependencies in the Caribbean and elsewhere, and they still get their own categories (like Category:Languages of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands). -- Liliana • 01:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Split, not sure this is potentially controversial enough to merit a discussion. But ah well. @CodeCat is it really about a 'point' rather than about adhering to our own category structure? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

done -- Liliana • 20:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary:List of protologisms

I don't understand why this is in Wiktionary space rather than Appendix space. One advantage of having it in Appendix space would be that it could be the object of {{only in}} and {{in appendix}} with no additional template complexification. That, in turn would enable us to have some accessible coverage of very popular new terms, eg, Linsanity and tebowing, and avoid clogging RfD. DCDuring TALK 17:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is in any namespace. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

1. So that we can accommodate terms for which it is "likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means", but are too new to be attestable because of the "spanning one year" attestation rule.
2. So that we can avoid simply deleting proposed entries which deletions make us look less than open to new things. DCDuring TALK 12:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a noble idea, but in reality the only criterion that these entries have to meet is not existing. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

As for nobility, it is not nearly so noble as "All words in all languages". And, in reality, we could protect the list pages and only allow new terms to be inserted by admins as a result of failed RfDs or RfVs or bad requests for new entries, which wouldn't make it as principal namespace entries. DCDuring TALK 13:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

When I patrol the recent changes, I consider LOP a bit like Appendix:Australian English military slang and many others that get a lot of unpatrolled edits but aren't in the main namespace, and just mark them as patrolled blind. We have few enough resources already, I'd rather our most competent, experienced editors not edit WT:LOP and do something more constructive. But if anyone wants to, I wouldn't stop them of course. Some sort of rules for LOP would be most welcome. Enforcing those rules perhaps not as desirable, as I've just alluded to. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of pages that are whitelisted: edits are patrolled semiautomatically. If you think any should be added to the list, raise the issue at [[WT:WL]].​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Move to the appendix namespace as proposed by DCDuring. This is content, and content does not belong to the project namespace. The list could be also dropped as proposed by Mglovesfun, but this cannot be done via RFM. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it passed an RFD recently enough that it should not be renominated. Anyway, how about Appendix:English protologisms and the like as a title? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree on both points. The name should include the language, because there could be Mandarin, Swahili, Finnish etc. protologisms as well. And it should not be in the Wiktionary namespace because it's not about Wiktionary. —CodeCat 14:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The title would be fine with me. The English appendix is already in two subpages. If we don't have separate pages for each letter, we can use syntax like {{only in|{{in appendix#Appendix:Australian military slang#Bravo}}}} (ie, with section links) to get a user close to the specific term. DCDuring TALK 14:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose moving this to the Appendix space. I have created {{only-in}} which can handle links to anywhere without secondary templates (which {{only in}} requires). - -sche (discuss) 01:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

{{only in}} doesn't require another template. {{only in|But see '''[[foo]]'''.}} works perfectly fine.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

So it does! That's good to know, thank you! That means the template's text warning "You must include at least one {{in wikipedia}} or {{in appendix}}" needs to be corrected. - -sche (discuss) 18:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, move to appendix. Equinox ◑ 18:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. Move to appendix space. bd2412 T 17:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Agree. I’ve typed “Appendix:List of protologisms” by mistake a few times, because that’s where I unconsciously expect protologisms to be. ~ Robin (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Moved. I'll fix incoming links by AWB this evening. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• The title of this page is mentioned in CFI. Does changing this require a vote? --Yair rand (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems too pedantic to bother with, really. The move is only a change of address and doesn't affect the meaning or scope of CFI. Equinox ◑ 02:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You should consult our attorney. IANAL. DCDuring TALK 02:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm an attorney. I think the namespace is basically a technicality, but taking it out of Wiktionary space removes an imprimatur of approval by the project. bd2412 T 03:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary:English pronunciation key to Appendix:English pronunciation

The pages for other languages are named just 'pronunciation' and are in the Appendix namespace. {{IPA}} is coded to make a special exception just for English. If we move it, that exception wouldn't be needed anymore. Alternatively, all the other languages' pages could have 'key' added to them instead and moved to the Wiktionary namespace. —CodeCat 15:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I support either idea, although the first would be easier. - -sche (discuss) 17:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Move to Appendix:English pronunciation as proposed. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Moved. —CodeCat 19:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:SAMPA and Template:X-SAMPA

I'm aware that there is formally a slight difference between SAMPA and X-SAMPA, but it seems a little redundant to have both. I'm not aware of any situations where SAMPA is any different from X-SAMPA, so maybe they should be merged? —CodeCat 15:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no idea. We need some more knowledgeable people in this thread. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

