Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for deletion/Others

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification/English add new English request | history | archives Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for verification/CJK add new CJK request | history Requests for verification of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.	Requests for verification/Italic add new Italic request | history Requests for verification of Italic-language entries.	Requests for verification/Non-English add new non-English request | history | archives Requests for verification of any other non-English entries.	Requests for deletion/Others add new | history Requests for deletion and undeletion 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.	Requests for deletion/English add new English request | history | archives Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/CJK add new CJK request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.	Requests for deletion/Italic add new Italic request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of Italic-language entries.	Requests for deletion/Non-English add new non-English request | history | archives Requests for deletion and undeletion of any other non-English entries.	Requests for deletion/​Reconstruction add new reconstruction request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of reconstructed entries.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

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

This page is for the nomination (for deletion) of non-main namespace entries. General questions about categories, templates and the like should be posted at Wiktionary:Grease pit. Remember to start each section with only the wikified title of the page being nominated for deletion.

Oldest tagged RFDOs

• Category:English four-letter abbreviations
  Template:abstract noun of
  Category:Languages of California
  Template:sla-pro-root-h₁rewdʰ
  Module:template utilities
  Template:he-wv
  Category:Korean syllables
  Template:rfv-term/documentation
  Template:rfv-term
  Appendix:Terms derived from toponyms
  Category:en:Multiracial
  Template:ethnologue
  Template:kk-regional
  Template:table:colors/zh
  Template:table:Chinese Zodiac/zh
  Appendix:Old Prussian Swadesh list
  Template:R:Etymological Dictionary of Arabic
  Category:One-letter words by language
  Category:Two-letter words by language
  Category:Three-letter words by language
  Category:CJKV radicals
  Category:Japanese-only CJKV Characters
  Category:Japanese-coined CJKV characters used outside Japanese
  Category:Korean-only CJKV Characters
  Template:liv-compound/documentation
  Template:liv-compound
  Template:zh-historical-dict/documentation
  Template:zh-historical-dict
  Template:zh-hd/s/documentation
  Template:zh-hd/s
  Template:zh-no-solo/documentation
  Template:zh-no-solo
  Category:Indo-Aryan reference templates
  Category:Sino-Tibetan templates
  Template:less common spelling of
  Template:prg-noun declension -s ptv
  Category:Uncategorized templates
  Wiktionary:Frequency lists/Finnish/Press data
  Template:blockquote-top/documentation
  Template:blockquote-top
  Wiktionary:Frequency lists/Persian/Frequency dictionary
  Category:Breakable Han characters
  Module:family tree/data/documentation
  User:Sobreira/PIE roots bd
  Template:zh-verb
  Template:el-link-ttip-sm
  Template:center top
  Template:templatetable
  Template:el-link-ttip
  Template:center bottom
  Template:list:Vaṅga Bengali calendar months/bn
  Template:nds-cardinal
  Category:Reference templates
  Template:zh-verb/documentation
  Template:l-nn
  Template:l-nb
  Template:derived terms
  Category:en:Directives
  Template:rfcoll
  Template:kk-scripts
  Template:zh-obsolete
  Appendix:Glossary of contract bridge
  Category:Ambiguity
  Template:cite-thesis/documentation
  Template:cite-thesis
  Template:el-UK-US
  Template:Icelandic adjectival declension absolute
  Category:Requests for date/Johannes Mirkus
  Category:Requests for date/Wars of Alexander
  Category:Requests for date/Nikolajs Ķurzēns
  Category:Requests for date/De Leidse sleutelgaten
  Category:Requests for date by source
  Category:Requests for date/Flower
  Category:Requests for date/Lancelot Andrewes
  Category:Requests for date/Malory
  Category:Requests for date/John Romeril
  Category:Requests for date/Hal Lehrman
  Category:Requests for date/Hearings, Reports and Prints of the Senate Committee on Government Operations
  Category:Requests for date/Hanna Minah
  Category:Requests for date/Ferdowsi
  Category:Requests for date/信明集
  Category:Requests for date/大橋裸木
  Category:Requests for date/Virgil
  Category:Requests for date/Gudrun Vinsrygg
  Category:Coptic terms derived from Greek
  Category:Coptic male given names from Greek
  Category:Coptic female given names from Greek
  Category:Coptic given names from Greek
  Category:Physical actions
  Thesaurus:wild
  Category:Requests for date
  Category:CJKV simplified characters which already existed as traditional characters
  Category:Arabic definite proper nouns
  Template:desc/sl-tonal
  Category:Livonian compounds with kū
  User:Sobreira/PIE roots s
  Template:nan-coll
  Template:nan-lit
  Appendix:Adjectives indicating shape
  Template:bo-div
  Template:bo-decl
  Category:Vietnamese nouns without classifiers
  Rhymes:Toki Pona/wen
  Category:Toki Pona rhymes/wen-
  Category:Mongolian pronunciation spellings
  Category:Requests for date/Sir John Hayward
  Appendix:Proto-Indo-European extensions
  Appendix:Gen Z slang
  Category:Requests for date/Prior
  Appendix:Glossary of baseball
  Category:Borneo-Philippines languages
  Category:Czechoslovakia
  Category:Yugoslavia
  Category:Sunda-Sulawesi languages
  Category:Languages of the Caucasus
  Category:Greek singularia tantum proper nouns
  Category:Greek pluralia tantum proper nouns
  Category:West Germany
  Appendix:English Wanderwörter
  Appendix:Mass Effect
  Template:season name spelling
  Template:conversion/documentation
  Template:conversion
  Category:German words ending in -nf
  Category:Numeronyms by language
  Wiktionary:MW
  Template:CURRENTDATE
  Wiktionary:Unresolved issues
  Category:Assyrian Neo-Aramaic terms compounded with ܒܝܬ
  Template:DC Comics/documentation
  Template:DC Comics
  Template:currentdate
  Category:Requests for date/Roscommon
  Category:Requests for date/Bishop Hall
  Category:Requests for date/P. Henry
  Template:descendants-top
  Template:descendants-bottom
  Category:Requests for date/Wintner
  Template:sk-decl-noun-idea
  Template:sk-decl-noun-idea/documentation
  Category:Rhymes:Punjabi/ɑ̃ː
  Template:currentsense
  Template:Mon standard keyboard
  Template:en-det/documentation
  Template:en-det
  

May 2010

Category:English words with different meanings in different locations

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

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

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

We could certainly populate it. For example, the word (deprecated template usage) house would mean something different if we took the trouble to document the differences by, say, average temperature, seasonal and daily variation in temperature, proneness to flooding and rain, as well as cultural differences. This could serve as a whole new way of encouraging us to add new senses to some common words. We would need a few more context tags and we would be using google news more to attest to the senses. But "All senses of all words in all languages.". DCDuring TALK 13:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think what this category is intended for is words that exist both in British and American English but have completely different meanings. However, the category name is very ambiguous. -- Prince Kassad 14:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it wants to go beyond that and include all English speaking places. But how to subdivide? If it's different locations, what happens if I use a word differently to my nextdoor neighbor? He's not in the same location, he's nextdoor! Mglovesfun (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

How about "English terms with differing definitions in different dialects"?​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Alphabet categories

Category:Phoenician alphabet

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

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

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

August 2010

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

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

Well, all these should be standardized, but there's no reason why we can't have a bot and do it manually. For example {{new fr plural}} is useful for pages that already exist but need French adding to them (say for example observations). I' very weakily favor keeping them and cleaning them up. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The bot can add to existing entries, even if there is already a Dutch section on the page so that's no problem. There is no case that the bot can't really be used for, and furthermore all existing verbs have already been done by the bot so there are no entries remaining to use those entry templates on. Right now, any new verbs that get added are generally submitted to the bot immediately by various editors. —CodeCat 11:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree with that. I'm just saying this isn't necessarily a reason to delete these templates. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We have one delete, one week keep, and one something else. Anyone else have any objections? —CodeCat 20:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep for whenever the bot stops running, but (for now) don't link to them from MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new or the like.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Kept for no consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

November 2010

Category:English toponyms

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

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

Delete, place names are topical. Category:Place names could be moved to Category:Toponyms. Also English toponyms (place names of England) is way too narrow. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Swear words by language

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

Delete and all the subcategories. Stick to the system we already have. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

But not all offensive terms are "swear words"; consider the verb (deprecated template usage) Jew, for example. And conversely, I don't think I'd consider a swear word like (deprecated template usage) goddamn to be "offensive", though it is in Category:Offensive, so perhaps someone's mileage varies. —Ruakh_TALK 17:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

As long as it works the other way, i. e. all swear words are offensive (which I think is true)... -- Prince Kassad 18:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Should be Category:Swear words in that case, but I think Category:Vulgarities covers it better. If we were to create a Category:Swear words, I think the best two parent categories would be Vulgarities and Offensive. Since MediaWiki doesn't allow us to rename categories, we'd still have to delete this. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Has existed since 2006, fancy that. Easy delete then, we don't even need to create a category to replace it. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: "all swear words are offensive": Please see the second half of the comment you're replying to. And anyway, by that argument, who needs Category:English suffixes when we have Category:English affixes? Or Category:Trees when we can have Category:Organisms? —Ruakh_TALK 20:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Swear word is not a part of speech. You don't add ===Swear word=== and {{infl|en|swear word}} to entries. That just isn't right. -- Prince Kassad 20:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, but it's irrelevant to my comments. You claimed above that "This entire category system is completely redundant to the topical category Category:Offensive." I was arguing otherwise. (BTW, "part of speech" is not quite the concept you want. We also don't use ===Countable noun=== and ===Ergative verb=== and so on, but Category:Countable nouns by language and Category:Ergative verbs by language are to the good. But I agree that swear-words belong to the topical-category system, not the grammatical-category system.) —Ruakh_TALK 21:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ruakh, so in essence, you do want to delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really. I want to move it. As it happens, moving a category does involve "deleting" it, but obviously that's not what Prince Kassad is proposing. —Ruakh_TALK 00:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue, for me, is redundancy. Similar to [[Category:Derogatory]], [[Category:Offensive]] and [[Category:Pejoratives]], or [[Category:Archaic]] and [[Category:Obsolete]], we could end up categorizing entries in two, three, even four categories basically representing the same thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm having second thoughts; Category:Profanity is listed below; perhaps a Category:Profanities by language would be the most inclusive title. There is some overlap with offensive as Ruakh points out, but not total redundancy. Keep and move. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Languages of the Netherlands Antilles

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

Rename to Languages of the former Netherlands Antilles? Or maybe Languages of the Caribbean Netherlands? —CodeCat 16:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear on the status of the then-Netherlands Antilles: was it kinda like that of England or Scotland now (with the Kingdom of the Netherlands like the UK)? Were the Netherlands Antilles recognized by other countries and international organizations as sovereign? I dislike that we think about such topics in deciding what categories to have, but it may be necessary....​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was a member of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, so it's quite comparable to, say, Scotland. Note that we have Category:Languages of Aruba, another member of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (which became independent from the Netherlands Antilles in 1985). -- Prince Kassad 18:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think current non-existence should be a reason for deletion. If we're going to have this sort of category at all, then formerly-existent geo-entities should be as valid as currently-existent ones, provided we can answer the question: what languages were spoken in the geo-entity, when it existed? —Ruakh_TALK 17:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

So you'd want Category:Languages of the Soviet Union, Category:Languages of the Holy Roman Empire, Category:Languages of the Ottoman Empire, Category:Languages of British India? -- Prince Kassad 18:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC) addendum: please see WT:Beer parlour#Geographic language categories

If we just go with Languages of the Caribbean Netherlands then we avoid the problem entirely. Because that term has been in use already and will continue to be valid in the future. —CodeCat 19:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what the language of... categories are supposed to achieve. Isn't it purely encyclopedic? Also, if we accept dead language in such categories (cf. Category:Anglo-Norman language) I see no reason, conversely, not to allow defunct countries/states as well. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I started the BP discussion. Personally, I would not try to push ancient languages into a modern country's borders. That's historically absolute nonsense, and it does not make sense. -- Prince Kassad 23:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Dutch Low Saxon language

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

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

Note that Ethnologue recognizes several standardized dialects of Low Saxon as separate languages, like Gronings {{gos}}, Drents {{drt}} and Twente {{twd}}. It might be better to use those... -- Prince Kassad 14:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Countable nouns by language

Category:Uncountable nouns by language

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

Delete. Useless categories.--Vahag 10:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep Category:English uncountable nouns. I cannot speak for other languages or the parent category. Knowledgeable contributors with experience in teaching English have suggested that handling countability is a significant difficulty for learners of English. I do not know about English natives speakers learning other languages.

We should eliminate the truly useless Category:English countable nouns. As this is the default state of nouns in most (all) mlanguages, AFAIK, it hardly seems worth marking, except for contrast. If that is correct, it would argue for elimination of most (all) of the subcategories. If only we could assume that all and only "uncountable" senses were marked, we could dispense with marking "countable" senses entirely. "Uncountability", as the less common feature of nouns, merits marking.

Lastly, the retaining the category Category:English uncountable nouns, at least, facilitates cleanup of the numerous misapplications of "uncountable". It is often misused to apply to countable (but normally uncouned) senses, ie, those that are almost always used in the singular, and sometimes to proper nouns. DCDuring TALK 11:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Countability in the languages I edit is a very insignificant issue, that's why I voted to delete the categories. Maybe we can keep Category:English uncountable nouns but disable categorizing for other languages. --Vahag 12:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This does seem to be the kind of thing that probably should be determined language by language. DCDuring TALK 18:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that we need a category for them; keep the template {{countable}} and {{uncountable}} just delete the associated categories. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the uncountable category is a clean-up facilitator and will probably remain useful for that purpose for some time. DCDuring TALK 18:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I vote to keep uncountable nouns, delete countable nouns, for the reasons given above. In many languages, countable is the default, so it is not worth mentioning (just like 'regular verbs' would be a fairly pointless category). —CodeCat 13:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Stephen say there are languages where the default is uncountable? -- Prince Kassad 00:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, then the non-default countable category could be be retained for such languages. The categories don't have to be populated for every language. There might even be some where both were worth keeping or where other categories were necessary. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Welsh words suffixed with -au

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

Since {{suffix}} has a pos (part of speech) parameter, I'd recommend Category:Welsh plurals suffixed with -au. Per the discussion above that you've alluded to. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought we followed the general practice of excluding use of {{suffix}} for inflectional suffixes. It seems to me that we need to clean out the category by removing the etymology sections of the members. DCDuring TALK 15:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep, I guess, seeing as we did keep Category:Welsh words suffixed with -iau. —Ruakh_TALK 16:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm in two minds. On the one hand, I don't want most languages to have categories like this for inflectional endings like plural endings. On the other hand, for a language like Welsh, where the plural endings are almost completely unpredictable, I do think it could be very useful to have a place where people can find all Welsh nouns pluralized with -(i)au, all Welsh nouns pluralized with -oedd, all Welsh nouns pluralized with -(i)on, and so on. If we really don't want this as a category, then at least as an appendix or several appendices. —Angr 18:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• But it seems like it would make more sense to have a Category:Welsh nouns forming plurals in -au or something, à la Category:Latin third conjugation verbs, rather than a Category:Welsh words suffixed with -au, à la Category:Latin verb forms that make you realize the verbs belong to the third conjugation. —Ruakh_TALK 13:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's true. Also, some plural endings may be isomorphic with other suffixes, so that the category would be full of words that didn't actually have the plural ending. Category:Welsh nouns forming plurals in -au does sound like a good idea, especially if it can be generated automatically by filling in a particular parameter in {{cy-noun}}. —Angr 15:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

December 2010

Template:de-verb-weak

Template:de-verb-strong

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

Support deletion. {{it-verb-are}} and some similar ones failed RFDO earlier this year. As we know from {{ca-verb}}, {{es-verb}}, {{nl-verb}} and {{pt-verb}} (among others) it is possible to specific this sort of thing in one template using a switch, rather than that just creating a template for every class of verb there is. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

keep. This template was not designed for English, but for German. German has just two classes of verbs -- strong and weak. The info presented by this headword-line template is ideal for headword lines. It presents the traditional key forms of German strong verbs. —Rod (A. Smith) 00:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Like Prince Kassad (Liliana) says, why not add a type=weak/type=strong parameter to {{de-verb}}? And the conjugation table can do the rest. Still delete, in my opinion. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Manias

Category:de:Manias

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

Dunno actually, doesn't seem that silly. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"rather strange" seems subjective and not enough reason for deletion to me. Mutante 10:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't have any rules for topical categories, so we can be as subjective as we like. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Right. Delete per Yair (11:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)).​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Several of my books about the English language include lists of -manias and -phobias, so I expect some people are interested in Category:Manias and Category:Phobias. — Robin 19:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Words suffixed with -mania and -phobia belong at Category:English words suffixed with -mania and Category:English words suffixed with -phobia. --Yair rand (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep, for now anyway, I'd welcome a serious review of our topical categories, but I'm not optimistic we'd get a consensus out of it. So just keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Dutch entry templates

Template:nl-verb-entry-pres-sub-sg

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

Delete in good faith, since I don't use the templates I'm willing to trust CodeCat, one of our best editors, especially in Dutch. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm rather reluctant to call this a fail, but I don't really think anyone ever uses these... —CodeCat 20:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete the templates, trusting CodeCat. The templates have been deleted on 5 June 2011 by CodeCat anyway. --Dan Polansky 09:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted by CodeCat last June. —Ruakh_TALK 18:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

January 2011

Category:Harry Potter

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

I don't see what's wrong with categorizing appendices, but this could be restated to include words that arose from that franchise, which is probably what was meant in the first place. DAVilla 20:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep. It will also probably serve to house terms which were invented for that franchise but were since adopted into the lexicon e.g. (deprecated template usage) Muggle and I am guessing eventually (deprecated template usage) Voldemort. - [The]DaveRoss 18:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

But then it should be a "derivations"- or "derived from"- or what-have-you-named category, no?​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There already is a Category:Harry Potter derivations... --Yair rand (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Care needs to be taken with terms from fiction such as these. Fans may use and hear them often, but such terms may rarely be found outside the fandom. (deprecated template usage) Muggle may indeed be relevant; as evidenced by the quotations, some people have found it useful to fill a gap in the lexicon, and its meaning is fairly widely understood amongst those who enjoy the franchise casually (thanks to its relatively large popularity). However, terms like (deprecated template usage) Snapefic seem to be practically exclusive to smaller communities of people whom find themselves mutually invested in the fiction much more than the average audience. These are probably not in significant use to be kept -- not currently so, at the very least. 76.184.230.142 14:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No consensus, or keep consensus to keep, kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Category tree

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

Was actually used once in a category that had no subcategories, so I removed it. I don't hate the template, but where would we use it? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't every category use this, so you can hop down the category tree? (or atleast, language and parts of speech trees) 65.95.13.213 14:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

Template:rivers

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

If geography were a context it should be used for the terms that academic, professional, student, and amateur geographers use. Context tags should not be used for purely topical categories (though there may be circumstances where there is a coincidence between context and topical category). In any event, Nile is not a geographic term nor is its use limited to geographers. DCDuring TALK 22:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This should be replaced with Category:en:Rivers or whatever, and deleted. —Michael Z. 2012-05-22 20:48 z
Failed, it violates a vote so it was a mistake for me to nominate it, it should've been shot on sight. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Abbreviation

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

delete -- Prince Kassad 21:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Good "disambiguation" page. You say "[v]ery few linked pages": but what else should be linked to from it? (Or do you mean few pages link to it? That may be true, but people may type it in manually.) Don't see the purpose of deleting it.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems at worst harmless. It might be a good page for some specialized guidance on our practice concerning such entries. DCDuring TALK 22:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I mean very few pages link to it, suggesting that it wouldn't really be missed. However yeah, we don't have many disambiguation pages, but this not the only one we have (WT:CAT). I won't oppose the keep if that is the overall consensus, then. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:onym

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

I've seen this template and often wondered what it's for. Reading the documentation, you'd think it was literally copied and pasted from {{l}}. Are they compatible to the point that one could redirect to the other? PS Wiktionary:Grease pit archive/2007/October#Template:onym and Template:l. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There are three differences that I can see: {{l}} supports a g= parameter while {{onym}} does not, {{l}} places glosses and transliterations in separate sets of brackets while {{onym}} places them in the same set, and {{onym}} works like {{term}} when the first parameter is blank, displaying the term unlinked. --Yair rand (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If those are in fact the only differences (I haven't checked, but will take your word for it), then I'd be fine with either fixing {{l}}'s deficiencies and changing {{onym}} into a (deprecated?) redirect, or vice versa. —Ruakh_TALK 00:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this template should be deleted, as long as {{l}} supports everything it does. —CodeCat 21:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a difference, o/p from each:

* {{onym|el|[[κάνω#Greek|κάνω]] [[εμετό#Greek|εμετό]]|tr=káno emetó|gloss=to vomit}} > Template:onym