By all means merge them, the distinction only serves to confuse users. -- Liliana • 23:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Which name should they be merged under? I suppose SAMPA is easier, but the template should display X-SAMPA I think. —CodeCat 12:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I've merged the two templates under Template:X-SAMPA, and redirected Template:SAMPA to it. Should a bot fix the references or is it ok like this? —CodeCat 17:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

busanian

This should be capitalized as Busanian. The plural (Busanians) is already capitalized. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Done, not controversial. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:en:Vegan and vegetarian

To Category:en:Veganism and vegetarianism, or Category:Vegetarianism and veganism? - -sche (discuss) 19:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't just Category:Vegetarianism specific enough? All vegans are vegetarians, after all. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

That name is also acceptable to me. - -sche (discuss) 08:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Vegetarianism sounds good to me tooLucifer (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

So it has been done: Category:en:Vegetarianism exists now (in Category:Vegetarianism, inside the food and drink cat). Now we just need to recategorise the entries. - -sche (discuss) 23:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

All right working on it, in the meantime what about the spanish Category:es:Vegan and vegetarianism ?Lucifer (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I created Category:es:Vegetarianism, and moved everything from Category:es:Vegan and vegetarian into it. I think we should delete both of the "Vegan and vegetarian" categories now that they're empty. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted them now. :) Normally, we would wait a while before deleting them, to be sure of their unuse, but in this case we're talking about two categories with <20 entries in them, used only by people who've commented in this discussion. - -sche (discuss) 03:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

WT:LANG

WT:LANG should point to WT:Languages, not (as it currently does) to Wiktionary:List of languages, and that list should be merged into or deleted in favor of the bot-maintained Wiktionary:Index to templates/languages. Finally, WT:LANGLIST should be created to point to the consolidated list. - -sche (discuss) 21:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've done the last part. - -sche (discuss) 05:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've re-redirected WT:LANG and started an RFDO for Wiktionary:List of languages. - -sche (discuss) 03:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:PIE entry into Template:reconstructed

I was never quite sure why PIE had its own separate template that says almost the same. The standard template would probably work just fine. —CodeCat 23:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I definitely agree (rather late, I'm afraid). --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I've changed {{PIE entry}} into a redirect. It should probably be orphaned eventually. —CodeCat 12:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Language templates to Category:Language code templates

I think the new name would be more descriptive, and it would allow us to re-use the old name to contain templates that handle languages, such as {{languagex}} and {{langrev}}. —CodeCat 13:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Was moved some time ago, no opposition before or since. —CodeCat 12:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

archæopteryx

This should be moved to the most common spelling archeopteryx (this link has been edited for clarity, Mglovesfun (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)). Its creator Doremítzwr (talk • contribs) was well known for liking unusual spellings, even if not the most common or most user-friendly spelling. So this should be moved to the most common form, and archæopteryx should be tagged as an alternative, archaic or rare spelling of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused... all three are the same? —CodeCat 21:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

All three of what? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You mentioned the word spelled archæopteryx three times but I don't know what you want to change? —CodeCat 21:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I see, I've changed one of the links above. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Go for it. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion above. Of the three alternative spellings for this word: archæopteryx (spelled with an "æ" ligature) is the least common (ligatures are rarely if ever used in modern English), archaeopteryx (with the ae digraph) is probably the most common spelling throughout the English-speaking world (especially in Commonweath countries like Canada), and archeopteryx is also a very common alternative spelling. I have already added a Usage Note on spelling for this word. Hans-Friedrich Tamke (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Made it so. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

clusterfuck

Seems like a fairly uncontroversial "alternative form of" for cluster fuck, but I'm not sure whether the open or closed form is better here. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's uncontroversial; work out which is the most common and use {{alternative form of}} for the other. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

(deprecated template usage) Clusterfuck is the more common form both at COCA and bgc. DCDuring TALK 01:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

In which case, keep as is. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

make someone’s jaw drop

Created this without realizing the link I'd followed from WT:REE contained ’ rather than '. Now, when one enters "make someone's" into the search bar, this doesn't show up among the possibilities presented by the autocomplete feature because of that tiny punctuation difference. In other words, please move this to make someone's jaw drop. Astral (talk) 05:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you could've done it yourself. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought page-moving was only open to admins. Now I see the option is tucked away in a drop-down menu next to "add to watchlist." Will remember this in the future. Astral (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Striking. —Ruakh_TALK 21:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

Category:English toponyms to Category:English terms derived from toponyms

This name is misleading as it contradicts its own description, and for example go to Canossa is not a toponym. —CodeCat 12:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

encyclopaedia

Should be merged into [[encyclopedia]]. —Ruakh_TALK 03:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree and have proceeded to make the merge. - -sche (discuss) 06:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. IME, this is not as common in British English as paedophilia for pedophilia (and so on). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. For interest, NGram for the two spellings in British corpus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. I'll ask the question: why should it be merged? Regardless of the NGram, and as a British person, that spelling is still in common use. I mean, even if many still think it isn't commoen anymore and believe it will become rare (or even obsolete), then why doesn't anyone merge all the spellings in Category:English obsolete forms to their individual, modern spellings? Also, this form of debate has happend with color/colour. At end of day, it's still an official spelling still used today. Tony6ty4ur (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge doesn't mean delete. The entry will still be there as an alternative spelling. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 10:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The merge process was completed August 26 2012. DCDuring TALK 13:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Abrahamman

should be merged with Abraham man, or vice versa — which spelling is more common? (I'll check and merge them tomorrow if no one's beaten me to it.) - -sche (discuss) 04:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Merged. - -sche (discuss) 17:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

חרף

סתו

[[חרף]] should be moved to [[חורף]] and [[סתו]] should be moved to [[סתיו]].