* {{l|el|[[κάνω#Greek|κάνω]] [[εμετό#Greek|εμετό]]|tr=káno emetó|gloss=to vomit}} > κάνω εμετό (káno emetó, “to vomit”)

shouldn't rfd be removed — Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 04:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Those appear to be precisely the differences enumerated by Yair rand above. The reason for deleting {{onym}} is not because it is identical to {{l}} (which it most clearly and demonstrably isn't), but rather because it offers no useful functionality that is not already covered by either {{term}} or {{l}} -- and thus has no real reason to exist, as best I can tell. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Another difference: {{onym}} italicizes the transliteration (like {{term}}), whereas {{l}} does not (like {{t}} and {{head}}). —Ruakh_TALK 15:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That difference really is trivial, it doesn't change what the template actually does. —CodeCat 16:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

March 2011

Template:citelink

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

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

Category:Tatar Cyrillic Words

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

delete. You can use the table of contents to get Tatar words in Cyrillic script. -- Prince Kassad 18:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We have Category:Mandarin nouns in traditional script and Category:Japanese hiragana, though. --Daniel. 18:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Since I've created {{tt-pos}}, it would be quite easy to categorize these. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The official Tatar is written in Cyrillic, anyway. All newspapers, books, signs, education, otehr media in Tatarstan, Russia are written in Cyrillic. The Roman spelling is a fashion, used mainly on the web, due to the fact that Roman spelling is not allowed but Cyrillic usage by far exceeds the Roman on the web as well. Writing Tatar in Roman letters today is the same as writing Turkish in the Arabic script - attestable but non-standard. --Anatoli 00:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:abbreviation

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

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

Just use

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

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

Useful (and in fact used) for categorizing in etymology sections: "===Etymology=== {{abbreviation|Langname}} of...".​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose, though {{abbreviation of}} seems to cover that. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Or just ban it in headers then. Perhaps that's why it was created; for definition lines and etymologies. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem banning it in headers. Keep.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I've come across entries using {{present participle of}} or {{past participle of}} in etymologies. By way of hypothetical example, interesting:

==English==

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

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

# ...

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

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

I support banning this from headers. —Ruakh_TALK 20:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mglovesfun. But I would not use in definition lines (or only when this is the best possible definition). The abbreviation character is something of an etymological nature. Lmaltier (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What's so bad about using it in headers...oppose. :p 50 Xylophone Players talk 18:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:transliteration

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

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

April 2011

Category:Tatar Romanized Phonetic

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

They also all fail CFI. Tatar is written in Cyrillic, and no other script. -- Prince Kassad 14:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

w:Tatar language disagrees (I assume you know this already). However I tried some Romanized Tatar words in Google Books and found absolutely nothing. According to Atitarev above, Romanization is only used on Internet chat and similar, so many of the words may be unattested. Oh, and we have one Arabic script Tatar word. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Goth2img

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

See #Template:t2i above. -- Prince Kassad 18:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I would assume if its parent template is deleted, it would go too. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

But that discussion isn't really going anywhere, and this has a much higher chance of succeeding. —CodeCat 18:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It might if you commented on it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep, irritatingly so, because t2i has passed. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:scn-adj-h

Template:scn-adj-n

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

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

Appendix:Persian given names

Appendix:Persian given names (2)

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

delete -- Prince Kassad 22:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

keep The content is usable, it just needs transliterating. —CodeCat 23:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Which is impossible, as the spellings given here are Englishized. It would require a complete rewrite, and a deletion is easier for doing that. -- Prince Kassad 08:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, hypothetically if I wanted to rewrite an English appendix on the Persian Wiktionary which was written entirely in Persian, I'd sooner blank the content and start from scratch than transliterate a few hundred (maybe a thousand?) given names. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

We would need to know if this list would be any use to someone (bless him) planning to add Persian names. The original initial letters are listed at least. Most transliterations of Persian names would probably meet the CFI. Appendix:Armenian given names and Appendix:Greek given names are also in wrong script. The two Persian ones are almost duplicates so one of them should certainly be deleted.--Makaokalani 16:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Like I've said above, for the Greek appendix I'd either move that to Appendix:Romanizations of Greek given names or just delete it to make way for an actual appendix. Since we have Category:Greek given names such an appendix could be created, and unlike Persian I could probably do it. And if I do (at some point) I'd sooner blank the whole page and start again than convert the Latin words to Greek ones. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what I've now done for Greek given names, hopefully, demonstrating the point I've made above. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:ladecl3

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

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

Slovak templates

Template:žena

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

I am about to support deletion, but I want to confirm that I have understood the reason for deletion. It seems that you are saying this: "The templates should be deleted, because they are now redundant to template:sk-noun; what they do can now be achieved with template:sk-noun". Is that right? The entry "kalamár" now uses {{stroj}}; can you replace the template in "kalamár" entry, so I can see in the revision history of "kalamár" what sort of formatting update you are proposing? --Dan Polansky 09:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well not everything can (or even should) go in sk-noun, there should be more use of {{sk-decl-noun}} and I don't know who will do that. Perhaps just by using {{rfinfl|lang=sk}}. Oh and see kalamár. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete all; thank you for the example in "kalamár" (diff). Note that "Template:sk-decl-chlap" is just a renamed "Template:chlap" and that "Template:sk-dub" is just a renamed "template:dub", so each of the templates nominated for deletion was only intended by their creator to link to a declension appendix rather than showing a declension table, a function that is now indeed fulfilled by the headword-line template {{sk-noun}}. Cool! --Dan Polansky 11:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

All have failed, it will take a bit of time to delete them all. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Note to self, finish off the last three. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:ws refer

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

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

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

Here is how the template's use looks like:

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

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

• See also Wikisaurus:wealthy

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

• rich, wealthy, affluent; see also Wikisaurus:wealthy

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

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

Delete, overuse of templates to replace simple functions. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete. —Ruakh_TALK 18:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikisaurus:Aldebaran

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

Notably, existing entries for names of stars that include Greek letters include Zeta Geminorum, Beta Lyrae, Epsilon Pegasi and Alpha Centauri A. Most names of stars with that particular characteristic are not defined on Wiktionary. My last example is from 2009; the others are from 2010. Reasons to keep such entries may include displaying their characteristics, such as the fact that Gamma Arietis is actually three stars. --Daniel. 03:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The only problem I can see is it's rather narrow as a thesaurus topic. But it seems to me the links would meet CFI, I don't see them as sum of parts or not dictionary material. And to nit-pick a little, you don't need a community consensus to create an entry, if so we'd being doing well if we created even one entry a day. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-sum-of-partness in proper names has not been taken to be a condition sufficient for inclusion, or else you would want to have "Albert Einstein". --Dan Polansky 10:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

One very common argument pro-deletion of names like "Albert Einstein" is calling them sum-of-parts of a given name and a surname. In this case: "Albert" + "Einstein". --Daniel. 10:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

IMO I've already covered this (Dan P's argument) above. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

All that I am saying is that, unless we want to include all names of artistic works including novels in Wiktionary, we cannot allow attestation combined with semantic non-sum-of-partness as a sufficient criterion for inclusion. I do not see that you have covered this in anyway, or how you have dealth with the exclusion of "Albert Einstein" that I have pointed out, an exclusion that follows from a recent vote. The names of the form "Alpha Centauri" show a similar combinatorial freedom as "Albert Einstein". --Dan Polansky 11:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The terms "Albert Einstein", "Albert" and "Einstein" are synonymous in the context of referring to one person (or more people), and all of them can be used alone while making sense, so it's easier to claim that the first is a sum of parts. The terms "Alpha" and "Centauri" are not exactly synonymous with "Alpha Centauri" and cannot be used alone while making sense, so it's easier to claim that the last isn't a sum of parts. --Daniel. 11:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is the route to go down to get this entry deleted. It feels like assuming the invalidity of the aforementioned entries before they are even created, which is more or less the opposite of how we actually do it, that is, an entry is valid until it fails RFD or RFV. Anyway, the question for me is what limits are there on Wikisaurus entries? It's certainly best suited to topics usually covered by thesauri like "happy", "sad" etc. --Mglovesfun (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The redlinks are only one reason for this RFD. If "Alpha Tauri", "α Tauri", and "87 Tauri" are seen as significant synonyms that call for a dedicated thesaurus page, Wikisaurus will be flooded with pages for names of stars, in spite of names of stars being a borderline thesaurus (AKA word finder) content. If, for example, "Alpha Tauri" is only included in some holonym page such as Wikisaurus:Taurus (where it already is), the number of Wikisaurus pages devoted to stars becomes reasonably low. Wikisaurus:Taurus is a reasonably small page right now, and can comfortably host various synonyms of the star names as further meronyms. --Dan Polansky 07:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If someone were to create the red links as full English entries, would you nominate them for RFD? And (ok, very hypothetical now) if they were to pass, would you still want this page deleted? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

If someone created entries for "Alpha Tauri", "α Tauri", and "87 Tauri", I would have one reason less to get Wikisaurus:Aldebaran deleted, but I would try to get Wikisaurus:Aldebaran deleted nontheless. I do not know whether I would nominate the mentioned mainspace entries. --Dan Polansky 07:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete as too narrow a WS topic anyway.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Three

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

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

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

It's a really weird category containing many things. Things that are etymologically related to three, often via Proto-Indo-European, or things involving three 'things'. My instinct is delete as it's no use to anybody. Interesting perhaps, but we do seem to forget that categories are supposed to be useful for our users and just come up with fanciful things to please ourselves. So delete and let's think about Wiktionary users more often. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. The category seems to contain terms whose definition involves three or threeness in some way, as dactyl--"A poetical foot of three syllables (— ~ ~), one long followed by two short, or one accented followed by two unaccented." The terms do not really seem to be included by etymology: the terms that start with "tri-" naturally also semantically contain the number 3 as long as the etymology follows the semantics at least a bit. I find the category actually quite interesting, but I admit its selection criteria are unlike those of most topical categories. For the record, here is the content of the category: 3-D, 3D, dactyl, hattrick, hattrick, lovetriangle, ménageàtrois, samisen, shamisen, teapoy, ter-, terce, ternary, third, thirteen, thirty, three, three-space, threefold, threeish, threeness, threepence, threesome, thrice, thruppence, tierce, TLA, treble, trefoil, trefot, tri-, triad, triangle, triannual, triathlete, triathlon, tribrach, tricolon, tricolor, tricolour, tricorn, tricorne, tricycle, trident, tridentate, triennial, trifecta, trifunctional, trifurcation, trigamy, trigon, trihedron, trilemma, triliteral, trillion, trilogy, trimester, trimetallic, trimeter, trinary, trinity, trio, tripartite, triphthong, triple, triplet, triplex, triplicate, tripod, triptote, triptych, triquetra, trireme, triskelion, tristate, trisulphide, trisyllabic, trisyllable, trit, tritactic, triumvirate, trivalent, troika. The category was created on 8 September 2009 by PalkiaX50. Category:One, Category:Two, Category:Four and Category:Five, which are similar categories, were all created by Facts707 on 13 February 2010; each of them contains only a few items. --Dan Polansky 13:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

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

• Keep, the category is useful, I don't get where Mglovesfun is coming from at all. A friend of mine wanted to know a word for "to reduce to one third the original amount". I sent him a link to this category and hopefully what his looking for is in there. Bbx 10:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this is potentially useful. I agree it is a weird mish-mash of etymological and semantic threes! Equinox ◑ 10:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Kept for no consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

May 2011

Template:alternative form bot

Template:alternative capitalization bot

Template:alternative spelling bot

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

I've seen Visviva use them. That's it. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The choice of name is a complete mystery to me, however. Something like {{new en alternative form}} would be ok, IMO. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:copyvio suspected

Template:copyvio1

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

Certainly delete the second one as redundant. I seem to think we already have another copyright violation template that passed RFD in 2010. At worst, let's merge 'em into one template. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The one that passed is rndc.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The "copyvio suspected" template does not request deletion.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep per Msh210. --Bequw → τ 18:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Passed. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:archaic past of

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

Replacing it with that might make the 'archaic' category almost useless if there are many verbs with an archaic past form. —CodeCat 20:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Useless for having too many entries in it, you mean? Well maybe, do we also want {{archaic plural of}}, {{archaic present participle of}} et al.? Note, this is unused but there most be some out there; mist for missed, past for passed, for example. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

We could also add an extra parameter archaic=1 to those templates. —CodeCat 12:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Do we really want to increase dependence on a small number of templates? We could use less-transcluded templates for experimenting with changes. For user-response testing, it might even be appropriate to have multiple versions of the most widely transcluded templates covering, say, 1%, 5%, 20%, 74% of the total uses of the original template. DCDuring TALK 16:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:proper noun

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

It's not actually a context template. IMO check uses. It's used as a context template; most of those can doubtless be orphaned, probably all; if any can't then I suppose keep. If there's other use, perhaps keep depending on what that use is. Otherwise delete.—msh210℠ on a public computer 14:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it predates {{context}} which is why it isn't formatted as a context label. I suspect it should be replaced with {{qualifier|proper noun}} or just removed in some cases. I will however, look into it before saying delete. A lot of the transclusions seem to be not in the main namespace. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete, I've removed the obvious misuses, including one typo ({{proper noun}} instead of {{en-proper noun}}). For entries like PDF I separate the entry by part of speech, as opposed to 'Initialism' with the part of speech being given in a context label. The two remaining entries in the main namespace are curl and terra. For terra, it claims that it's a capitalized proper noun Terra so I should move it there, I just think it might not be capitalized in the given sense. For curl, it's a bit beyond me. Again, if the label is to be believed, there is a proper noun 'curl'. Though, I don't think it is. The transclusions in the appendix namespace are all {{context|proper noun}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:anim

Template:inanim

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

It could be used for languages that use animate vs. inanimate, as opposed to masculine/feminine/neuter/common. Even though it is not used now, it may get used in the future. -- Prince Kassad 15:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The 'poor formatting' is the same used for {{m}}, {{f}}, {{n}}, {{c}} et al. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:sectstub

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

I'm pretty sure this isn't actually supposed to be used in entries. It can be useful in appendices, help pages, and project pages. --Yair rand 01:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It's used by the preload templates like {{new en noun}}. For this reason, it can be handy for finding newbie mistakes, even if it's not intended that way. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

keep useful for Appendices. -- Liliana • 19:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

keep per Liliana-60. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Persian colloquial verbs

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

(Why do people insist on nominating shit for deletion before asking these questions?) There are a pretty considerable number of verbs in Persian that are simply pronounced differently than they are written. The changes seem to be pretty regular, and this category is rather useful for finding them, especially if you don't feel like searching Category:Persian colloquialisms for words that end in -dan and -tan. Keep. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 13:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You can use CatScan to search for verbs that are both in Category:Persian verbs and Category:Persian colloquialisms. -- Prince Kassad 14:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of it and you're expecting an average user to be using it? Right. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 16:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That is a defect that could be easily resolved. -- Prince Kassad 23:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding CodeCat's initial question, I think Dick, your answer seems to be 'no, there is nothing special about these verbs'. If that isn't your answer, please clarify. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No, this category would be quite useful for new and intermediate learners of Persian. The number of verbs with colloquial forms, which can differ quite radically from the literary forms, is not insignificant. The situation isn't the same as in English, or French, or Russian, or really any other language I can think of. I'm going to copypaste Dijan's message from his talk page here. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 14:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The bolding is my own, now his :D — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 14:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep the category, or list the verbs in an appendix. - -sche (discuss) 16:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Gay slang by language

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

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

And Category:Military slang by language, and I don't think gay is in itself pejorative, just it can be used pejoratively. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

On what planet is "gay" a pejorative? To five year-old school boys, perhaps... As for "homosexual" it is distinctly old-fashioned and totally uninclusive. I would have opted for "queer" but I think we already cover this category at Category:LGBT. ---> Tooironic 00:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we really cover this at Category:LGBT, in that one is a lexical category (containing slang terms used particularly among LGBT folk) and one is a topical category (containing terms relating to LGBT). There's a lot of overlap, of course — in many languages, most LGBT slang is going to be LGBT-related, since that is what queerfolk will have most needed to coin slang for — but I think it's worth keeping both categories. —Ruakh_TALK 01:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a gay man, I am offended at the notion that "gay" is pejorative! (That's just me, of course. I'm certain that there exist gays who feel differently; but for what it's worth, my impression is that my view is typical.) Personally, I find "homosexual" O.K. in many contexts, but only in reference to homosexuality proper, not to cultural accessories: in 2011, I find "homosexual slang" awkward at best. However, I have to disagree with Tooironic's preference for "queer": it's an offensive-but-reclaimed term, which means that (for me at least) it only really works in the mouth of someone with perceived in-group status. But "LGBT", as (s)he suggests, seems fine to me. —Ruakh_TALK 01:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I too don't think of "gay" as a pejorative word; and I too believe this view is typical. Category:English gay slang is fine (in my opinion). If you guys are going to consider a long and awkward name, then you should note that Category:English homosexual slang is not the most accurate choice. It would be Category:English nonheterosexual slang. --Daniel. 04:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

How is "nonheterosexual" more accurate than "homosexual"? As a substitute for "gay", it seems — if anything — less accurate, since "gay" is arguably narrower than "homosexual" (lesbians are clearly homosexual, but often not considered "gay"), whereas "nonheterosexual" is clearly broader (since it includes also bisexuals and perhaps asexuals). As I noted, "LGBT" — which is broader yet — seems fine to me, but I don't see how we can describe one or another name as more "accurate", since the name itself will determine the content of the categories! —Ruakh_TALK 23:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer to call it LGBT slang, because it encompasses the broadest possible sense. Gay slang, even if it refers to men and women, still leaves out transgenders and (probably) bisexuals. —CodeCat 23:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say keep this one, cuz the gay men have... metric tons of slang. Even if this category were made to include slang of lesbians and transexuals and everyone else in the queerworld, it'd probably be dominated by the slang of the gay men. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent —

Keep but I prefer LGBT slang as well; the fact that it would be 'dominated' by gay slang doesn't seem to be a problem to me. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:wikipedia article

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

Keep if you want this old abandoned project to be continued. The idea, if I remember correctly, was controlling the Wikipedia article linked from each language category by means of (again) a big switch function, like {{wiktionary edition}} does for Wiktionary editions. Then, Category:English language would link to w:English language because it is the default value anyway, while Category:Norwegian Nynorsk language would instead link to w:Nynorsk (not to "Norwegian Nynorsk language"). --Daniel. 08:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I get it, but I'm not sure it's needed. w:Latin language redirects to Latin, so the Wiktionary Category:Latin language doesn't need any modification; it just follows the redirect. Same for w:Norwegian Nynorsk language. Unless there is an example where the redirect doesn't work, why keep it? --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I remember only one example: Category:Gutnish language and w:Gutnish language. --Daniel. 05:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Going back to the original question, how would this be used? --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Appendix:Greek script

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

If you distinguish {{el}} (Greek language) from {{Grek}} (Greek script), I suppose you could make a case that they aren't identical. But I'd keep the redirect until (if?) it's replaced by something else. Seems like an entirely reasonable use of a redirect to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep per Mglovesfun. I suggest eventually replacing that redirect by a full language-independent appendix, per Yair. --Daniel 23:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps for a hardened Wiktionary veteran, there's a clear difference between Greek script and Greek alphabet, but I don't think most users would view it that way. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Keep: I've seen people writing things like "an user" before. People make mistakes. An appendix is not the best place to list all words that fit the category. However, if possible, shorten the name of the category. --Daniel 23:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

And the fact that the vowel is written doesn't really help, because it would mean most words beginning with u- could be added to the category. —CodeCat 23:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Or, failing that, rename. What these words have in common (together with all words in <u-> /ju/ and <eu-> /ju/) is that they start with a vowel letter and a consonant sound. If the category name reflected that, it might be worth keeping. Maybe. —Ruakh_TALK 23:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If the category name reflected that, however, it could include the entries "users" (a plural) and "using" (a verb form). The current category name doesn't allow both words. --Daniel 23:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

google books:"a users' guide", "a using statement". —Ruakh_TALK 00:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, right. :p Point taken. --Daniel 00:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• I can imagine this being useful, if only a) the category name was shortened and b) we came up with a sister category for words like hour, honour, etc., which, although start with consonants, should be preceded with "an" because the initial sound is like a vowel. ---> Tooironic 00:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

We should cover this somehow, and a category seems more logical than appendices. Appendices usually end up with very few incoming links. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep the content, either as a list in an appendix or as a category full of entries. - -sche (discuss) 02:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete. This category doesn't highlight any special exception in the English language. I think that people should know in general that words beginning in /j/ take "a", rather than having a category of words that are perfectly regular. More usage examples in the entries saying "a user" or whatever would help people get a more intuitive understanding. Additionally, categories are in general supposed to be comprehensive and I'm not so sure I would want this category to appear on thousands of pages. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 04:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Convert to an Appendix and link it from a Usage Notes section of relevant words. --EncycloPetey 14:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope one day in the future we can replace any such categories with phonetic searches using pronunciation data, but that's probably some way off. Equinox ◑ 14:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Also create an Appendix and make a cleanup list to encourage insertion of the usage note linking to the Appendix. (Ie, I support EP's idea.) I have seen no evidence that a category name that may appear several screens below the landing screen is of any use to actual human users of Wiktionary. Even if it appears on the same screen, do we really believe that users look to categories for usage warnings? DCDuring TALK 14:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:zh-cn

Template:zh-tw

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

Delete, you are correct, as well as {{Hani}} for CJKV characters we have {{Hans}} and {{Hant}}. There is no way to use these nominated templates that I am aware of. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly delete. We have the good old distinction between language codes and script codes. These anomalies ("zh-cn" and "zh-tw", that look like language codes but are used to choose scripts) should be terminated. --Daniel 20:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the best way is to orphan them? —CodeCat 20:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, no. Persistence, mainly. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Would a search-and-replace from lang=zh-cn to lang=cmn|sc=Hans work at all? —CodeCat 20:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It makes the assumption that zh refers to Mandarin, but {{zh}} currently displays Mandarin already. There are some translations, see abort (permanent link). It seems logical to convert this to

* Chinese
*: Mandarin: {{t|cmn|$1|sc=Hant}}

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

I would rather automate as many of the fixes as possible first, so that we can more easily pick out the entries that need to be fixed manually later. —CodeCat 21:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

There is another issue as well. Even if we deprecate and delete the templates, there are still lots of topical categories using the codes as a prefix: Category:zh-cn:All topics and Category:zh-tw:All topics. I'm not sure what to do with those. Should we merge them into the cmn: categories, or something else? I don't think {{topic cat}} currently supports script subcategories. —CodeCat 21:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, they will be deleted when they are empty! Seems that most of the uses refer to Mandarin, so changing them to lang=cmn might work. I think there's a way to detect section headers thet Yair rand mentioned on the Beer Parlour. If that's the case it would be relatively easy to do them all. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that when I add sc=Hant to a category boilerplate template, it says the category should be named '...in Traditional Han script', while it should be '...in traditional script' I think? How do I fix that? —CodeCat 17:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you tell us which one? It certainly seems to be like what you're trying to do ought to be possible. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There are a few categories in Category:Categories needing attention. —CodeCat 19:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand the logic behind deprecating zh-cn and zh-tw. However, an adequate replacement solution still needs to be worked out. For example, in the entry 南郡, we have {{archaic}} setting lang to equal "zh-tw". From what I can tell, your objection above is that the current scheme confuses an orthography for a language. In order to implement your solution, all {{context}} templates would have to be altered to include an "sc" so that one could do something like {{archaic|lang=cmn|sc=hant|skey=十07}}. The resulting natural language category would be Category:Mandarin archaic terms in traditional script. Additionally, the entry also contains a manual category: Category:Simplified Chinese archaic terms, which would need to be changed to Category:Mandarin archaic terms in simplified script. What about pinyin entries? Should those be Category:Mandarin archaic terms in pinyin script, or should we simply use Category:Mandarin archaic terms for pinyin entries? -- A-cai 00:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in Mandarin, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Pinyin is a romanization system, not a script, and it uses the Latin script. So the name Category:Mandarin archaic terms in Latin script would be more accurate than Category:Mandarin archaic terms in pinyin script. --Daniel 00:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Point well taken. I personally favor having a category called Category:Mandarin archaic terms that defaults to Pinyin spelling. That would avoid such terminological difficulties. -- A-cai 11:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

A certain amount of "terminological difficulties" already exist since the division between scripts was implemented. By having Category:Mandarin nouns in simplified script, Category:Mandarin nouns in traditional script and Category:Mandarin nouns, we require people to understand what are "Mandarin", "noun", "traditional" and "simplified" for the best experience in navigating them all.

Understanding them is not difficult at all: "Mandarin" and "noun" are basic words in English, and "traditional script" can be inferred to be a writing system. In addition, a person who knows Mandarin enough to want to navigate our Mandarin categories should reasonably know the differences of scripts.

On the other hand, if, hypothetically, our public is comprised of people who don't know how to discern scripts, or don't notice the separate categories for scripts, and we don't create Category:Mandarin nouns in Latin script, then people will only see the Latin script entries in Category:Mandarin nouns, thus possibly having the impression that entries in simplified/traditional script are absent. I don't think we should emphasize pinyin entries that way. --Daniel 12:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep, I think. CodeCat is right, of course, that this is not a linguistic difference, but merely an orthographic one; but since we're a written resource, orthography takes on a greater importance here than ideally it would. Our entries for terms are actually, on a lower level, entries for spellings; our categories of terms are actually, on a lower level, categories of spellings. Given that, I think it makes some sense to keep separate categories for Simplified and Traditional; a person looking through a Mandarin category is not interested in Mandarin-words-regardless-of-script, but Mandarin-words-in-the-script-that-they-know. And that means keeping separate language templates. (I don't actually feel very strongly about this; but if it's to be changed, I think it should be changed because the Chinese-language contributors have decided at Wiktionary:About Chinese languages to change it, not because of a general discussion among people with no stake in it.) —Ruakh_TALK 02:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I too support the old proposal of separating between categories of simplified and traditional scripts for Mandarin and a number of other languages. Naturally, I oppose the suggestion of merging them into category without any distinction of scripts.

I appreciate the simultaneous existence of Category:Mandarin nouns in simplified script and Category:Mandarin nouns in traditional script, and I certainly don't want a mere Category:Mandarin nouns without any subdivision for scripts.

However, the codes "zh-cn" and "zh-tw" are redundant and superfluous. We can certainly keep the distinction between categories of different scripts, without having to use these codes. We already have good script codes from ISO to replace them:

• Traditional Han script is "Hant", so "zh-tw" is unnecessary.
• Simplified Han script is "Hans", so "zh-cn" is unnecessary.

The codes to be deprecated (zh-tw and zh-cn), and their templates to be deleted (Template:zh-cn and Template:zh-tw) are formatted as language codes, not script codes, and are relics from a time when Category:Simplified Chinese language and Category:Traditional Chinese language existed. These deprecations and deletions are a step closer to a more consistent, logical and intuitive system. --Daniel 03:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

In looking at the {{context}} template, it seems that it would need to be modified so that if you have something like {{archaic|lang=cmn|script=hant|skey=十07}}, the category would say Category:Mandarin archaic terms in Simplified Han script (based on the current wording in the {{script}} template). -- A-cai 12:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

A-Cai, it's unclear whether you support the idea of having "Category:Mandarin archaic terms in Simplified Han script" instead of "Category:Mandarin archaic terms in simplified script". Do you have an opinion about it?

I, personally, prefer the latter for consistency with Category:Simplified Han script. --Daniel 12:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have strong preference. I was merely using the wording currently found in the {{script}} template. I'm not sure if there would be any ill effects from removing "Han" from the template. -- A-cai 22:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem (well, issue) is that we don't allow Chinese as a language, but these categorize as 'Simplified Chinese' and 'Traditional Chinese' - they don't categorize in the same language as the section headers and other templates! Furthermore they categorize in a rejected language name. I think we should keep our current system of […] in simplified script. I don't think these templates can fit this system. Perhaps if they displayed 'Mandarin in simplified script' they would fit in, but no other Chinese languages could then use them. It seems to be to be at least possible that {{context}} would allow {{#ifeq:{{{sc}}}|Hans|[[Category:{{{lang|en|l=}} {{{cat}}} in simplified script]]}}. That's not exactly right; I'm just saying it's possible, not how to do it. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

They have been also categorizing as "zh-cn" and "zh-tw" for ages. Just see Category:zh-cn:Anatomy, which is actually described as "The following is a list of Simplified Chinese terms related to anatomy." --Daniel 00:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There's the possibility, I suppose of {{cmn-Hans}} and {{cmn-Hant}} if we really wanted to. I'd prefer just allow script parameters in {{context}} though. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

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

I think it would be best to consider what to name the final categories. The vote mentions adding 'in traditional script' and 'in simplified script', but many of the existing templates accept only script codes, which would create 'in Traditional Han script' and 'in Simplified Han script' instead. —CodeCat 21:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought of one more thing that might make a lot of sense. The codes hant and hans describe traditional and simplified scripts, respectively. However, one could argue that there is actually a third category, which is both. It might make sense to have an additional code, such as hants or simply han, meaning that the word is identical in both scripts. An example would be 明公. If a context template is added to the entry with the "both" option, the word would be added to both the traditional and the simplified category in question. -- A-cai 12:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

sc=Hani? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Template:alcohol

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

Maybe move it to {{alcoholic drink}}? —CodeCat 13:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Would that be Category:Alcoholic beverages or Category:Cocktails? I would rather suggest a move to {{drinking}} (Category:Drinking).--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 14:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

But drinking could mean drinking in general, not specifically alcoholic. —CodeCat 13:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What exactly might be categorized under "drinking in generel"? I don't see any real ambiguity, but then again, I didn't see any reason for this template in the first place.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 12:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:del

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

Appendix:Etymology/escalator

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

WT:BP#Huge etymologies indicates that the text from Appendix:Etymology/escalator should be in the entry escalator, rather than on a separate page.

Such a move would, however, introduce a few nonstandard headers, such as "Name development and original intentions". --Daniel 16:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason why "wikitext should be hosted in one place, not several". Not all transwikied entries are deleted from the original location. If the information is correct and relevant, keep it wherever it is found. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Just keep, in the absence of convincing reasons to do otherwise. I already explained to Hydrox months ago that hosting wikitext in multiple places is not a bad thing, but (s)he created this RFDO anyway, so apparently (s)he just needed some second opinions. --Daniel 10:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Appendix:Star Trek/beaming up

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

I don't know where you got "by the creator" from, but we did vote that this is not to be the standard format for appendices. --Yair rand 01:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought that was one of our good-citizenship norms. If not, it should be. I try to clean up any systematic messes of mine. DCDuring TALK 02:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Or you could merge the subpages of Appendix:Star Trek yourself. --Daniel 08:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

These entries got confused when Daniel Carrero moved them into the appendix namespace; Ruakh move beam up back into the main namespace but didn't move the three inflected forms back, which I have just done now. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Well, thanks for fixing it. :-)   —Ruakh_TALK 00:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

But what about all the other ones?

• Appendix:Star Trek/beam up
• Appendix:Star Trek/Borg
• Appendix:Star Trek/dilithium
• Appendix:Star Trek/Klingon
• Appendix:Star Trek/Klingonese
• Appendix:Star Trek/phaser
• Appendix:Star Trek/redshirt
• Appendix:Star Trek/Starfleet
• Appendix:Star Trek/Star Trek
• Appendix:Star Trek/transporter
• Appendix:Star Trek/Trekker
• Appendix:Star Trek/Trekkie
• Appendix:Star Trek/USS
• Appendix:Star Trek/Vulcan
• Appendix:Star Trek/Klingon#French

-- DCDuring TALK 01:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

And other detritus of the fictional universes (incompletely categorized, so a bit hard to find. DCDuring TALK 01:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The real problem is that some of these will meet CFI! Daniel C moved a lot of terms originating in fictional universes without checking that they might meet CFI, which is a bit dubious, and I'd have thought contrary to his interests anyway. For example transporter is used in more than one franchise, isn't it? --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The way transporter was defined[1], it looked like a term used only in context of Star Trek. Either just removing the "star trek" context label, or moving the whole sense to an appendix, or both, would be good ways to improve the entry. Accuracy is in line with my interests. --Daniel 00:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

DCDuring, knowing what are the unconverted appendices is not so difficult: you could just have asked me. These would be the children of Appendix:Pokémon, Appendix:Star Trek, Appendix:Star Wars, Appendix:Chip's Challenge, Appendix:Harry Potter, Appendix:J. R. R. Tolkien, Appendix:The Simpsons, Appendix:Farscape and Appendix:Brave New World.

Good examples of already converted appendices are Appendix:Haruhi Suzumiya, Appendix:DC Comics and Appendix:The Legend of Zelda. --Daniel 00:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Policies and guidelines

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

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

Category:English male given names from India

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

See Wiktionary:About given names and surnames#Categories. I don't qualify to categorize these names by original language, and they should be stored somewhere. Also it's reasonable to group together the names of India, because they really could also be called transliterations. It wasn't meant as an encouragement for creating similar categories. It did bother me when an anon created Category:English male given names from Pakistan, obviously incensed that Urdu would be called an Indian language. Since the modern trend is to make category names as long and complicated as possible, here are some suggestions for a better name:

• Category:English male given names from the languages of the Indian subcontinent
• Category:English male given names from the languages of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka
• Category:English male given names that look like they might be transliterations from languages spoken in the former British India where English is one of the official languages.

Or should names from unkown and rare languages be kept permanently outside subcategories? I'd like to see as few subcategories as possible. I think a subcategory should have at least 10-20 members, so there are no categories for names from Provençal (Eleanor), Basque (Xavier), Akan (Kwame), Tahitian (Tehanu), Hawaiian (Leilani) even though they are borne by Anglophones. Category:English male given names from Yoruba is madness. What about putting all the rare languages in Category:English male given names from unkonwn or rare languages? Or more exacly, from languages that are rare as origins of English names... Alternatively rare languages could be grouped together: "languages of Africa", "languages of Polynesia" etc. --Makaokalani 13:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Inflection-table templates

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

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

July 2011

Category:Entries with audio examples

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

I quite like the idea, to be populated by {{audio}} when lang is given, see Category:Mandarin entries with audio links. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hypothetically, one could use this, together with a list of common terms or terms that have some kind of pronunciation difficulty, and, say, CatScan, to produce a list of terms that need pronunciations. Obviously there are other ways to achieve a similar result, such as having a bot identify terms that might warrant an rfap. DCDuring TALK 15:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a category containing entries with audio pronunciations, it's a category containing entries with audio examples, such as evil laugh and bark. It's a duplicate of Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:listen. --Yair rand 15:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I rescind my previous statement. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Template:etyl:ber-tam

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

I can't discern any difference. delete -- Liliana • 14:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I seem to think I created this because it was used in an entry, not because of any personal desire for the template. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like [[Tamazight]] had "Tamazight", and you formatted it to use {{etyl:ber-tam}}, which you created at the same time. —Ruakh_TALK 14:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, as I couldn't find a code for Tamazight, I have no idea if Berber and Tamazight are effectively the same thing. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:en:Taxonomic names

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

The discussion is already ongoing above at #Category:Taxonomic names as to what to do. The question to be resolved is: Do we use Category:Taxonomic names for all of these (my own preference too) or Category:mul:Taxonomic names or Category:Translingual taxonomic names, each of which implies that these are possible in other languages. I've determined that most of the problem was in the implementation of {{taxon}}, which categorizes based on an imcluded language parameter and apparently defaults to English. I've made an edit specifying "lang=mul" to at least empty the "en:" category of all but a fraction of the entries, but we still need to decide where we want all of these entries to end up. --EncycloPetey 05:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: It is also possible that there are some pre-Code obsolete taxonomic names that never existed outside of English. See (deprecated template usage) Quadrumana for a possible instance. --EncycloPetey 05:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I forgot about the ongoing discussion. Thanks.

I also prefer Category:Taxonomic names for the main home for these. I'll keep my eye out for the ones like (deprecated template usage) Quadrumana. Even those older terms were Latinate, were they not, and intended to be useful internatonally? Should they not be treated as also Translingual? DCDuring TALK 06:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

We have used "Translingual" to mean that a term is used identically across a wide range of (often unrelated) languages; see for example the citations I added to (deprecated template usage) sensu stricto. So, I would call a word "Translingual" unless it actually can be shown as used in multiple languages. Intention of use isn't really documentable in a case like Quadrumana, as this name was used pre-Code. Once the international Codes came into acceptance, then it becomes clearer because authors are bickering about satifying international agreement requirements for publication. However, if Quadrumana can be documented to languages like Swedish and Russian, then I think calling it "Translingual" makes sense. --EncycloPetey 17:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

Category:en:Superheroes

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

So, you're proposing we delete the English category, but keep the ones in all the other languages? Or what? --EncycloPetey 08:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Wiktionary:Frequency lists/Contemporary poetry

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

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

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

Perhaps, but cryptanalysis is out of our scope. I don't object to someone putting it on their blog or something. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Does not some degree of frequency data fall under our purview? I would worry most about the fact that there's no evidence on how it's been compiled.--Prosfilaes 23:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't oppose Wiktionary:Frequency lists, quite the opposite, I've used them myself, I oppose this particular list for the reasons stated above (both by me and by other users). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep it. Certainly I would be happier with some information on where this list came from. However, I have made use of it, and others may do so. There are significant differences between how English is used in verse from how it is used in prose, and an indication of frequencies in the former has been useful to me in a project I am working on. It would be better still if I knew a little more about how the 511,000 words of contemporary poetry used were collected, but limited knowledge in that area does not by any means make the list unusable. The nomination says "I don't see how this can achieve anything", and "what does this page achieve, and for who?" However, apart from the fact that it has achieved something for me, even if it didn't, would there be any harm in keeping it here? The number of people for whom it achieves something may be very small, or it may not, but it is not zero. Anyway, even if it were zero there would be no harm in keeping it. What advantage would be achieved by deleting it? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It might have been a courtesy to have informed the author of the page of this discussion. I have now done so. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - and I will only support deletion if it turns out to be a copyvio (which I suspect it may be). --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 13:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. I am voting keep on my own article. The nominator asked, "Since we have all 2000 words, what does this page achieve, and for who?" This is based on the false supposition that the only purpose for these frequency lists is to see what words Wiktionary doesn't already have. People use word frequency lists for a wide variety of purposes. Teaching poets and writers to spell the most common words makes this a useful pedagogical tool (see also Wiktionary:Frequency lists/Contemporary fiction. This is the purpose I had in mind. As to how this was compiled, I went around the Internet -- sites like FictionPress.com and other places where poems were hosted. Two of the biggest contributors were 4degreez.com/4thkingdom.com and a high school creative writing class website that I can now no longer find. Once I reached over 500,000 words, I used Mike Scott's WordSmith software, including a lemma list, and produced this list. Jeremy Jigglypuff Jones (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

"People use word frequency lists for a wide variety of purposes" yeah but that's not a reason for Wiktionary to have it. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:of a person

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

Apparently created to get it off of Special:WantedTemplates. Not a good enough reason IMO, delete. No opinion —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 18:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC) 19:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If that's true, it should never have been made. The way {{context}} works, it will always put stuff on that list. Delete in favor of using {{of a|person}}.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The main reason to create any {{context}} template is to categorize, as in terms of displaying text, context does this well already. Any context template that doesn't categorize simply saves eight keystrokes - {{of a person}} instead of {{context|of a person}}. But deleting them probably doesn't achieve much, if anything. For example would we get rid of {{figuratively}} or {{transitive}}. Similarly, {{of a|person}} achieves the same thing; it saves a few keystrokes with no other advantages, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete. I think "Of a person," should be a part of the definition rather than being marked as a context. --Dan Polansky 09:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Category:Inflection-table templates by language with subcategories

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

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

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

Some inflection-table categories have direct members. --Yair rand 20:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:Koongo language

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

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

Speedily deleted by Liliana-60. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Entries with redirects

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

No. It is a category for entries with redirects. Keep it. --Daniel 21:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Your ideas could become subcategories of it, though. --Daniel 21:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this category? You can always use Special:Listredirects. delete -- Liliana • 01:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

How would you populate it, anyway? What purpose does it serve? Delete, I think. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Korean terms derived from Proto-Korean

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

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

Template:arb

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

I think we use {{ar}} to mean {{arb}}, yes. I'm not certain. To rephrase it, how should {{ar}} and {{arb}} be used if they are kept as separate templates. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Arabic is a macrolanguage so it would refer to any Arabic variety, including standard Arabic. On the other hand we also have {{etyl:sem-arb}} for the Arabic language family. —CodeCat 12:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It's really a bit like having Mandarin, Chinese and Sinitic then, just even less clear! In which case we could use the same approach, ban {{ar}} using only {{arb}} for Arabic and sem-arb for the language family. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Template:makurakotoba

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

The only potential utility I see is the link through to the term (deprecated template usage) makurakotoba, but this is not very useful. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 05:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it gets even better -- the IP user who created {{makurakotoba}} never even added the (deprecated template usage) makurakotoba entry, but only linked through to w:Makurakotoba. Wow. Not very ... together. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 06:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it a context of sorts, or the sort of thing that should be in the definition itself? --Mglovesfun (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not terribly familiar with the term, but judging from the WP article, it's a sort of set phrase used as a lead-in for a specific something else, which can sometimes be used as a stand-in for that something. I can sort of see why someone thought it might be useful to have such a category, but I have no idea how many such terms there might be. Shogakukan's J-J dictionary goes into ancient poetic forms, making me think this isn't too common in the modern language (which might also help explain how I've missed hearing about these before now). -- HTH, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps analogous to {{simile}}? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a bit. Reading around on the term, it sounds more like cases where you've got a set intro, like, "there once was a man from Nantucket", that comes to represent the bit coming after -- in this case, just saying "a man from Nantucket" calls to mind ribald jokes, and I think this might be more the kind of association meant by (deprecated template usage) makurakotoba. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:stock symbol