--WikiTiki89 (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. We should have entries for both variants of both terms (not redirects), with one variant a form-of entry and one a lemma in both cases. The real question is: which should be the lemma? In the case of חרף, biblical usage is all חרף, while modern usage seems to favor חורף. I'm not familiar with all the issues involved, but I would note that חורף makes the structure of the word more visible, especially when it's unpointed. As for סתו, the biblical evidence is less clear. At any rate, we should at least mention סתיו as an alternate form in the סתו] entry, if we don't make that the alternate form to the סתיו lemma. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done. —Ruakh_TALK 13:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

երկկտտացնել

The usage notes should be moved to WT:BJAODN. - -sche (discuss) 02:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Is Vag OK? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You might notice that this is from three years ago. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

User Vahagn does this sort of thing a lot. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Which is worrying... —CodeCat 10:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

I. umbraticola

to Ipomoea umbraticola. Such taxonomic abbreviations are almost always used only in context, after the genus name has been introduced. Covering such abbreviations to help folks with out-of-context snippets would require that we have a sense for each genus beginning with "I" that has a species that uses the species epithet. We are far, far away from that capability. DCDuring TALK 23:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be potentially misleading to keep the redirect in this proposed move. DCDuring TALK 23:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

While we're at it, how about moving it to Ipomoea splendor-sylvae, which seems to be the correct name, per [1] and [2] (methinks Wikispecies is out of date).

This is the problem with having entries for scientific names: they imply knowledge of taxonomy that we don't have, for the most part. It's not something we can rfv for, since neither or both may be attested according to CFI. I know enough about botany of vascular plants and about some parts of zoology to find authoritative sources, but cladistics and molecular biology are radically rearranging taxonomy almost constantly these days, so what was true a year ago may be totally wrong next year.

As for the forms with the generic name represented by an initial: there a lots of genera that start with "I" (it's one of the rarer first initials, too), and there's nothing to say that they couldn't all have a species with the exact same epithet. It's not much of a problem with this species, but with common adjectives like alba, you could have a long list of senses, indeed- we should kill all such abbreviations before they multiply. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

We have a better chance focusing on the component words, especially the genera, and the vernacular names, but we already have 1-2,000 binomials and some thousands of names of tribes, subtribes, parvorders, phylla, etc. I am seeing the instability of the taxonomic structure as I work on these entries. I try to limit my new entries in this area to genera and vernacular names. But we should perform the service of tracking all the names, including the ones that don't fit into current thinking. Obsolete names are more stable! DCDuring TALK 03:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

@Chuck: I don't disagree with anything that you have said. The fundamental problem is that we define (have to define ?) each taxonomic name in terms of the taxonomic hierarchy, which is a bit less firm than I had realized. Our best contributions might be in etymology, synonymy, and in vernacular names. We might be able to collect vernacular names for the genera, species, and subspecies in the languages prevalent in the range of the species. But that compels us to work at the bushy end of the tree, at least for those genera that people can relate to at some level. DCDuring TALK 04:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Done DCDuring TALK 20:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I. umbellifera

to Inga umbellifera. As above. DCDuring TALK 23:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)`

Yes, never been voted on as far as I know, but there are precedents. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

See RfD discussion of B. splendens. DCDuring TALK 14:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

As there are no objections, moved with redirect retained, but I wouldn't mind if it were deleted. DCDuring TALK 14:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

פעלד

[[פעלד]] should be moved back to [[פֿעלד]]. Can someone do this in a way that preserves the history as I don't have the right permissions? --WikiTiki89 (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. —Angr 11:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

klatch and klatsch

One should presumably be merged into the other. —Ruakh_TALK 19:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done - -sche (discuss) 16:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:en:Onomatopoeia to Category:English onomatopoeias

Whether something is an onomatopoeia or not is not so much a topic as it is an etymology: the word was coined for its imitative sound. So it really belongs as a subcategory of Category:English etymologies. (The categories for all other languages would be renamed analogically.) —CodeCat 00:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Move per nom. DCDuring TALK 03:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Move all per CodeCat. —Angr 12:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Support, I seem to think I brought this up once on the Tea Room, but never followed up on it. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Moved. —CodeCat 20:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)