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

Delete, correct. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:Museums

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

Category:National Parks and Monuments

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

Indifferent to keep, not really worse that [[Category:London]]. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Even if it's kept, it is still bad caps... -- Liliana • 18:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Sister projects

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

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

Remember to fix "what links here" things first. SemperBlotto 11:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Category:Closed votes

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

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

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

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

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

Category:en:Medical body positions

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

Can we fix the name?Acdcrocks 11:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, debate continues. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Principalities

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

And Wales is a country, or is there another Wales? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It used to be a principality w:Principality of Wales, and it still has a prince (w:Charles Windsor) - but I'm a republican —Saltmarsh^{talk-συζήτηση} 13:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

In the UK, the term "The Principality" (used in newspapers, radio and TV news) means Wales (just as "The Province" means Northern Ireland). But, yes, the category can be deleted. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Failed. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Konkan Standard language

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

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

Speedily deleted by Liliana-60. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Czech entries with audio links

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

Keep. From experience I can say that in the past I tried to search for entries with audio (because it would help me learn to pronounce fluently and remember the words), but failed. I can't imagine that I would be the only one. Such a category would have helped me much. So: When will all have audio? What about in the meantime? --JorisvS 10:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that you have searched for Czech entries with pronunciation and failed? Many common words already have pronunciation, imported from The Shtooka Project project, so randomly browsing common Czech words should get you a lot of words with pronunciation. See also Commons:Category:Czech pronunciation, which has 3,067 member files. --Dan Polansky 11:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Not so much Czech in particular, but in general. I am getting at this from a more general perspective. Nonetheless, I would appreciate an answer to the questions I've asked. As for Commons, strangely these files do not say they're being used here on Wiktionary even though they are(!). --JorisvS 10:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Your questions: Q: When will all [entries] have audio? A: I don't know. Ten years from now, there will probably still be many entries without an audiofile. Q: What about in the meantime? A: In the meantime: If a language has a significant number of audiofiles in Wiktionary, merely randomly browsing common words of the language gets you a lot of entries with audiofiles. If a language has a very small number of audiofiles in Wiktionary, the small set cannot be effectively used for language learning anyway, but even if you want to have a look at that set, you can look up the set of all audiofiles in Commons. On another note, in order to make it easier to find the Commons category from Wiktionary, {{langcatboiler}} used in language category pages such as Category:Czech language could be extended to link to the category for audiofiles in Commons. --Dan Polansky 08:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:etyl:nic-vco

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

I see it was deleted because it is hypothetical. We should also remove the hypothetical Category:Southwest Pama-Nyungan languages, in that case, and Category:Yok-Utian languages, and the Template:etyl:Penutian I created. (Also, what about the non-linguistic family Category:Papuan languages?) An alternative to deletion might be to indicate that the categories are hypothetical (Category:Papuan languages already indicates it is geographic). - -sche (discuss) 19:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Papuan is on RFD right now. Look above you... -- Liliana • 19:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Good, delete it (Category:Papuan languages), and delete the hypothetical families (only) after putting their contents into any narrower but real families like Category:Yura languages. - -sche (discuss) 19:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced and deleted Template:etyl:Penutian. - -sche (discuss)

Wiktionary:Languages needing improvement‎

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

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

Oh... looking at the title, I thought it meant that the language itself needs improvement. Y'know, like English, and spelling reform. (Kidding.) Anyway, yeah, delete unless someone presents a good argument for keeping or revamps the page so it lists what's most needed/wanted in each language (though even that should probably be on the "About language" pages, so maybe delete anyway).​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine this page will ever be terribly useful. On the other hand, while all languages may need clean up, some will need it more than others. In the same way that if an entry is tagged with {{rfc}} or {{rfc-sense}}, it doesn't imply that other terms/definitions not tagged don't need clean up, they just may need it less. So to be honest I just don't care. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please don't rush into deleting. This is a first attempt and the page is far from perfect. There is some interest in this and this could be made much more useful - especially in terms of showing the number of entries. What is important is to raise awareness about some languages being neglected or wanting skills. --Anatoli 00:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:script note

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

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

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

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

Though creator, I'm ambivalent towards its existence. The real question is what to do with the pre-existing messages which this template merely regularized (and if similar messages would be useful as well). --Bequw → τ 17:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not redundant as {{also}} doesn't allow any 'comments', it's a question of whether we should have any messages at all in these entries, I too am pretty ambivalent about it. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:mul:Botanical author abbreviations

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

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

Wikispecies has this very well covered- why duplicate? Chuck Entz (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a reference explaining the use of words; binomial author abbreviations in this sense are words, so we are explaining something etymological here. That said, perhaps these should be in an appendix. bd2412 T 00:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep, as they are conventional words (and their use is not obvious at all e.g. I was not aware until recently that Linnaeus is never used in botany, only L. is used). They are worth an entry as much as surnames. They are not entries dedicated to botanical authors, but entries dedicated to abbreviations used for botanical authors. The contents is not encyclopedic at all. Lmaltier (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:enm-timeline

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

{{timeline}} has since passed RFD. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

If we keep {{timeline}} there shouldn't be a reason to delete this. -- Liliana • 22:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Can't we make {{timeline}} more flexible instead? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

November 2011

Category:Water

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

True, but a lot of our categories are very specific. There's no real rationale on what to include, so I find it a bit pointless to make a decisive comment on this one. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep, there are a lot of waters, in fact I just added a bunch, interesting category if you ask me.Lucifer 03:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

All 3-letter language templates that have a 2-letter equivalent

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

They also cause problems with {{Xyzy}} because it cannot find a script for these, I should note. -- Liliana • 13:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. (The issues with {{Xyzy}} and related templates actually can be addressed by creating the /script subpages for these . . . I just don't think we should do that.) —Ruakh_TALK 22:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No objection. Deletion seems one option. Keeping them as redirects is another. The redirects work most of the time, but not things like {{t|ita|abitare}}, as it comes up with no such Wiktionary (ita) as the code is {{it}}. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's better if they don't work as codes at all, than if they work sometimes but not all the time. —CodeCat 14:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete, let's do this thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Has this been done now? —CodeCat 00:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's in process, but there are a lot of these codes and with no easy way to find them it might take a while. -- Liliana • 00:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been using Appendix:ISO 639-1 language codes. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Category:Japanese character counts

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

Is this comparable to category:English seven-letter words (redlink)? If so, keep (and extend to other languages): useful category for word-puzzle solvers and natural categorization scheme for words.​—msh210℠ (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope, since it doesn't take kana into account, it counts only the kanji in every word. -- Liliana • 13:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Basically useless trivia, though we have a lot of that. Weak delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Japanese character counts currently only has subcategories in the format Category:Japanese terms written with ten Han script characters‎, that naturally don't count kana; they count only characters of another script ("Han script") mentioned in the category name. If people want a category for counting kana, possible names are the short Category:Japanese four-hiragana terms and the long Category:Japanese terms written with four Hiragana script characters‎. (I'd be inclined to choose the shorter.) --Daniel 18:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:English terms spelled with '

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

Category:English terms spelled with A? Someone should create it! --Daniel 04:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete. —Internoob 01:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete, neither interesting nor useful in any practical way. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

rfd-failed, straightforwardly. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

December 2011

Template:LR

Template:RL

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

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

Keep, no harm in them really. Would seem reasonable to subst: them but I see no advantage of using either the template or the HTML code. So keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:mul-script/Latn-list

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

January 2012

Category:Languages of Easter Island

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

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder, though. Would an isolated land mass be more interesting in terms of what languages have lived on it than a small country like, say, Belize or Switzerland? (I'm using Belize as my example advisedly. It is, if I'm not mistaken, the only anglophone country in Central America. Likewise, Switzerland is, I think, the only country with Romansch. Despite all that, would Easter Island be more interesting?) Likewise, would a category for languages of the Hawaiian Islands (that is, Hawaii and Midway Island) be more interesting than a category for languages of Hawaii or Colorado? I'm not sure. I'm also not sure we should have any of these categories.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think something like Category:Languages of India is both useful and on topic. Well maybe on topic; perhaps Wikipedia should handle this sort of things. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The thing about islands is that because they're isolated, they tend to have more distinct local languages. —CodeCat 21:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Easter Island is sparsely populated and way off the beaten path no matter which direction you're coming from. Basically you've got Spanish and Rapa Nui, with perhaps a smattering of French and English. Not much to categorize. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Languages of Hawaii

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

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete. —Internoob 19:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Hawaii is a special case among the states. It may not be a sovereign country now, but it used to be. The sugar plantations used to ship in workers from all over the world, there was a huge influx of Southeast Asian immigrants after the war in Vietnam, and it serves as a gateway for the South Pacific and half of Asia into the United States. Languages with significant populations that I can think of just off the top of my head include Chinese, Hawaiian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Samoan, Tagalog, Tongan, and Vietnamese. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Texas was also once sovereign. Anyway, I don't see it as problematic to move everything in this category to Category:Languages of the United States of America: most of the languages you mention are also spoken by large mainland communities. - -sche (discuss) 06:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, note User talk:Ishwar#Cat:Languages_of_New_Mexico, which says there was consensus for Hawaii. - -sche (discuss) 06:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:zh

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

Delete, same reasons. Having two parallel category trees for Mandarin can only cause confusion and genuine difficulty in finding things. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I support deletion. However, there are many translation entries that are still using this code e.g encyclopedia. Is there any way to use a bot to clean this up? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 02:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a really easy replacement to do by bot, but I don't think we need to; both cmn and zh need to point to the zh Wikipedia and Wiktionary, as they exists while cmn.wikipedia.org does not. That does mean I think that {{zh/script}} needs to be kept, probably as a redirect to {{cmn/script}}. It would be possible to bypass that, but it's not worth adding all that extra code to {{t}}; better just to keep the redirect. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If we have a zh Wikipedia and Wiktionary, wouldn't it make more sense to delete {{cmn}} and standardize on {{zh}}? Seems confusing to use zh everywhere else but cmn here. It would also seem more consistent with deleting All 3-letter language templates that have a 2-letter equivalent. ~ Robin 09:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Irritatingly good point. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

While that's true, the code 'zh' officially stands for 'Chinese' which is a macrolanguage, while 'cmn' stands for 'Mandarin'. So they are not really equivalent. —CodeCat 12:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

zh is a convenient code but I think that it will eventually disappear from the project, to be replaced by proper ISO language codes : pronunciation, usage notes, definitions, etc. may differ between languages. This process will take much time. Lmaltier (talk) 20:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

And are you sure that all current zh entries are about Mandarin? This should be checked before any action. Lmaltier (talk) 20:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

At least in the translations sections other Chinese languages also use {{t|zh}} at the moment, I guess it's in order to point the transwiki zhwiktionary. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:French terms spelled with '

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

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

As phrases are included, it is not very useful (except maybe for maintenance reasons). But, if limited to terms without spaces such as presqu'île, it would be very interesting. Lmaltier (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Move to Wiktionary Native American

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

Delete furthermore why not delete all the empty categories from Category:Move to Wiktionary. Some of these have been emptying or at least a year, perhaps two or three years in some cases. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

What it's good for is that transwikied pages can be inspected by those who may know the language they contain words in. I don't see any reason to delete it: what's the harm in it. But I only strenuously oppose the deletion if there's some automated or semiautomated process that adds entries to this category. Anyone know whether that's the case?​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Such a category is only useful if used; pointing users to cleanup categories with no entries in them as at best useless, and at worst counter-productive as it may annoy the users. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Template:initialism of

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

Yes, I noticed that just now, when Cirt added a sense line at ADS. It does seem redundant. Equinox ◑ 15:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's not needed either. Usually initialisms are defined just by writing the expansion as the definition, there is no need for 'Initialism of' before it. And linking isn't necessary in many cases either. On the other hand, it would be nice if a link existed if the entry it links to exists as well. And we need to account for that in cases where the expanded form is created after the initialism. —CodeCat 15:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The part of speech isn't "initialism" for each of these. See e.g. [[USSR]], which is as it should be. Also, I believe this template is used in some etymology sections. Strong keep.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Those uses are wrong and should be removed, as this is explicitly not an etymology template. -- Liliana • 20:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep and delete {{initialism}} instead. Per msh210, you can use this when the header is not initialism, such as UTI (a noun). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Ideally yes, I'm strongly in favor this, but sometimes when the initialism is expanded it's a phrase, like for the win. It seems a bit silly to categorize FTW as an English phrase. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If for the win is an adverb, then FTW could have an adverb section, too.

Possibly GTFO is a better example because it expands to a full sentence.

Frankly, maybe "Abbreviation" or "Initialism" is common in dictionaries, but a "Phrase" header (or maybe a "Sentence" header) does not look half bad in there. --Daniel 22:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually yes, you're right. When formatted that way, it seems to work. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:English terms derived from Australian Aboriginal languages

One entry. A geographical classification with AFAIK no easy way to populate it. Also the parent category, Category:Terms derived from Australian Aboriginal languages. — Pingku^dimmi 14:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

keep as Category:Australian Aboriginal languages passed RFD. -- Liliana • 16:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep for the same reason. Irritating, isn't it? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep. A useful category for etymological information that is "incomplete" and may remain so for quite some time. DCDuring TALK 12:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Wiktionary:IPA pronunciation key

I'm not quite sure how this page would be useful. We already have pronunciation keys for individual languages, so this page seems to be used mostly to compare pronunciations in several different languages. I see several problems with this approach as of right now... The list of languages is rather small and seems biased towards European languages (why Finnish but not Arabic, Mandarin or Hindi?), and there are too many languages and too many specific details in each language to fit all of them into one table. The table also doesn't consider the issue of phonemicity. Long vowels are not phonemic in French yet are listed as if they are, while the reverse is done for Dutch. And consider what would happen if Arabic were added: would words containing /a/ be added to that column even when the allophonic range of that phoneme can go anywhere from [ɛ] to [ɑ]? I would consider this 'comparing apples and oranges' at best. —CodeCat 20:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've always used the page as a one-stop pronunciation lookup, to get an idea of how the symbols are pronounced. Of course, Wikipedia has more extensive converage of all the symbols, and a one-stop-shop is only useful to those who speak several of the listed languages (monolingual people can use monolingual pages). I'm on the fence about (perhaps weakly in favor of) keeping the page. I'm strongly in favor of keeping the shortcut WT:IPA, though, to point to information on the IPA symbols (even if that means making it a soft redirect to WP). - -sche (discuss) 21:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

w:de:Liste der IPA-Zeichen is a pretty nice list of IPA symbols. If someone could translate it and expand it with missing letters, we would have the perfect replacement right there. -- Liliana • 23:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that redundant to WT:IPA already? —CodeCat 00:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete/merge with Wiktionary:International Phonetic Alphabet. There's clearly a lot of hard work gone into this page, sadly not all of it accurate (it claims that in French on and son don't rhyme, d'oh) but how can we justify including some languages and not others. It looks to me like something that should be on someone's user page, where they can be as POV as they like. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I want to keep the link to this on WT:IPA so that someone searching for IPA has a comparative one-stop shop that has collected a lot of work. I think it should stay on a user page or user sub-directory until it is slightly more universal. Below is a list of 20 languages i use for starting point Swadesh lists.

ar-Arabic, bn-Bengali, de-German, el-Greek, en-English, es-Spanish, fa-Persian, fr-French, he-Hebrew, hi-Hindi, id-Indonesian, ja-Japanese, kr-Korean, nl-Dutch, pt-Portuguese, ru-Russian, tr-Turkish, sw-Swahili, ta-Tamil, zh-Chinese

I started with the six (6) w:Official languages of the United Nations, ar, en, es, fr, ru, & zh. The mere six (6) de facto official w:Languages of the African Union, ar, en, es, fr, pt, & sw only require adding in the last two. The four (4) official languages of the w:Union of South American Nations, en, es, nl, & pt only require adding nl. To cover the rest of the Americas, the four (4) official languages of the w:Organization of American States, en, es, fr, & pt are all already included. In detail, the w:Central American Integration System official language of es; the w:Caribbean Community official languages of en, es, fr, & nl; and the w:North American Free Trade Agreement official languages of en, es, & fr are all already included. Australia's one 1 official language, en, is already included and also the working language of the w:Pacific Islands Forum. Antarctica is desolate. Eurasia is less integrated. Because of the unwieldy number of 23 w:Languages of the European Union (EU), the over-representation of European languages already and to come, and the fact that the most widely spoken language, en, is already included, the only two (2) added to the list are the most natively spoken language, de, and the only one (1) with a script not yet represented; also the backbone of Christianity; el. The only (1) official language of the w:Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the w:Eurasian Economic Community, and the w:Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia is the already included ru, which is also co-official and mutually intelligible with be-Belarusian in the two-language (2) w:Union State. Because much of the geographical extent of the CIS contains people familiar only with trk-Turkic languages, the largest member of the language family, tr, is added and also the official language of the w:Turkic Council. The one (1) official language of the w:Arab League as well as the w:Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, ar, is already included as well as being the backbone of Islam but the language, he, of the country that disconnects the Arab League geographically, Israel, has a script that's not yet represented and is the backbone of Judaism and of import to Christianity and of interest to Islam; as such a language added is he. The one (1) official language of the budding w:Economic Cooperation Organization, en, is already included but the predominant language, fa, is inter-intelligible with Tajik & Dari and the backbone of Zoroastrianism, Yazdanism, Ahl-e Haqq, Sufism, Babism, & the Bahai Faith; as such a language added is fa. The only one (1) official language of the w:South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), en, is already included but the most widely spoken language, hi, is inter-intelligible with ur-Urdu; the largest member of the predominant language sub-family of the region, Indo-Iranian; besides its script, Devanagari, is not yet represented and the backbone via Sanskrit of Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, & Jainism; as such a language added is hi. The one (1) working language of the w:Association of Southeast Asian Nations, en, is already included, but the largest member, id, of the predominant language family map-Austronesian is inter-intelligible with Malay; as such an included language is id. The last three nations of Asia, China, Japan, and Korea cover the already represented language, zh, the backbone of Taoism & Confucianism as well as scripts not yet represented which are therefore added in ja & kr, which also round out the w:ASEAN Free Trade Area#ASEAN_Plus_Three of China, Japan, & South Korea. Covering linguistic diversity through these w:Supranational unions covers most families, geography, religion, and script through only gives eighteen (18) languages; the other two (2) came from looking at w:Global Internet usage#Internet_users_by_language (en, zh, es, ja, pt, de, ar, fr, ru, ko), which re-justified de, ja, & ko; w:Linguistic demography#Most_spoken_languages (zh, hi, es, en, ar, bn, ru, pt, ja, de), which highlighted the next added language from the SAARC with its not yet represented script, bn; w:List of languages by total number of speakers (zh, en, es, hi, pt, ar, bn, ru, fa, pa; fr, en, ru, pt, ar, es, fa, zh, de, ja; zh, en, es, ru, fr, hi, pt, ar, bn, fa), where each top ten entry was included except pa-Punjabi, which is not national and does not have a distinct script or a great deal of difference from hi/Urdu; w:List of languages by number of native speakers (zh es en hi ar bn pt ru ja pa), as before; w:World language#Living_world_languages (en es fr zh hi ar pt ru de id fa sw ta it nl ja bn), which highlighted the next added language, ta, from the not yet represented dra-Dravidian family and script as well as it-Italian, which does not have a distinct script or a great deal of difference from es. Four (4) national scripts notably absent are the Ge'ez alphabet of am-Amharic as well as ti-Tigrinya, the hy-Armenian alphabet, the ka-Georgian alphabet, and the Thaana abugida of dv-Dhivehi. Also notably absent are the indigenous languages of Australia with its largest family, the ~codeless Pama-Nyungan (e.g., nys-Nyoongar); those of South America, (e.g., qu-Quechua, official in Bolivia); and those of North America the (e.g., azc-Uto-Aztecan nah-Nahuatl, ~codeless Na-Dene nv-Navajo, aql-Algic abe-Western Abenaki, iro-Iroquoian moh-Mohawk, & esx-Eskimo-Aleut iu-Inuktitut official in Canada's Nunavut Territory. For more information, see w:Lists of languages. Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 05:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Csörföly D subpages

Approximately 120 subpages full of unwikilinked Chinese characters.

No obvious purpose. User has not added/edited actual content since April 2011. — This unsigned comment was added by SemperBlotto (talk • contribs).

I don't much care. Of course we shouldn't allow any old rubbish in the user namespace, but I'm not convinced this is rubbish. Having said that, I don't know what it is, as seemingly none of it is written in English. Seems to be word lists, or words from poems, or both. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:English trademarks

This seems like a misnomer. In general a trademark is not essentially part of a language. It is something that has a legal status in one or more jurisdictions, often spanning multiple languages. For example REALTOR/Realtor/realtor is shown as an English term. If it is indeed a trademark at all, as it seems to be in the US, it is one in any language in which it appears in the US, eg, Spanish, Navajo, French. Since we have no practical ability to delimit and display the national or linguistic scope of the trademark status members, I suggest we simply include all trademarks in a single category or have no category whatsoever. I'm not sure whether we should even try to get at this as a context/usage label. Alternatively, perhaps we could recruit some intellectual property attorneys as contributors. DCDuring TALK 00:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Category:Regional Polish

Polish-speaker Maro blanked this, and it now shows up in Special:UncategorizedCategories as an empty category. Delete it or recategorize, please. — Beobach (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. It is and it was an empty category. Maro 15:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm for deleting empty categories (such as this one) but a recent Beer Parlour discussion suggested keeping these. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Empty categories are useless and misguide users who are looking for sth. It's not a big problem to (re)create a category if new entries appear in it. Maro 16:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep it unless Polish has no dialects... —CodeCat 17:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

@Maro, I'm with you on this one. See Wiktionary:BP#Deleting empty categories; yea or nay? (February 2012 archive when archived). It seemed to show a pretty even split. I tend to think we don't keep empty entries because they are valid entry titles, so we shouldn't keep empty categories either, even when they are valid titles. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Spellings by language and its subcategories

Almost all of the subcategories are empty, so I think these categories were once used but their contents was since moved to another place. —CodeCat 12:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete, been empty for a while, I seem to think only two categories aren't empty. Some of the non-empty categories only actually contain categories which are themselves empty. So, only two categories contain any actual entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Maro 15:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Webster 1913/1496

As far as I can tell, all the entries on here have already been created, so this likely serves no more purpose --Yakky snacks (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

All but these two:

• therapeutæ, therapeutae — n. pl., from NL., from Gr. (pl.) an attendant, servant, physician — (Eccl. Hist.): A name given to certain ascetics said to have anciently dwelt in the neighborhood of Alexandria. They are described in a work attributed to Philo, the genuineness and credibility of which are now much discredited.
• there-anent — adverb — (Scot.) Concerning that.

- -sche (discuss) 19:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

therebiforn is also a redlink, because it is only attested once, so I moved it to therebeforn, which is attested more often. - -sche (discuss) 19:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

But if attested in Chaucer and printed before 1500, it would be Middle English, hence would meet CFI as a once-attested term in a dead language. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:languagex

{{language}} is already gone, so I think this should go too. There is just one technical barrier... it's needed because some language templates need an extra prefix (conl: or proto:). As part of this deletion request I'd therefore like to rename those templates to remove the prefixes. In other words, {{conl:tlh}} and {{proto:ine-pro}} would become {{tlh}} and {{ine-pro}}. —CodeCat 13:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

That's sort of the point, it serves a purpose unless we choose to rename such templates. I think we should discuss that first, then discuss this, so keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but in principle, do you think this template should go? If you recall, {{Xyzy}} failed rfd even when no solution existed for replacing it yet. —CodeCat 11:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this template used as well to determine what is a proto language or a constructed language in the first place? -- Liliana • 12:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No that is {{langprefix}}, which is used by some templates besides this one (such as {{termx}}). It's not affected by this deletion. —CodeCat 12:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear that I disagree with the presumptions of this proposal. {{languagex}} is not needed for language templates with an extra prefix, because that extra prefix should always be supplied by editors. The whole point of those prefixes is to draw a distinction between real, attested language and fake or unattested ones — a distinction which has always enjoyed a strong community consensus. {{languagex}} was part of a campaign by a few editors, including yourself, to make an end-run around that consensus, and try to convert those prefixes into a minor technical detail that editors don't need to worry about, when it's supposed to be a major defining distinction that editors should never lose sight of for a second. I objected at the time; you defended it; now you can live with it. ;-)   —Ruakh_TALK 13:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Always? Like {{etyl|etyl:Late Latin}}? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I just put {{etyl|etyl:aus-yol}} into several entries... - -sche (discuss) 18:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, always, but not like {{etyl|etyl:Late Latin}}, no: Late Latin is not a language code, etyl: is not a language-code prefix, and {{etyl:Late Latin}} is not a language template, but an etyl-template. CodeCat's decision to pretend that etyl-templates are language templates, and to take them as a model for non-mainspace language templates, is part of what got us into this mess. (BTW, I doubt we'd want editors to supply the language prefix as part of the language code; something like lang=proto:ine-pro would be problematic, because then the template still wouldn't know what's going on, and would generate HTML with invalid language codes. Something along the lines of lang=ine-pro|langtype=proto would probably work better.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Btw, I put in those instances of {{etyl|etyl:aus-yol}} before I saw this discussion. If I should have input the Yolngu etymological information in another way, please let me know. - -sche (discuss) 19:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

If I understand correctly what you wanted, it should be just {{etyl|aus-yol}}. —Ruakh_TALK 20:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite apart from its use in etymology templates, it's being used in {{IPA}} and {{langnamex}}, so I say we need to keep it at least until someone figures out how to replace it there. —Angr 15:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

File:wiktprob.png

Tagged by Koavf, who has been tagging files we host locally. This is an old screenshot that was used in a Beer Parlour troubleshooting discussion from a year ago. Do we still need it? I doubt Commons needs or wants it. - -sche (discuss) 19:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep as this is a part of a discussion. Maro 20:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What Maro said.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Move to Commons and delete here. en.wikt doesn't host files and especially not for personal hosting. The instructional value of this image could be just as high if it was at Commons:Category:Wiktionary. koavf (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that we don't host files? Certainly pictures of birds that we use in our entries should be on the Commons instead. But this is a Wikt-specific file that no one will want to use on another project. If it's moved to the Commons, it may be deleted using the the Commons' deletion process without our knowledge or consent. Keep here.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:drt, Template:gos, Template:twd

Discussion moved from WT:RFD.

These three are Dutch Low Saxon dialects, and we already have {{nds-nl}} and Category:Dutch Low Saxon language, so I think these should be merged into that language and all their categories and language codes deleted. —CodeCat 20:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(Oops, sorry I wasn't thinking where I put this!) —CodeCat 21:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be the other way around - delete {{nds-nl}} and split it up into these and other individual dialects. -- Liliana • 22:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That's even worse than splitting up Serbo-Croatian, strongly oppose. —CodeCat 22:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm more familiar with Germany's Low German than with the Netherlands'. The Low German varieties from one end of the Sprachraum are markedly different from the Low German varieties from the other end, so splitting {{nds}} might be useful. The Dutch Low German/Saxon varieties are spoken in a smaller area; I'm not as familiar with them, but it's believable that they are more consistent internally, such that the differences can be handled the way UK vs US differences are handled. The influence of Dutch on Dutch Low German/Saxon may make it worthwhile to distinguish {{nds-nl}} from {{nds}}. I think {{nds-nl}} has been discussed before,and not just in the "Status of Low German varieties" and "frs and stq" BP discussions, but those are the only two discussions I can find. - -sche (discuss) 23:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:English proper adjectives

Mg and I discussed this on WT:ID, and he pointed out that this isn't a formal category (there's not formally any such thing as a 'proper adjective'). - -sche (discuss) 22:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean. Is it an adjective that expresses a relationship to a single defined entity? Like English does to England? I think delete... —CodeCat 22:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but then we lose functionality. How else could we sort together entries like Hitlerian and Napoleonic? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

(And don't say eponyms, because that includes nouns too and is thus of a much greater scope. It doesn't fulfill the same purpose). --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There's always "eponymous adjectives" Chuck Entz (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty good.--Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 13:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No strong feelings, I'm not sure what a proper adjective is anyway, so categorizing them is gonna be hard if nobody can come up with a usable definition. So I lean towards delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Some dictionaries and books have the term: “proper adjective”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.; AHD; Merrian-Webster; google books:"proper adjective". Whatever the name of the category, I find having such a category useful or attractive; Category:English eponyms is too much of a mix of "Achillean" and "Aaron's rod" for my taste. On the choice of a name, google:"eponymous adjectives" (16,100 hits) appears way less common than google:"proper adjectives" (177,000 hits). Following the Google books sources found by searching for "proper adjectives", proper adjectives include (a) "Achilean", "Popperian", "Chomskian", and (b) "English", "Spanish", "Swedish", "Namibian". German examples include "Berliner". Further category members are "Martian" and "Jovian". It follows that a proper adjective is not the same as an eponymous adjective. The definition of a proper adjective is of the form "Of or relating to <proper name>", with variations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

So then what distinguishes "Of or relating to <proper noun>" from "Of or relating to <not a proper noun>" in any significant way? —CodeCat 19:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

For one thing, capitalization marks proper adjectives off, in English anyway. Just like proper nouns are almost always capitalized, so are proper adjectives. For another thing, proper adjectives show specific suffixes, it seems; by having a glimpse at them as a group, you get a feel for how they are created in English (or another language). --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Capitalisation differs per language though. Dutch in particular has rather complex rules about the capitalisation (which don't make even the slightest sense to me), whereas for example Swedish and Spanish just spell such adjectives in lowercase. —CodeCat 19:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) There's one more thing: the current categorization of "Addisonian" into Category:English eponyms may be wrong, if one believes the definitions of "eponym" found at “eponym”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.; see Merriam-Webster: eponym and AHD: eponym. It seems to me that all these adjectives should be removed from Category:English eponyms. These dictionaries have the genus of "name" rather than "word" in the definition of "eponym". This would require research into what linguists usually mean by "eponym" to be on the safe side, though.

Capitalization varies per language, no doubt. It is the patterns of suffixing that are interesting in the first place, I think. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

But those, too, are language specific. It would seem a little inconsistent to call English#English a proper adjective, while engelsk#Swedish, its translation and cognate, is not. —CodeCat 20:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The suffix patterns are a few within each language, which is what makes them interesting, to me anyway. As regards calling the adjective "English" a proper adjective in English, while its Swedish analogue is called just an adjective, you've got the same inter-language inconsistency in names of languages: "English" is ranked as proper noun in English, while its Swedish analogue "engelska" is not ranked a proper noun. Not really a problem, if you ask me. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Presumably you're judging that based on capitalisation. So what about German, where all nouns are capitalised and adjectives never are, so there is no way to tell 'properness' from the spelling? —CodeCat 21:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

German does capitalize adjectives in 'sch derived from personal names (Grimm'sches Gesetz, Verner'sches Gesetz, etc.) as well as the uninflectable adjectives in -er derived from place names (Berliner Luft, Kölner Straßen). Adjectives are also capitalized when they form part of a proper noun (Atlantischer Ozean, Schwarzes Meer) or a species name (Australische Kasarka, Kleine Bambusratte). —Angr 21:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The adjectival properness is not told from the capitalization. It is told from the definition form of "Of or relating to <proper noun>", or the like. In Czech, proper adjectives are often not capitalized, as in "pražský" ("Praha"), "newyorský" ("New York"), "kansaský" ("Kansas"), "popperovský" ("Popper"), or "humovský" ("Hume"). --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

File:Hippietrail dictionaries.JPG

Move to Commons and delete here. en.wikt doesn't host files and especially not for personal hosting. koavf (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. I see no reason to delete it. Maro 00:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

We have no use for userspace images. Delete or move to the Commons, as uploader prefers.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

File:YR's scripts.PNG

Move to Commons and delete here. en.wikt doesn't host files and especially not for personal hosting. The instructional value of this image could be just as high if it was at Commons:Category:Wiktionary. koavf (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. I don't think Commons needs it. Maro 00:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that we don't host files? Certainly pictures of birds that we use in our entries should be on the Commons instead. But this is a Wikt-specific file that no one will want to use on another project. If it's moved to the Commons, it may be deleted using the Commons' deletion process without our knowledge or consent. Keep here.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Languages world map.png

Move to Commons and delete here--image is unused and is a slight variant of one there anyway. koavf (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete, indeed Commons already has a near-identical version. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, delete.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Wiktionary-favicon-en-colored.png

Move to Commons and delete here. en.wikt doesn't host files and if this is at Commons, it can be used by other projects. koavf (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

What is its license? —Ruakh_TALK 15:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that we don't host files? Certainly pictures of birds that we use in our entries should be on the Commons instead. But this is a Wikt-specific file that no one will want to use on another project. If it's moved to the Commons, it may be deleted using the the Commons' deletion process without our knowledge or consent. Keep here.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Wiktionary-favicon-en.png

Move to Commons and delete here. en.wikt doesn't host files and if this is at Commons, it can be used by other projects. koavf (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

What is its license? —Ruakh_TALK 15:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that we don't host files? Certainly pictures of birds that we use in our entries should be on the Commons instead. But this is a Wikt-specific file that no one will want to use on another project. If it's moved to the Commons, it may be deleted using the the Commons' deletion process without our knowledge or consent. Keep here.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

In reply to Ruakh, good question. Commons has a 'policy' of if in doubt, delete, and in this case I'd be happy to do the same. The file isn't even used, so a cautious delete seems ok to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was uploaded here by its creator, so I'm not worried that we might need to delete it for licensing reasons; I just meant that it may not be licensed in a way that would allow it to be moved to Commons. —Ruakh_TALK 22:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:t+

Template:t-

No longer updated now that Tbot is dead and will never return. This was a terrible idea from the beginning. -- Liliana • 13:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, delete. —CodeCat 15:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

For those of us who never understood how the translation system is automated, could someone explain why we're dumping these templates? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

There used to be a bot, User:Tbot, that went through every Wiktionary page, checked whether the translations exist at the respective foreign-language edition of Wiktionary, and updated the templates accordingly with {{t+}} (page exists) or {{t-}} (page doesn't exist). The only thing this changed is the color of the link. Yes, this is one of the most inefficient methods ever invented by mankind. Anyway, now the bot is gone, and the link colors haven't been updated since 2009, so we might as well ditch 'em and replace them with the generic link color.

Here's an example:
Kind (de)
Kind
Kind -- Liliana • 18:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see. Definitely delete these misleading fragments of annoyance. I have been confused by it before, but I didn't realize that this was the reason. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually yeah delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I would fail these per unanimous decision were these templates not so widely used. Redirects to {{t}} seem to be the way to go; delinking them by bot would be a low priority, but also very simple. As of tomorrow these will have been nominated for two weeks. Does anyone at all want to keep them? Mglovesfun (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep, if we can get a replacement for Tbot working. For the time being, it would probably be preferable to redirect, since many uses of these may be inaccurate at the moment. Broken links should be clearly marked as such, if possible. --Yair rand (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Even if we can find another bot to do this task I'd still prefer not to have it, it's too clumsy and for too little benefit. —CodeCat 00:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Rather keep and ask and encourage the programming wizards (i.e., those people who resolve the issues raised at WT:GP) to prepare a new Tbot. I consider the death of Tbot (talk • contribs) a loss (less than the death of its programmer, of course). On topic, I find the colour scheme for translation links with {{t+}} and {{t-}} more consistent with the general appearance of Wiktionary; the colours also convey useful information on whether it makes sense to click to see a monolingual definition of the term in question. -- Gauss (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Yair.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Alternative spellings by language

Since {{alternative spelling of}} now categorizes in Category:English alternative forms (or whatever language is given) these categories are almost empty. It seems there are six entries in Category:English alternative spellings. The advantage of unifying these is all the entries are in one category system, not spread very unevenly over two. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 00:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

RFD failed, Mglovesfun (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Transwiki:Multilingual list of Indian plants trees and flowers

Transwikied from Wikipedia, but I'm not so sure we want it either:

1. It basically duplicates what we do with categories and translation sections
2. It only has three "starter" entries, which have very few names- and even fewer in the correct scripts.
3. If populated, it would be astronomically huge, unless we came up with a system of lots of these.

Chuck Entz (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems that it was moved from Wikipedia. I say delete, but before it’s deleted someone who speaks the languages, or at least understands the scripts, should add the content to the translation sections. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 15:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

What's the rush? Keep until all items are wikilinked (preferably using {{term}}) and someone has added all orange- and red-linked items. Not even all the Translingual genus names and species epithets are new included. In many cases we would need the appropriate script added to do this properly. Perhaps we can recruit the person who initiated this at WP to work on this class of entries here. DCDuring TALK 16:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to delete it as it contains very little usable content. If it gave us lots of red linked valid terms then it would be a definite keeper. There are however very few, few enough to move easily to WT:RE:hi and WT:RE:mul. Also benghalensis which it lists is probably a typo for bengalensis which we have. Only a Hindi speaker would know if the Hindi terms are also typos. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

NB most of the red links are wholly invalid because not written in the correct script. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. I'm interested to add/update entries for Indian names of trees. Especially herbs as I'm interested in Ayurveda. This wiki page is a god-send for people who need to use both scientific and local names of plants/trees.

Guruduttmallapur (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it a godsend no matter how many errors there are? If kept we should tag it with {{rfc}}, or more likely "this page is almost completely wrong and is not likely to be corrected". Mglovesfun (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:tpi-noun

I was unaware of this template until today, and thus the vast majority of our Tok Pisin terms do not use it. In all cases, it gives exactly the same output as {{head|tpi|noun}} and is therefore quite redundant. Originally, it was created to display the plural form of nouns (as its outdated documentation still claims), even though they are regularly formed by placing (deprecated template usage) ol in front of the noun (we do not have entries for Tok Pisin plurals because they would all be SOP). It is used in so few places that I will replace all instances of it manually if there is consensus for deleting this.--Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No, not again. We've had this kind of discussion with {{fi-noun}} already. strong keep. -- Liliana • 20:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how that is related. In Finnish, it may actually make a difference for certain nouns; in Tok Pisin, it gives an identical output in every case. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I create new templates for languages even if they show the same as {{head}}. keep. —CodeCat 12:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I seem to think one argument that's been used in the past is there's no way to add additional features to make it more useful if we delete it first. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What additional features would we add? Tok Pisin nouns do not decline or inflect in any way, never have diacritics or orthographical messiness, and have standard headwords. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Appendix:Star Wars/may the Force be with you

Seems redundant to may the Force be with you. Definition is not in a fictional-universe style. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirect, but what about “implying effective use of the Force”? Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 23:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Chinese place names

Category:Mandarin place names

These seem to be invalid, we don't categorize 'place name' as a part of speech category; for topical categorization, we have Category:cmn:China. Category:Chinese place names is futhermore invalid because we don't class Chinese as a single language, so it would be like Category:Germanic place names, and Category:Mandarin place names only contains pinyin anyway, so can be legitimately emptied of its current content, regardless of whether it later passes RFD or not. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. The category currently serving the role per current naming convention for topical categories is Category:cmn:Place names. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Telugu masculine nouns

Category:Telugu feminine nouns‎

We don't categorize by gender -- Liliana • 12:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Erm we certainly do in some languages. What confuses me, is I didn't realize that Telugu had gender; {{te-noun}} doesn't have a parameter for it. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Which ones? I haven't seen such categories before. -- Liliana • 16:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Mglovesfun, Telugu has gender according to w:Telugu grammar#Gender. —Angr 16:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Masculine nouns by language has 18 members. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

And Category:Telugu masculine nouns isn't even one of them. —Angr 17:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Masculine nouns by language is not clear on which kinds of masculine gender it encompasses. Telugu has grammatical gender, but it's based on objects being neuter, women being feminine, and men being masculine. Look at Category:Telugu masculine nouns‎ and you'll see that it's all nouns that are inherently for males only: words for sons, fathers, certain types of men, or male-only names. Category:Hebrew masculine nouns‎ is completely different; (deprecated template usage) דג is masculine, even though fish are not inherently male in any way. (And as a side note, דג isn't even in Category:Hebrew masculine nouns‎...) --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 14:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

So it's the same gender system that English has, more or less? I'm not sure if that really matters a lot, if it has strict grammatical consequences. The Bantu languages have an elaborate system of classifying words based on meaning (although it's not as neat as it was historically), and the Slavic languages distinguish between animacy in masculine nouns, which also has a semantic connotation in addition to a grammatical one. —CodeCat 18:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete with whole Category:Masculine nouns by language and subcategories. These categories are useless and I see no reason to keep them. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. Maro 22:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No more useless than Category:Telugu nouns, right? I mean nobody would learn a language by navigating such a category; such categories are for Wiktionary statisticians only; they're not intended to be useful for language learners. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I use categories like Category:Telugu nouns. I frequently use Category:Old Church Slavonic nouns or Category:Old Church Slavonic nouns because some sounds can be spelled in different ways and its a good way to find words when you’re not sure of the spelling. But I don’t see any value in having gender categories. It’s no different than having categories for words that end in consonants, and another for words that end in vowels. Who cares? In fact, Slavic masculine nouns are generally those that end in a consonant, and Slavic feminines are mainly those that end in -a. Neuters end in -o or -e. I don’t think these categories are useful, but our standard noun and verb categories certainly are useful. —Stephen ^(Talk) 06:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Some languages do have categories to sort words by declension or conjugation. I imagine sorting them by gender is similar in that respect because it may affect the grammar, especially if the language has no other grammatical categories. In that sense, 'feminine nouns' may be interpreted as 'nouns of the feminine declension'. —CodeCat 12:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

But why would you want to know whether a word had a masculine or feminine declension when you can just look at the declension table as see for yourself what the declension is? And besides using gender categories for this would not work very well, because nouns such as папа are classified as masculine but have feminine declensions...or кофе, which looks like a neuter, is classified as masculine and is undeclinable. If you need a number of examples of a certain kind of declension, you should go to a template like {{ru-noun-inan-1}} and click on "What links here." —Stephen ^(Talk) 12:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to apply what I said to Slavic languages because I know they don't work that way. But in Telugu maybe the gender is the only factor in deciding declension, I don't know. —CodeCat 12:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don’t think that would be of any help in Telugu either. Eventually we need to add declension tables for the Telugu nouns, but gender categories won’t be useful in that endeavor. —Stephen ^(Talk) 12:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:cc-by-sa-3.0

Where would this be used? Anything on this site is added with the understanding it's CC by-sa 3.0 anyway.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

For licensing images. Except we're not supposed to have images to begin with, so delete -- Liliana • 17:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Some images are okay; the Far Side cartoon nominated above is certainly worth keeping, for example. Maybe keep this, but its use will be so limited (because we have so few images, especially so few by-sa ones (which can IINM be moved to the Commons)) that I'm not sure it's worth keeping. Ambivalent.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Not all of our images are CC-by-sa-3.0. Some our logos more restrictively licensed, aren't they? And some other images are non-free fair-use. Furthermore, sometimes images which should be shareable are mistakenly added here; they need to be explicitly licensed before they can be migrated to Commons, because Commons admins are understandably sticklers for proper licensing. Keep. - -sche (discuss) 22:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:cmn:Variant Pronunciations in traditional script

Category:cmn:Variant Pronunciations in simplified script

These have been in Special:WantedCategories for ages, but I don't think we do want them. The capitalization needs to be changed at the very least, but I don't think that 'Variant pronunciation' is a topical category. I don't know quite what this even means, does it mean each of these terms has at least two pronunciations, or rather than they have a variant, less common pronunciation than another more common term? Can we just remove all the categories please, and delete these two when empty? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Terms derived from Caucasian languages

This is not a family, so what does this mean? This is a bit like 'Terms derived from African languages'... —CodeCat 20:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Based on the Old Armenian entries which are in that category I think it means that the term is derived from an unknown language native to the Caucasus, instead of PIE. Leaning towards keep, but I’d like to see what others have to say before voting. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 20:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's intended for terms which come from a Caucasian language, but you don't know which one. On that basis, it should probably be kept (see however the below) -- Liliana • 21:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Until further research clears up the relationship between North-East, North-West, South Caucasian and Hurro-Urartian languages and the paths by which Armenian borrowed from them, this category will be useful. --Vahag (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Category:English synonyms

Category:Turkish synonyms

This was discussed on the Tea room WT:TR#Category:English synonyms. I have no problem with {{synonym of}}, though it's kinda the same (but probably with a better name) as {{alternative name of}}. But we shouldn't categorize these. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If a word means exactly the same as another, why not use that other word as the definition? —CodeCat 16:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

That's our norm yes. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 16:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. This is like having a "Category:English words that mean things". —Angr 07:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

  Is there such a thing as "Category:English words that don't mean things"? (Actually curious, not just being silly.) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 15:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think there are any English words that unequivocally don't mean anything, but there are words such as (deprecated template usage) is and (deprecated template usage) that and (deprecated template usage) of whose contribution to an utterance is more syntactic than semantic. (w:Function word touches on this subject.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you Ruakh, I appreciate the link and am reading through that now. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

My effort is Category:English particles. Also words like cetera in et cetera. Anyway, that's as far off topic as I want to go. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete all three. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Straightforward failure. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Substrate languages

Apparently supposed to serve as a parent for Category:Terms derived from substrate languages. This should be solved in another way instead of this ugly hack. -- Liliana • 19:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but where should it go? —CodeCat 21:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Into category:Etymologies by language perhaps?​—msh210℠ (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Russian plurals

Should be Category:Russian noun forms, this is our norm for languages with lots of nominal declension (examples available on request, if you're experienced here, you won't need them). Mglovesfun (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I cleaned up this category (moving entries to Category:Russian noun forms with adding some missing forms), so it's now empty, so Delete.

Category:YYY noun forms is better for languages that have declinable nouns and case system. Maro 22:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but confer first with Stephen G. Brown (talk • contribs) and make sure he's on board with this change. —Ruakh_TALK 01:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Headword-line templates and Wiktionary:Inflection-table templates

I'm RFDing these but I think at least part of those pages could be merged into a single page, perhaps Wiktionary:Language-specific templates or even into Wiktionary:Templates which is mostly empty right now. In any case, the headword-line page seems redundant to Category:Headword-line templates by language. —CodeCat 18:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Page count

I was considering updating this to reflect the current situation. But given the number of incoming links (not very many) I think we should just delete it. Also, how would the updated version read? Presumably something like 'this page no longer has any relevance'. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep and add {{inactive}} at the top. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone tried to count lemmas? By my very crude estimate we only have about 400,000 in English. That is the information I would like to have. I don't doubt that others would like it for English and for other languages.

I don't see what good this particular page does. DCDuring TALK 19:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It goes beyond active, it can never be used again in a constructive way. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to know how many entries in English we have, use Wiktionary:Statistics. This information here is OBE, and I don't see how it could be useful to anyone, so delete -- Liliana • 04:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If I subtract from the number of English gloss definitions (389K) the difference between the number of English definitions (578K) and the number of English entries (446K), I get an estimated number of English entries with lemmas of 257K. Making a generous allowance for multiple PoS and Etymologies on those pages, perhaps there are 300K English lemmas. Any way to get a better estimate than that? DCDuring TALK 04:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Define "English lemma". Are you looking for the total number of English POS sections that contain a non–"form of" definition? —Ruakh_TALK 20:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be good enough for me, assuming that "form of" includes all inflected forms, misspellings and similar, but not {{non-gloss definition}}, though the last is might be used only 1000 or so times in English. Any reasonable approximation is fine. This would be nice to know from time to time. DCDuring TALK 21:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What about "alternative form of", "obsolete form of", and so on? —Ruakh_TALK 21:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I would be fine with excluding them and also any "translation only entries", few though they may be. OTOH I would really like to include translingual terms that are understood in English. How many of the ones in unaccented Latin script would not be understood in English? If there were some generally accepted standard among English or monolingual dictionaries or indeed any accepted standard among any group, I would be happy to accept that. DCDuring TALK 22:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to exclude Phrasebook entries, though I think some of those entries as misclassified. DCDuring TALK 22:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I've just scanned the latest dump (from less than a week ago) for each set of English definitions (split by ety and POS), and used two different approaches to count the sets:

1. Approach 1: A set of definitions counts as a lemma if (1) any definition has any wikitext, other than whitespace or periods, that is not inside any template other than perhaps {{w|...}} or {{l|en|...}}; or (2) any definition has any of the templates {{non-gloss definition}}, {{acronym of}}, {{initialism of}}, {{n-g}}, {{given name}}, {{surname}}, {{abbreviation of}}, {{short for}}.
2. Approach 2: A set of definitions counts as a lemma if any definition has any wikitext, other than whitespace or periods, that is not inside any argument-less template, nor inside any of a few dozen form-of templates or a few dozen context templates. (This involved a bunch of special-casing.)

Approach 2 is, barring truly bizarre wikitext, a strict superset of Approach 1; the idea is that Approach 1 should give a lower bound, and Approach 2 should give an upper bound, so that I could add special cases to each approach, letting them approach each other asymptotically, until they gave values that I considered "close enough". (Of course, these are lower and upper bounds on an idiosyncratic value; I counted various things as non-lemma "form of"-s, and various other things as yes-lemma definitions, that under a different phase of the moon I might have treated the opposite way.)

So, that explained . . . Approach 1 gave 298,322; Approach 2 gave 299,516. So, for one arbitrary and haphazard definition of "English lemma", based roughly on DCDuring's definition but cutting out the harder-to-implement parts (phrasebook, translingual) and filling in sketchinesses not covered above, we're within 1% of having 300,000 English lemmata.

—Ruakh_TALK 02:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The Translingual entries matter because a competing monolingual dictionary would almost always have entries for symbols, numbers, and taxons and count them as lemmata. And many (most?) of our phrasebook entries are not typically in a monolingual entry. Some of our lemmas may involve some double counting, such as where we have a sense for a verb that has a notation like "usually with to" and a full entry for just that sense at [[VERB to]]. There is no point in trying to achieve further precision when we are still not quite getting to the "right" target.

I guess my ultimate objective is to be able to compare en.wikt as a monolingual dictionary with other monolingual dictionaries, principally MWOnline, MW 3rd, and the OED, print and online. I am quite sure that we have fewer senses for the most polysemic English words than these dictionaries. It would be nice if we were withing striking distance for lemmas. I will check my references for any counts that have been prepared both for the numbers and for the operationalized definition of "lemma" used. DCDuring TALK 02:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Landau has a good methodology for when it is justified to include a dictionaries bold-faced terms as valid headwords/lemmas for counting "size". In some ways our format and methodology make things more clear cut as we do not include our nearest equivalent to run-ins: derived terms. Also we exclude abbreviations that only appear on the page of the abbreviendum and terms only in lists in our appendices.

MW3 claimed some 450,000 headwords, the OED 425,000 or so. MW3's total includes many terms in what it calls International Scientific Vocabulary, some of which we include as Translingual. OED's total includes many terms what we would call Middle English. Neither includes "encyclopedic" entries, in contrast to many other dictionaries.

We could also take a sample of headwords from MW3 (<1000 words) and determine whether we have the term covered and conversely. That would enable us to estimate our size relative to MW3. The sampling procedure for MW3 would be a random or quasi-random sample of pages, then of columns, and lastly a distance from the first line to get a list of lemmas, then again weighting inversely by the number of lines for the entry (to avoid overrepresenting polysemous terms). The same could be done for any print dictionary. I don't know how to sample MWOnline or other online dictionaries. I assume someone here could generate a random or quasi-random sample of English headwords. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

What about splitting by just etymology and not POS? I think that's more like what other dictionaries mean when they say "n entries".​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That knocks us down to just 133,470 lemmata. (I liked it better the other way!) —Ruakh_TALK 23:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Landau is pretty explicit that he would count each Etymology-PoS combination. I would find it hard to believe that any commercial dictionary would use a method that would reduce their total count of headwords. A few of our distinct etymologies might be questioned, such as those that separate nouns from verbs because there were distinct Old English words for the noun and verb, both from a common root or certain back-formations from derived terms that end with the same spelling and related meaning, but they are defensible and Landau would defend them, I think.

Landau Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography (2001), page 109-114, "Entry Counting" lays out what he would count. It is oriented toward justifying inclusion of some items for which print dictionaries, even big ones with small type, save space by eliminating a separate entry or definition for the bolded "headword". One point he makes is that mere lists of, say, words prefixed with un- count as long as the normal meaning of the word is totally predictable from the meaning of the two morphemes. If we are diligent in including valid redlinks as entries, we need not concern ourselves with such rationalizations. DCDuring TALK 00:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Any chance of staying on topic, chaps? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope, none at all. Personally, I found this to be just as unfit for RFDO as it was fascinating. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, at least it helped show the extreme distance between what we have (the page in question and the better pages with data that still don't address the issue very well) and what we could use: data to allow headword-to-headword comparison with other dictionaries. DCDuring TALK 21:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe move the contents to Template talk:count page? I think we should have an explanation somewhere, for anyone who wonders why there was a template with a link inside it on every linkless page on Wiktionary for a long while... --Yair rand (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought I'd commented in this discussion already; it seems I haven't: I favour keeping the page, marking it as historical. If the contents are moved to Template talk:count page, I favour leaving a redirect from WT:Page count. - -sche (discuss) 20:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:dlc

This is an invented code which doesn't exist according to SIL. -- Liliana • 17:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see your point; isn't the question 'does the language Elfdalian exist'? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Both are questions, actually. Do we want to treat the lect as a separate language? If so, what code should we use for it? If "dlc" isn't a valid code, we need to create a code following our "exceptional code"-creation pattern: so, "gmq-elf" or similar. This is because "dlc" could later be assigned by ISO to some other language. - -sche (discuss) 18:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I should've said that. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with this sentiment. dlc is an invented code and as such, should either be moved or deleted because of that. Razorflame 18:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

dlc is the LINGUIST List code for the Dalecarlian dialects, of which Elfdalian is one. The LINGUIST List code specifically for Elfdalian is qer, so I would recommend either using gmq-qer for Elfdalian or lumping all of Dalecarlian together as a single language and using gmq-dlc for it. (I would prefer the second option myself.) —Angr 19:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, "dlc" for Dalecarlian was in a draft version of ISO 639-3, but was removed (along with "scy" for Scanian) before publication under pressure from the Swedish government, who wanted those two languages to be considered dialects of Swedish rather than separate languages (see m:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Elfdalian and GerardM's blog). GerardM also says, "According to the rules of the ISO-639 standard, the code dlc will not be used for anything but Dalecarlian", so we don't have to worry about it being assigned to something else. —Angr 17:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The second link says According to the rules of the ISO-639 standard, the code dlc will not be used for anything but Dalecarlian. If that's true, then we can safely use that code as there is no danger of a conflict with another language that is later assigned the code 'dlc'. Whether or not it's not valid ISO-639 is not really that important, as we can use any code we like as long as it conforms to the rules for the HTML lang= attribute (which allows codes other than ISO-639). A few days ago I did some researching about Elfdalian and added some entries and even without knowing Swedish too much I can already tell this language is almost as close to Old Norse as it is to Swedish, and much less like Swedish than standard Danish or Norwegian are. There is no way a Swedish speaker would understand it. As for the other varieties of Dalecarlian... well I don't know too much about them and they aren't very well documented, so I suppose we could use the name 'Dalecarlian' with the assumption that it will primarily be Elfdalian, but also allow other varieties if attested. —CodeCat 17:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: "the HTML lang= attribute (which allows codes other than ISO-639)": I believe you're mistaken, or rather, irrelevantly correct. The HTML specification defines valid language tags by pointing to RFC 1766 or BCP47. RFC 1766 required the first part of a language tag to be either i, x, or a two-letter code assigned per ISO 639. BCP 47 (currently RFC 5646) allows a few more possibilities, but it still forbids a language tag from starting with a two- or three-letter code that is not a "shortest ISO 639 code", unless the tag is one of a very short list of grandfathered tags (such as sgn-CH-DE and zh-min-nan). So while it's true that it's possible to construct a valid HTML lang= attribute that is not an ISO 639, dlc is not an example of this possibility. —Ruakh_TALK 19:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Wiktionary does have language templates that don't correspond to ISO 639, and indeed we recognize languages that ISO 639 does not, such as Jèrriais ({{roa-jer}}) and (among North Germanic languages) Gutnish ({{gmq-gut}}). I do think our best bet is to move this template to {{gmq-dlc}} and change the content of it from "Elfdalian" to "Dalecarlian" so that other Dalecarlian varieties (to the extent they're attested in written form) can be subsumed under it. (On the other hand, we also have a precedent for calling a language by the name of its best known dialect: we call {{yue}} "Cantonese" even though the code covers all Yue dialects, not just the Cantonese standard dialect. So in principle we could get away with calling {{gmq-dlc}} "Elfdalian" as well.) —Angr 20:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine to recognize languages that ISO 639 does not, but I think our use of nonstandard-language-codes-that-look-like-real-ones is a mistake. (And CodeCat seems to agree with me, since she says that "we can use any code we like as long as it conforms to the rules for the HTML lang= attribute"; she was mistaken about how to do that, but acknowledged that it's something we should do.) Fortunately, it's a mistake that we can rectify, once we acknowledge that it is a mistake worth rectifying. In the case of Dalecarlian, we should use {{gmq-x-dlc}} (or similar): gmq is a valid language subtag, but dlc is not a valid extension code, so we need to mark it as "Private Use" by using the x prefix. —Ruakh_TALK 21:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Part of me disagrees with this on principle, I don't feel right with the idea that a standards body like ISO can tell us what codes to use, especially not when a national government has influence on it. What basically happened is that the Swedish government told us we can't use 'dlc'. It's a bit crazy... :/ —CodeCat 21:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Ruakh, if you say gmq-x-dlc is better than gmq-dlc, I'll take your word for it, and if there's consensus that you're right then we should move the other non-ISO code templates to names with an "-x-" in them as well. CodeCat, I understand your frustration and agree that it sucks that ISO caved in to political blackmail, but HTML uses the ISO codes for better or for worse, so we can't just start making up codes that influence the HTML of our pages. —Angr 21:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I do say so, but I don't ask you to take my word for it. I encourage you, and other editors, to look through the relevant standards (W3C technical reports on HTML/XML/XHTML; IETF RFCs on language codes; the IANA language-code registry), or perhaps this informal guide by the W3C if you prefer a less technical document, and form your own opinions. —Ruakh_TALK 21:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

One thing I see in the informal guide is that we have another option for picking a code: sv-SE-W using the ISO 3166-2 country and subdivision name as an extension will get us a properly defined "Swedish as spoken in Dalarna County". The drawback to using that is that there may be a local variety of Standard Swedish spoken there in addition to Dalecarlian. —Angr 22:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not allowed, because subtags are separated by hyphens, and can't contain hyphens, so SE-W is two separate subtags: SE would mean Sweden, but W would be an invalid extension subtag (invalid because unregistered, and because extension subtags always have to be followed by one or more additional subtags). But if we're O.K. with treating Dalecarlian as a form of Swedish, as sv-* implies, then we may be able to register a "variant" subtag with IANA, such as dalec, such that Dalecarlian would be publically defined as sv-dalec. (I think. I've never really looked into how variant codes work.) —Ruakh_TALK 22:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't supposed to be more than a kludge, so if it isn't allowed anyway, I'd rather use gmq-x-dlc for linguistic reasons (Dalecarlian linguistically isn't just a dialect of Swedish, whatever Stockholm says). —Angr 09:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

[@CodeCat, after e/c] Well, but the main purpose of these codes is interoperability with other standards-compliant systems. I don't like that political factors play a role in the assignment of codes, but we don't really accomplish anything by silently subverting it. We can fight the injustice by expanding our Dalecarlian coverage and treating its words as ==Dalecarlian==, but assigning Dalecarlian its own pseudo-code dlc will not help and should play no part. (Imagine that your corrupt local government was bribed to split up your telephone area-code into two, and you don't like the new area-code you've been assigned. Does that mean you'll continue to give out your phone number as using the old area-code, even though it won't actually enable long-distance callers to reach you?) —Ruakh_TALK 21:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I get it, dlc was removed as Wikipedians put it 'with prejudice'. Since we keep {{sh}} because although ISO 639-1 retired the code, we still find it useful, and we should aim to make use of ISO 639, but not to be a slave to it. So I'm fine keeping this per the KISS principle; why use a seven or nine character code well three will do. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference: sh used to be valid. dlc never was. -- Liliana • 21:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

@Ruakh: can the codes Wiktionary uses in its HTML be different from the template titles/codes, or are the template-values automatically the HTML values? I.e., can we (per our current naming scheme) name the template {{gmq-dlc}}, but set the HTML to "gmq-x-dlc"? What HTML codes are currently associated with our other exceptional codes, such as {{roa-jer}}; do they include "-x-"? When the WMF creates exceptional codes for new wikis in languages without ISO codes, what naming scheme do they follow? - -sche (discuss) 22:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: first two questions: I guess it depends what you mean by "can" and "automatically". Currently, we design templates under the assumption that these will be identical; we don't have any mechanism in place for mapping from language-template-name to HTML-language-tag. If {{gmq-dlc}} is Dalecarlian and {{gmq-dlc/script}} is Latn, then {{term|foo|lang=gmq-dlc}} will be <span class="Latn mention-Latn" lang="gmq-dlc">[[foo#Dalecarlian|foo]]</span>. But there's no technical reason that we can't institute such a mapping.

Re: third question: As I'm sure you can guess from the answers to your first two questions, the answer to this one is "e.g. roa-jer; no, no -x-".

Re: last question: They no longer do that — see m:Language proposal policy — but back when they did do it, their naming scheme was basically "invent something realistic-looking". Needless to say, this eventually led to problems. The Swiss German Wikipedia is als.wikipedia.org, but ISO/SIL assigns als to Tosk Albanian and gsw to Swiss German. Our scheme, inventing codes like roa-jer, is not nearly so bad as that, IMHO; but it's still far from ideal.

—Ruakh_TALK 23:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if this is a stupid question but, who forces us to use syntactically valid language codes? As long as browsers can parse them, everything should be fine? -- Liliana • 23:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Forest products

Only subcategory is 'paper sizes'. It actually looks like a bit of a joke, though I don't think it is. We don't have for example Category:River products for entries such as salmon. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

At bgc "forest products" gets 5,400K hits, "river products" gets 10K. "Forest products" is fairly standard characterization of the wood and paper industies, which are not easily separated in practice at the production end. DCDuring TALK 19:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok not heard of it. So, can this be used? We do have Category:Woods, and Category:Paper would be a good parent for Category:Paper sizes, so maybe it is a keep. Any further opinions? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I added a few illustrative examples, both new entries and old. DCDuring TALK 22:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Though, you did add them to the wrong category. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

We can also add [[ivory]].​—msh210℠ (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete unuseful category.​—msh210℠ (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know that there was a utility standard or any other objective standard for topical categories. I just thought that I could get in the playpen with DanielDot, with the same priveleges. DCDuring TALK 00:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

@DCDuring, msh210 isn't claiming there is one. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Right.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Current content of Category:en:Forest products: delignify, fourdrinier, kraft paper, kraft pulp, lignin, Stihl. Of these, delignify (a verb), fourdrinier (a machine used in making paper), and Stihl (a type of large industrial saw, usually cordless with a petrol motor and a large circular cutting blade) are not forest products. The category was created on 14 August 2010‎ by DCDuring. For a 2010 discussion, see User_talk:DCDuring/2010_QIV#Category:Forest products. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:BIPA

Created as a clone of a Wikipedia template. The Duplication-Is-Evil principle would have us use a bot to replace all instances of {{BIPA|x}} with {{IPA|[x]}}. On the other hand, keeping it lets us copy Swadesh lists from Wikipedia, provided Swadesh lists continue to be created on Wikipedia using w:Template:BIPA. - -sche (discuss) 00:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphan and delete. And note that w:Template:BIPA was deleted almost three and a half years ago, with the delete-message "not used for almost 3 yrs". —Ruakh_TALK 03:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete, I mean, what the heck? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Failed, redirecting to {{IPA}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:PST entry

For Proto Sino Tibetan. Used twice. Presumably same rationale for deletion as for others just above. DCDuring TALK 04:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete, same reasons again. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, delete. - -sche (discuss) 02:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

Template:zhx-zho

This is not a language, so we don't allow it in entries. And etymologies should use {{etyl:zhx}} if it's not certain which Chinese language a term derives from. I'm not really sure if deleting it is the best option, but I can't think of any use for this as a legitimate language code nor as an etymology code. —CodeCat 19:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete per nom.. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 19:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Kill with fire. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:n-th

Template:N-th

Apparently abandoned, incomplete. DCDuring TALK 17:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete. A little bit of {{#expr: magic could be used to complete it (provided we're O.K. with e.g. 1st rather than first), but it's hard to imagine what it would be used for. —Ruakh_TALK 19:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I speak for everyone when I say, what's the f*cking point of it? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

If we knew that, we wouldn't be RfDing it. DCDuring TALK 22:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

We can nominate things for deletion even when we know what they are. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

These appear to be defective. If we had Category:Defective templates, I suppose we could so categorize it. Should we? Should we keep them for educational purposes? "Sharpen your template skills by fixing this template!" DCDuring TALK 23:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

De-defectivized. So it's no longer useful as a challenge. Can we delete it now? —Ruakh_TALK 01:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Except for 11 and 12. DCDuring TALK 02:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The only use I can see for this template is to have other templates take numbers as parameters e.g. for clarifying nouns as 'nth declension' ({{foobar|m|1}} is marginally easier to type than {{foobar|m|first}}), and have those templates feed those numbers to this template and return the appropriate ordinals... but {{foobar}} could just do the conversion in that case, now couldn't it? Delete. - -sche (discuss) 02:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it could, but only if it's the only such template. If there are several (which is conceivable in a case like this) then it would lead to duplication of code, which is a bad thing. —CodeCat 10:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there any difference between {{n-th}} and {{N-th}}? If not, and if it's decided this is a useful thing to have about the house, at the very least {{N-th}} should redirect to {{n-th}} rather than being a separate template, shouldn't it? —Angr 10:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Before the recent modification, N-th converted "1" to "First", n-th to "first". DCDuring TALK 11:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:past tense form of

This is only used in one entry, in Japanese. That single usage might be legitimate, but as it's just one use I wonder if there isn't another more widely used template for all the other Japanese past tense forms, which would make this template redundant. I'm hoping a Japanese editor can shed some light on this. —CodeCat 17:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Maro 19:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete, I think when DAVilla created this in 2007, it was already redundant to {{past of}} or maybe {{simple past of}} or even {{past participle of}}. It looks to me like a pure error, that's been missed for so long precisely because it's only been used in one entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete Now untranscluded. DCDuring TALK 03:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Kwic

A template for displaying text on either side of a keyword? Not used in the main namespace, or anywhere outside of one user-subpage. (It's linked to from three others.) Seems to have been intended for highlighting headwords in quotations, but I don't think it should be used. - -sche (discuss) 03:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete, User:Visviva/free shows how to use it, which is exactly why it should not be used. Also, from the name I assumed it was a script template. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I would love for Wiktionary to have the vast corpus resources for which this would be useful so that we could generate huge KWIC lists and mark and sort the usages by sense. But we don't and, anyway, some of this capability is available for free at BYU-COCA et al. So it doesn't seem very useful. Sigh, delete. DCDuring TALK 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Does the formatting the template uses not bother you? I'm happy enough just bolding words. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

My sadness might just be because of my association of this format (fixed-width font and all) with research on much earlier computer systems of my youth. This is not the format used at COCA which does more-or-less center the bold search terms in their KWIC list. DCDuring TALK 23:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:屯/Korean

I originally just deleted this, but, to be fair to the contributor, I decided it was best to check about what we do with such things. My original impression was that it was a way to create what would normally be an appendix outside of the appendix namespace. I'm now told that this is being used as a sort of sandbox to develop content for the entry. This is a huge amount of largely encyclopedic content- I wonder how much of this could ever be appropriately added to the entry. I also wonder why this couldn't go in a user-page subpage. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well it clearly shouldn't be here, the content should be at 屯, right? Userfying seems ok too, it's pretty standard to 'draft' ideas on user subpages on Wikipedia, the reason we don't do it so much here is our entries are much shorter than Wikipedia articles. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• For my 2p, I'd say nix the bit about "The conquest of Champa", not least since that's a quote in English about use of the term in Vietnamese, which has exactly bupkus to do with use of the term in Korean. But the rest of it looks like appropriate content for the Korean entry. Korean, like Japanese, has borrowed tons of vocabulary from Chinese, and these Sinically derived terms have many synonyms and many compounds, so the length of those two subsections strikes me as perfectly normal for a hanja / kanji entry.

I had been talking with User:KYPark about something else and s/he mentioned creating the Talk:屯/Korean page as a sandbox, but I didn't understand what s/he meant at the time. Seeing the sandbox page itself and reading Chuck's and Mglovesfun's comments above, I agree that this kind of drafting would be better done on a user's own subpage. I'll make a note at User_talk:KYPark to that effect, and if s/he is okay with it, I'm happy to move the Talk:屯/Korean page to a more appropriate place, perhaps User:KYPark/Sandbox. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of User:KYPark/屯. It really doesn't matter that much. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh it's already there! So delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• After I brought it to his/her attention, s/he copied the content to a user subpage. So yes, delete. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 12:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Ibrn

Not a valid script code -- Liliana • 21:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't have a way to extend script codes like we do with language codes. There is no need either, because script codes are only internal to Wiktionary, they don't appear in the HTML. So keep for now. —CodeCat 00:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There should be, though. We'll get into big trouble if ISO decides to assign the Ibrn code to a script other than Iberian. -- Liliana • 04:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

None of the Iberian scripts has even been encoded in Unicode yet, so what exactly are we expecting to tag with this template? If we have entries for any Paleohispanic language, they'll have to be in Latin transliteration and tagged {{Latn}}, as we already do for Tocharian, for example. If these scripts ever get encoded, ISO will probably assign them a code then, and we can worry about it then. Delete. —Angr 07:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Even if we want a script template for Iberian script, we shouldn't make it look like an ISO code just for the sake of looking like an ISO code. (See w:Cargo cult programming.) —Ruakh_TALK 12:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Bleh whatever I guess I agree, delete it then. I had genuinely thought that these script codes were made up on Wiktionary, just like some family codes and such. I never realised ISO had anything to do with script codes lol...o.O 50 Xylophone Players talk 01:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it does say at Category:Script code templates and Wiktionary:Scripts. —CodeCat 11:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Maro 23:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete for practical reasons. Unicode can't handle this script, and all the uses of {{Ibrn}} seem to be written in the Latin script anyway. If Unicode could handle it, it would need some sort of code. But that's a hypothetical point... delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Requests for pronunciation (Translingual)

Translingual is not a language and it doesn't have its phonological system. Maro 16:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

delete is this a joke? -- Liliana • 16:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

But translingual items can and do have pronunciations. The Category:ICAO spelling alphabet for example has officially designated pronunciations which are internationally recognised. —CodeCat 16:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, would like to know how to pronounce some of the genera and other taxons. At the very least where the stress might be is independent of the phonological system of the language in which the word (or phrase for species names) is embedded. DCDuring TALK 18:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The Latin names of the taxons are pronounced differently depending on who's pronouncing them. English speakers pronounce them in anglicized Latin, German speakers pronounce them in germanized Latin, and so on -- and stress is not necessarily independent of this. —Angr 18:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep I think. I've added pronunciations to Translingual sections with tags like {{a|English}} to show it's an English pronunciation of the term. For example 20 is pronounced /ˈtwɛn.ti/. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I would actually think that the pronunciation is for (deprecated template usage) twenty, and that (deprecated template usage) 20 is just a translingual representation of that word. So it should really have something like 'for pronunciation, see twenty and its translations'. —CodeCat 20:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

To take the case of taxons, the utility of this would be to provide users an acceptable pronunciation for use in, for example, a presentation of a paper they might be giving to a possibly international, technically competent audience or in a podcast to a similar audience. If we don't have anyone who might be able to respond to that concern, I guess we can provide external links to this work or others like it or to MWOnline. DCDuring TALK 18:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

As Angr notes, that would seem to depend on what language the rest of the talk is in. (Or is the talk composed solely of the pronunciation of a sequence of taxa?  :-) )

Delete. We should also hunt down and fix ==Translingual/Pronunciation=== entries.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The world won't miss our not having it as other sources with fewer scruples are available. DCDuring TALK 17:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Appendix:BASIC

As a programming language, this is out of scope in this project. -- Liliana • 20:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete, yes, it's a misunderstanding of the word 'language'. This is a different sense of the word language, the one we don't cover on this project. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

What they said.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep - no reason to delete an accurate appendix because we feel that it's less a language than words from various anime that we also keep appendicized. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:aircraft

Not a context -- Liliana • 21:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Move or redirect to Template:aviation? —CodeCat 21:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep, but make it display (aviation) instead. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 00:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Then why not just redirect it to Template:aviation? —Angr 09:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Because it would categorize in Category:en:Aircraft still. Not strictly forbidden to do this; see {{protein}} as an example. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

But why exactly would a term like fighter plane be restricted to an aviation context? -- Liliana • 04:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

We still don't know whether we really mean these things to be usage contexts or subject-matter indicators. I'd like them to be usage contexts. After checking whether the terms which now use this are restricted to an aviation of other context, change the context tag appropriately and delete. DCDuring TALK 03:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we do know. They are usage contexts, not subject-matter indicators. We've voted on just this issue: context labels are not to be used just to add topical categories. Q.v.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

On reflection, while the vote msh210 links do doesn't say anything about what context labels display and how they categorize, I don't see how this template can ever be used in a way that doesn't violate the vote. As Liliana-60 says, why would the name of any aircraft be restricted to experts? NB I wouldn't mind updating that vote, I wonder if there's any appetite for it. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Three-revert rule

Per the tag {{inactive|This idea was rejected and is not policy on Wiktionary}} and also Help:Reverting says there is no Three-revert rule on Wiktionary. This page gives the opposite impression, and it's not a good use of {{inactive}} as it's not inactive so much as it's wrong. Inactive is for projects that get abandoned but which shouldn't be deleted because they're good projects. This isn't good or a project. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Not helpful in any way. Someone can move it to their userspace if they want to promote it. —Internoob 15:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

When I was a newbie, this was the page from which I have expressly learned that Wiktionary has not three-revert rule, unlike Wikipedia. What I think I would do is replace the content of the page with the following: "Unlike Wikipedia, Wiktionary has no three-revert rule. The three-revert rule would state that an editor must not perform more than three reversions on a single Wiktionary page within 24 hours of their first reversion.", or the like. Back then, I found Wiktionary talk:Three-revert rule enlightening. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

We have WT:WFW now. Maybe it could be expanded with a table of some sort that lists Wikipedia practices and the equivalent Wiktionary practices (or lack thereof)? —CodeCat 17:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. Utter bullshit if you ask me. :p User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 21:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:notself

This template is redundant to {{l-self}}... —CodeCat 18:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

They do two different things. l-self boldfaces a self-link and not another link; notself boldfaces neither. (And notself is in use.) Keep.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I've orphaned it now. It was used in only two places: in {{soplink}}, which should have used {{l}} instead, and in {{Latin variations}}, which I orphaned in favour of {{list|en|varieties of Latin}}. —CodeCat 13:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Should have used {{l}}?? Why? In any event, see my recent edit to {{soplink}}.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Your edit didn't work. It is still not substable. And yes, should have, because in its original state it completely ignored the lang= parameter that the documentation mentioned. I just added that parameter, using {{l}}, so that it linked to the right section. I did not make {{l}} itself substable, because it isn't meant to be substituted. —CodeCat 17:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction: it's now substable.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It works better now, but {{subst:soplink|bake|cookies}} results in [[bake|bake]] [[cookies|cookies]], which is less desirable than {{l|en|bake}} {{l|en|cookies}} or [[bake]] [[cookies]]... —CodeCat 17:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, did your edit to {{soplink}} effect a change in boldfacing in entries? (I didn't check.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

(You'll pardon me, I hope, for being very leery of (even established) editors who make presumably well-meaning edits to templates, without regard for the resultant drastic change in how entries are displayed.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it didn't change anything in boldfacing because I replaced {{notself}} with {{l}}, not {{l-self}}. My reasoning was that if a non-English term, say hypothetically land, is defined as {{soplink|open|land}} but there is no open land entry, then we would want the word 'land' to link back to the English section on that page, we wouldn't want it to be unlinked. —CodeCat 17:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, okay, then I'll revert my reversion. Thanks for the explanation. Note that I still say to keep the template nominated for deletion: AFAICT the reason I gave above applies still.​—msh210℠ (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

And I've now checked all transclusions of {{soplink}} to make sure they use lang= or link to English words: this was necessary now in light of your (CodeCat's) change to that template (which I just reverted to). I note that nobody did this when you (CodeCat) first made said change. Cf. my comment, just above, of 17:39, July 15th. (Sigh.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I did actually check all the transclusions. There aren't that many. —CodeCat 08:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Checking doesn't help if the entries aren't edited in light of the template edit. One entry needed it. I don't mean to sound snide, but this has been a problem over and over again with template edits.​—msh210℠ (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

{{l-self}} was created by CodeCat a few days ago. Clearly {{notself}} wasn't redundant until CodeCat created it. I think either CodeCat should've modified {{notself}}, or if not possible, create a separate template if needed for a separate function. So if they do have separate functions, keep 'em separate. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

When I made it, I wasn't aware there was already another template. I specifically intended it to be used in inflection tables and such, where it's probably more useful to show bold text than to display a link to the language section the table already is in. The bold part wasn't a specific idea... it was based on older inflection tables that used raw links rather than {{l}}, so that they already produced bold text. I just combined that idea with the usefulness of linking to a language section like {{l}} does. Another advantage to having bold text as opposed to regular text is that many inflection tables use the inflection-table CSS class, which displays red links in black instead, and so a regular non-link would be indistinguishable from missing entries in that case unless you hovered the mouse over it. —CodeCat 19:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:trans10-ori

Unused. Probably unusable. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Strong delete, I don't expect it's usable, and even if it is usable, {{trans11}} does the same job but even better as it allows up to 11, not exactly 11. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 20:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:trans11-ori

As previous. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Strong delete, as previous! Mglovesfun (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 20:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:trans-top2

As above. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete. It's a seriously bad idea to mess with {{trans-top}}, any changes to that should be discussed on the talk page before implemented as it's so widely used. I say treat this as a no longer used sandbox, and delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 20:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:italics

Content of template: ''

DCDuring TALK 11:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Very strong delete, this is really, really wrong! In situations where '' won't work, you can use <i></i>. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete. —Ruakh_TALK 12:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This needs no discussion, I speedied it. -- Liliana • 13:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:ipa2sampa

Unused experiment? SemperBlotto (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see how it works. It might be useful for me as it happens as I don't know X-SAMPA nearly as well as I know IPA. I tend to say it isn't doing anything harmful, though it's awkward nobody's forced to use it and it does have a defined use. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

OK it is really painful it use, for example of French grêle the syntax is {{X-SAMPA|{{subst:ipa2sampa|ɡ}}{{subst:ipa2sampa|ʁ}}{{subst:ipa2sampa|ɛ}}{{subst:ipa2sampa|l}}/}}, which is a pain to write. Having said that... it does work. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I just used this in compete (diff) to do the X-SAMPA. Keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:langnames

As above. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete, doesn't make any sense. Maybe it once did. I think it's now redundant to {{langt}} which now covers alternative language names. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 20:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:list template

As above. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it, why would this ever be useful? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:means

Yet another unused experiment. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Unused in the mainspace; not linked from any discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, I agree. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:nan-sample

And another. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Would it be simpler to say "all members of Category:Untranscluded templates?" SemperBlotto (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I am worried that I am going to miss a preload, subst-only, work in progress, or just an interesting idea. After all, most of these have no documentation or are - ahem - "self-documenting". If folks would like to categorize or document a template in a way that indicated its current or potential value, then we could bypass RFDO. DCDuring TALK 16:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well Category:Untranscluded templates ought to be redundant to Category:Templates that must be substituted, as substitute-only templates are used but not transcluded, while anything that is substitutable but not used really ought to be either used or deleted. As a rule, I say if potentially useful but unused, keep, as the one surefire way that useful template will never be used is if you delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Argh, this one's not well formatted it all. It could be turned into a subst: templates but I don't really see the point, it seems as easy just to write the stuff out by hand. Writing it out by hand gives more flexibility too. I'll abstain. But my instinct tells me this isn't used anyway, so wikifying it will have no benefit. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps in an ideal, static world with perfect categorizers the two categories would have identical membership. It is because our world is not ideal or static and those willing to categorize are not knowledgeable enough to do so perfectly that there may be a need for other categories. Do actively used preload templates show up as transcluded? What about templates in development in Template, not User space? What about all of those orphan templates that are really worth keeping because of all the good ideas therein? DCDuring TALK 16:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Re "anything that is substitutable but not used really ought to be either used or deleted", note that some may be used substed even though usable and unused unsubsted.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

DCDuring, I'll take you literally:

"Do actively used preload templates show up as transcluded?"

No, like {{new en plural}}. Unless the template can either be used as a subst or a non-subst template

"What about templates in development in Template, not User space?"

Move 'em or delete 'em. That's what this page is for, such discussion

"What about all of those orphan templates that are really worth keeping because of all the good ideas therein?"

You've in effect answered yourself; if they are really worth keeping, keep 'em.

Mglovesfun (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@msh: Where does one look to find whether a subst'ed template is in fact used?

@MG: How do we keep untranscluded, undocumented templates, not intended for preload or substing, so that they can be found and used? DCDuring TALK 17:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Re "Where does one look to find whether a subst'ed template is in fact used?", beats me. I suppose one could determine what its output would be when substed and see whether any edits have that output. (That wouldn't be completely conclusive, as people might be typing {{subst:foo|bar|baz=xyzzy}}, hitting "Show changes", copy-pasting the result into the edit box, and editing it beyond recognition, but that seems like a fairly remote possibility barring some specific reason for thinking people do so with a given template.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A Bunch of Turkish Inflected-Form Categories

• Category:Turkish first-person possessive forms
• Category:Turkish first-person singular possesive dative forms
• Category:Turkish first-person singular possessive dative forms
• Category:Turkish noun first-person possessive forms
• Category:Turkish noun possessive singular forms
• Category:Turkish possesive singular forms
• Category:Turkish possessive singular forms
• Category:Turkish second-person possesive forms
• Category:Turkish second-person singular dative forms
• Category:Turkish second-person singular possesive dative forms
• Category:Turkish second-person singular possessive dative forms
• Category:Turkish terms with homophones
• Category:Turkish third-person possesive forms
• Category:Turkish third-person singular dative forms
• Category:Turkish third-person singular possesive dative forms
• Category:Turkish third-person singular possessive dative forms
• Category:Turkish verb first-person possesive forms
• Category:Turkish verb plural forms
• Category:Turkish verb possesive singular forms
• Category:Turkish verb second-person possesive forms
• Category:Turkish verb third-person forms
• Category:Turkish verb third-person possesive forms

I noticed these in the Special:UncategorizedCategories page, and was going to add the appropriate categories and move the misspelled ones, but then I noticed who created many - if not all- of these, and thought I should check whether this kind of categorization is appropriate. If the consensus is that they're ok, I'll happily withdraw the nominations and fix the problems. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't do this in any language I'm familiar with, except Latvian and Icelandic, and I'm pretty sure we stopped doing it there. Delete --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I templatised Category:Turkish terms with homophones. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 03:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

These categories are very specific, but languages are all unique so they have to be judged as such. I think asking User:Sinek would be a good idea. User:George Animal is also listed as a native Turkish speaker, I think the other users Category:User tr-N aren't currently active. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I just realized: these seem to each have their own template that produces them, and the templates aren't language specific- one could just as easily find Category:French possesive singular forms someday. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Not all of them do, but the more specific ones seem to. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Now that I know what was populating them, I've orphaned and speedied the misspelled ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that a general useful template form for all languages is difficult - if not impossible -, but I propose to follow the way it is done in Hungarian, as this Finno-Ugric language is somehow similar to the Altaic Turkish. In Hungarian, words are formed also agglutinively, and I know that a word can have several cases at the same time. Sae1962 (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think all that categories (the most of them; like:Turkish third-person singular possesive dative forms) are redundant because that templates exist not even at the Turkish Wiktionary.It is nonsense to create the pages (e.g.:my auto, my page, my father, of the father). It would be enough if the templates exist.They don't have to be created.The creation of the entries like (arabam:my auto) are also redundant because all that things are the same.Arabam (my auto), evim (my house) etc. It is better to create a page for the grammar part for the possessive nouns of the Turkish language.I'm in favour of this idea.George^Animal. 13:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

PS:I am for the deletion of the pages.--George^Animal. 13:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC).But the templates shall remain in the entries.---George^Animal. 13:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

These Turkish inflection forms can be all generated from simple grammar rules. Including them in the Wiktionary is totally useless. They don't even have exceptions like in English you have dog ->dogs but mouse->mice. Because Turkish is an agglutinative language, if you started including all possible Turkish constructs you would have no rational way to reject something like Çekoslovakyalılaştıramadıklarımızdanmışsınız which means "reportedly you are you one of those whom we could not make Czechoslovakian". Terms with definitions that are Sum-of-Parts are not included in the Wiktionary and with a similar reasoning, I believe grammatical constructs in agglutinative languages that follow simple rules should not be included either. For this reason the categories listed above and the words contained within them should be deleted. Same argument applies for the templates mentioned below. --İnfoCan (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic comments about whether there should be entries for all possible word-suffix combinations

Actually we do have a way of rejecting something like Çekoslovakyalılaştıramadıklarımızdanmışsınız, namely the requirement that words actually be attested in use (and not merely as mentions). I don't think Turkish is considered one of the limited-documentation languages, so Çekoslovakyalılaştıramadıklarımızdanmışsınız would have to be attested three times in published literature to be included. If not, it isn't included. If it is attested, however, there is actually no reason we shouldn't include it. —Angr 20:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC) OK, the country of Czechoslovakia does not exist any more, and the above is just an old joke that elementary school kids tell each other. But seriously, if you want attestation, no problem: Avrupalılaşmamıza is a down-to-earth example, it translates as "to our Europeanization" (as in "Islam is shown as an obstacle to our Europeanization", as used in a newspaper editorial). Google search gives me three independent attestations from newspapers [3]. Or, yapamamamızın ("of our inability to do"), 7 attestations just in Google Books [4]. So, is Wiktionary going to include such words now? If so, then probably 90% of the words in Wiktionary can potentially belong to Turkish or some other agglutinative language. This is ridiculous and calls for a proper definition of what a "word" is, to set an inclusion policy. I believe that the attestation part should come in only after you have "peeled off" all the generic inflections. --İnfoCan (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Why shouldn't Wiktionary include such words? We're not paper, we're not going to run out of space. On the contrary, the ability to include such things is one of our major selling points, what sets us apart from conventional dictionaries. I see no harm at all in including such forms, and they may be very helpful for people learning Turkish who haven't yet quite mastered all of the suffixes and so don't know exactly what to shave off to get to the lemma. —Angr 21:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Your argument is equivalent to saying that the Wiktionary should have translations of every four-word English phrase to Turkish. I could say there is no space limitation, and it will certainly be useful to Turkish speakers who don't know English. Yes it is doable but it is not efficient. WikiMedia is great for writing an encyclopedia and perhaps a traditional dictionary, but I don't think it is the right tool for doing what you propose. Rather than entering a translation of everything, you need a rule-based parsing system. I know such Turkish language parsers exist, I have seen them at academic Web sites in Turkey. It would be far less work to write software that parses Turkish than write all these translations! --İnfoCan (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC) It's not quite equivalent, because Wiktionary's goal is "all words in all languages", and yapamamamızın is a word, while a four-word English phrase isn't a word. Now if we had a parsing system like you're talking about, where someone could type in yapamamamızın and be given the information about its root and affixes, then I'd agree we wouldn't need it as an entry as well. But until we have such a parsing system here, if someone creates an entry for yapamamamızın, and someone else nominates it for deletion, I will vote keep. —Angr 22:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Someone may create an entry for yapamamamızın but will soon tire of creating such entries. This discussion reminds me of the joke about the person with the hammer seeing everything like a nail ;-). You have to admit that current WikiMedia software is not designed to deal with this kind of data. That's why the Foundation has started to move toward new concepts like WikiData [5]. To think that a word is a bunch of characters with a space character on either side is an English- (or rather, a non-agglutinative language) speaker's world view :-). For yapamamamızın and "of our inability to do", the important parts are yap and "do" and the rest is grammatical detail. English uses spaces to separate most morphemes, Turkish relies a lot more on grammar rules. If four words separated by spaces don't deserve to have an entry in the dictionary, nor does a lemma with three suffixes. --İnfoCan (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Let me elaborate. The grammatical rules I mentioned can be summarized in a few paragraphs on a special page in the Appendix: names space and this would be far more efficient than having a template for each inflection form of each Turkish word. On the other hand, it did occur to me that there are a few exceptions to these rules, mainly because of exceptions to the Turkish vowel harmony rules (for certain words of foreign origin (for example the dative case of sol, the musical note, is sole, but the dative case of sol, meaning "left", is sola). For such exceptions, and only for them, a specialized template would be useful to indicate that the usual rules do not apply. This minor point aside, I still stand by my view above. --İnfoCan (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Per İnfoCan--Sabri76'^talk 17:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually I find it unnecessary to create articles every declined noun form and conjugated verb form, as it'd mean countless forms. Being quite different than English, there are so many possible situations that are expressed by a suffix in Turkish. But I also think of the users that have no knowledge of Turkish. We also have to take into account that, even someone without a basic knowledge should be able to find the definitions they needed. So if someone sees a word like evimizdeyiz ("we are at our house") and tries to look it up, they'll probably find nothing, as it has 3 different suffixes. And searching words like this is useless, as Did you mean ...? part can't always lead you to the right direction, as the forms on the declension templates are not shown on the searches.

Rather than creating each form, I guess we could edit the templates in order to give links to each suffix, something like that: evimizdeyiz. I guess this is more practical, as there are so many (and I mean it.) suffixes and there'd be millions of different combinations with all Turkish nouns. But I still have no idea about the search part, is there way to make it possible to show the info on the declension templates? Sinek (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

More off-topic comments about whether there should be entries for all possible word-suffix combinations

Creating millions of pages for all possible combinations of Turkish words with their single, double and triple suffix combinations is very inefficient. It is like creating separate pages for every possible two-, three- and four-word phrases in English. If somebody needs to look up a word like evimizdeyiz ("we are at our house"), you need a parsing-based solution, not a catalog-based solution that WikiMedia provides. It is possible to write scripts that take a word like evimizdeyiz and split it into ev (house) + -imiz (possesive, 1PP) + -de (locative case) + y (vowel-vowel connector) + -iz (copula, 1PP). The output of such a script can then give the necessary links to a such a user. --İnfoCan (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC) That's exactly what I said. I just don't know how to link the user (who searches evimizdeyiz) to the bare noun, ev. Sinek (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Any chance of moving all the off-topic stuff to the Beer Parlor? The deletion debates has got lost among it. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I collapsed my comments above. --İnfoCan (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would favour deleting these in favour of an approach like that used in Hungarian noun form categorisation. To elaborate, categorise possessive noun forms in one possessive noun form subcategory, then perhaps for any further inflected forms based off a form that is possessive (should we include them) categorise them as basic noun forms; for example, evimizde could be included as "locative singular(?) of evimiz". I don't know how accepting of this people would be but I think it would be kind of ok to give some like a free pass to the basic inflections, except perhaps in the case of odd or rare words, so that we would generally have no qualms about the addition of the simple case forms and probably nominative possessive forms too but would maybe be more strict or watchful of additions of not so basic forms like non-nominative possessives and such. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 14:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

A Bunch of Inflected-Form Templates

• Template:first-person singular possessive of
• Template:first-person singular possessive dative of
• Template:first-person singular possessive accusative of
• Template:second-person singular possessive of
• Template:second-person singular possessive accusative of
• Template:second-person singular possessive dative of ‎
• Template:third-person singular possessive of
• Template:third-person singular possessive accusative of
• Template:third-person singular possessive dative of

Same as above, but no language-specific issues to complicate things. These all categorize to the language specified in the language-code parameter. There may be others, but I don't have the time to look through this: [6] Chuck Entz (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Many of these were originally misspelled, but were moved to the correct spellings. A few still had the typos in their categorization language, but I corrected them so the misspelled categories would be orphaned, then deleted those categories. Some of these didn't have correctly-spelled categories to categorize to, so we'll need to deal with dozens of entries in a few non-existent categories once we decide what to do with everything. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Like above, I propose to follow the way it is done in Hungarian, as this Finno-Ugric language is somehow similar to the Altaic Turkish. In Hungarian, words are formed also agglutinively, and I know that a word can have several cases at the same time. Sae1962 (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what the practice is for Hungarian entries, but for the same argument I made above [7] I believe these templates and the words they are used for need to be deleted. --İnfoCan (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:nav-top

Template:nav-mid

Part of efforts to resolve category navigation problems in 2007. Not linked to except in those discussions. DCDuring TALK 23:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Terminate with extreme prejudice --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Kill with fire. Designed to work with {{nav}} which failed a deletion request in 2009 or 2010. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete. --Yair rand (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Killed with fire. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 23:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Translations to be checked (Brazilian Portuguese)

Do we have TTBC categories for dialects? I couldn’t find any other. And how would {{ttbc}} categorise an entry into this anyway? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 04:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Just speedy it. There's an option in the dropdown for "Empty category". --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

@Ungoliant, re: "how would {{ttbc}} categorise an entry into this anyway?" pt-BR seems to be ISO code for it. That code is used here in some pronunciation files and in citing a translation of Harry Potter used to attest or illustrate some Portuguese words. I think someone has attempted to use it to add translations as well. As to whether is a language of a dialect: who has the bigger army, the bigger economy? DCDuring TALK 04:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

By that reasoning, one would expect there to be a ttbc category for US English... Chuck Entz (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleted for being obviously unnecessary/unwanted. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 01:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:toys

Not a context... Mglovesfun (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleted and orphaned in the mainspace. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 20:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:cln

Invalid language code -- Liliana • 15:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's really more like ca-CLN. Note that this comes with the full load of categories (POS etc) but no entries. Delete --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete this template and all the categories associated with it. —Angr 18:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete. To learn Catalan a read an essay on the Catalan Wikisource about Algherese, and the essay considered that it was just Catalan. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

From my experience, Algherese is just Catalan with a few small grammar and vocabulary differences, no more different than Valencian. It is much closer to standard Catalan than Occitan is. —CodeCat 09:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:youtube

Where would this be useful? --Yair rand (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There have been occasions where I think systematic rickrolling would drastically improve Wiktionary. This is not one of them. Rickrollers, format your own damn links yourselves. Delete. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, there are a couple of YouTube links on Wiktionary used to back up pronunciations. That of course, doesn't mean we need a template for it. Writing out links the traditional way is just fine. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:oldtearoom

This is a little template I made for DCDuring (talk • contribs), and he has shown no interest in using it since. If it won't be transcluded, it ought to be deleted. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment, looks like it would work as a subst: template. There is a {{rft-archived}} template which doesn't have to be subst:ed. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If the creator and the one for whom it was created are fine with it's deletion and no one else has expressed any interest in it, then just delete it IMO.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You can ask DCD, if you care enough. Or wait for him to notice. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Transitive verbs by language

And Category:Intransitive verbs by language, Category:Ambitransitive verbs by language, Category:Ditransitive verbs by language, and their subcategories. They seem rather useless to me, like nouns by gender and countability. Ultimateria (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep as a parent cat. In many languages, they are quite linguistically important. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to distinguish transitivity in entries, but I just can't imagine any use for these categories. Is anyone really going to need a list of transitive verbs in Icelandic? Ultimateria (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I feel about the same as Ultimateria, but not strongly enough to care if these get kept or deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Maro 18:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What about Category:Ergative verbs by language? —CodeCat 12:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep all. Both linguists and language-learners can benefit from categories like these. —Angr 17:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

  How? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

  If I'm studying how transitive verbs in Icelandic work, it's good to have a list of them to test my hypotheses on. —Angr 22:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The main problem with categories like these is that transitivity is dependent on sense. Some senses of a verb may be intransitive, some may be transitive. So the titles are a bit misleading: it's not the verbs that are transitive, it's their senses. —CodeCat 21:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, again that depends on the language. True in English, but false in Tok Pisin. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, in that case keep then. It would be nice if {{transitive}} categorised entries in this category again, though. —CodeCat 11:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep per Angr and Metaknowledge. - -sche (discuss) 16:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Wiktionary:Grease pit/timeline

Wiktionary:Grease pit archive/section index

An idea that was abandoned 5 years ago... —CodeCat 21:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we reform them instead of deleting them? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Reform them in what way? —CodeCat 21:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Latinx

This is a tentative request as I'm not quite sure if this template can be deleted. The only language that has this code assigned to it is currently {{ang}}, Old English. Is it really necessary? We have other languages with uncommon Latin characters, but they have never posed a problem that I'm aware of. It also seems redundant compared to {{unicode}}. —CodeCat 21:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

We have {{nv-Latn}} and {{pjt-Latn}}. {{ang-Latn}} could be justified, but I doubt it's needed as we don't use Latinx for languages which use the same characters. So I'm for the deletion, cautiously. If it fails, as an intermediate solution it could redirect to {{Latn}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, æ-macron and y-macron don't display in IE6 without this template... Do we still want to accomodate IE6 users? -- Liliana • 10:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh really? Do any other languages use these? Simple answer is yes, we want to accommodate everyone. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Even Lynx users? I imagine there will always be IE6, IE5... IE 1 users on the internet... somewhere. We can't really keep supporting them all. IE6 is already 11 years old, most web developers gave up supporting it as soon as they could. According to Wikipedia it's used in the US by less than 1% of people. —CodeCat 11:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, by all means we should support Lynx, and fall gracefully back onto alternatives where JavaScript, etc. is not available. Equinox ◑ 15:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought that, claiming to be some kind of universal resource of mankind as we do, we have a responsibility to support as many users as possible. We can't be aimed at serving a population of academics and technogeeks with well-funded, high-bandwidth systems, constantly being kept up to date by a staff of adepts, dropping user populations not able to keep up. I don't know exactly how that translates into browser support and script, but keeping some templates which might enable use to reach some population of users seems an easy choice, especially if some users may be counting on its continuation. DCDuring TALK 15:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

However, I just tried it on my IE6. Interestingly, {{Latinx}} and {{unicode}} render Old English as boxes, and only {{IPAchar}} manages to render the characters correctly. So it would seem that our font list is imperfect. -- Liliana • 11:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Would it work if those fonts were just added to {{Latn}}? —CodeCat 12:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but I'm not sure in what way that would cause issues for non-IE users. -- Liliana • 12:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Appendix:Common themes in fiction

Doesn't seem like a very useful dictionary appendix... This, that and the other (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes delete, formatting and content are both terrible too. Both are fixable, but why fix them if we don't want this in the first place. What would be next Appendix:Common themes in sport? Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

(Just in time for the Olympic hype.) Delete: if anything, convert to a topical category, but I am not enthusiastic. Also, this only deals with a very specific kind of fiction: apparently kids' stories, ghost stories, and myths, despite the large amount of realistic fiction. Equinox ◑ 10:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting for sure, but it's rather encyclopedic and doesn't really belong in a dictionary. Delete. Or turn into a topical category like Equinox suggests, but deleting may be better. What is common in fiction depends on time, fiction a few hundred years ago was quite different. —CodeCat 11:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like both a bad idea and unworkable as a topical category. Who decides what's common and what's not common? Also, who would want it, and why? Wiktionary doesn't have to do everything, that's where there are sister projects, and non-Wikimedia projects beyond those. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Ship it to WP or delete. DCDuring TALK 15:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems Wikipedia can't transwiki from us, as lame as that sounds. That would only leave deletion, and I'm all for it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Transwiki:Fear of intimacy

Another bit of old cruft. First definition is SoP. Second def isn't very specific. Third def just doesn't make sense... I really don't get how "fear of intimacy" can be a "type of adult"... it sounds like a bad Chinese translation or something. This, that and the other (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Murder it please. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

To bad we can't return it WP as defective. DCDuring TALK 15:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 11:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Transwiki:Tracks per inch

"a measure of magnetic resolution, in particular the number of individual tracks a floppy disk controller can use within a linear one-inch space." In other words, it's tracks per inch. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• We could always just delete the entire contents of the Transwiki namespace - it's full of crap. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No doubt about it, but it's not doing any harm as it's not in the main namespace. Actions of one user in particular moving crappy entries from the transwiki namespace into the main one does annoy me, but crappy transwikis don't annoy me as long as they don't get into the main namespace whilst still crap. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Transwiki:Guard ship

Says it's a warship used as a guard. I assume it can be any type of ship, just a warship is much more suited to the task than a shrimper. Ergo delete, unless guardship is ok, then we kinda can't. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it fails WT:COALMINE because it's not significantly more common than guardship, it's significantly less common than it; on Google Books an estimate 441 hits whil guardship gets 25100, more than 50 times more. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

But guardship can also refer to "the state of being a guard/guarded", so a simple Google Books search may not be representative for this particular sense. —CodeCat 18:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"A guard ship" gets 32900 GBC hits to 3930 for "a guardship". "Guardships"+crew gets 1440, "guard ships"+crew gets 4950 (with some being for "Coast Guard ships"): "the guardships"+crew gets 529, "the guard ships"+crew gets 3480. - -sche (discuss) 16:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you noticed how wonky Google search results are? The counts, in particular, seem unreliable. Caution seems required. Sometimes it pays to try to page toward the end of the results. That end may come much sooner than the indicated number would suggest. That might be the result of Google limiting the number of such pages they make available or it might indicate a bad estimate. Heavy use of qualifying terms to reduce the absolute count, possibly even going further than -sche did above, may be desirable to make a page-by-page scan of the results more feasible, without fear of Google-imposed limits. DCDuring TALK 16:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point. "Of the guardships" masts crew gets 9 results (though it says it gets 10), "of the guard ships" masts crew gets 12 (though it says it gets 237). "Of the guard ships" boats crew gets 18 (claims 673), "of the guardships" boats crew gets 6 (claims 7). The two-word term seems more common than the one-word term. - -sche (discuss) 17:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:One

Category:Five

These are proper topics as such, but where does it stop? Category:Fourty-two? Category:Googol? —CodeCat 19:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• See also #Category:Three above. It has been closed as kept on 8 August 2012 for no consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Category: One, and Five - delete. Maro 19:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

But not Two, Three and Four? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, only these two. Maro 20:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there something special about the numbers 2, 3 and 4 that you are not telling us...? —CodeCat 20:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Category Five has only one page in it and One has two entries. Category:en:Three has 83 entries so someone can find it useful. You've made separate sections for each category here so I suppose we do not consider them collectively but separately. Maro 22:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't really it make sense to me if we think a category for 'Three' is a good thing to have but a category for 'One' is not. What is important about 3 that it is more deserving of a category of its own than 1 is? —CodeCat 02:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

We do have the option to add things to categories. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete I doubt that these are of use to anyone other than their creator. Criteria for existence of and membership in topical category tree are simply the whims of creators, patrollers, and voters. The membership in classes like this ends up being quite Borgesian. DCDuring TALK 13:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• delete and please stay with prefix/suffix categories instead of creating such pseudo-etymology categories. -- Liliana • 16:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• I have decided to vote keep, as I am unconvinced by the stated arguments for deletion, and as Roget's 1911 thesaurus has entries per several small positive integers: "87. Unity", "89. Duality", "92. Triality", "95. Four", and "98. Five". See for instance “triality” in Roget's Thesaurus, T. Y. Crowell Co., 1911. The categories are not really etymological; they contain words whose meaning contains the particular small number in some way. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • If we do decide to keep this, then we would have to agree where to stop, though. I doubt Category:Forty-two is something we would want to keep. —CodeCat 18:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    • We should stop when the category can no longer contain an interesting number of member entries. Have you had a look at Roget 1911? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, thesaurus. I'd support a Wikisaurus:one, Wikisaurus:two etc. without second thought, but surely not this. -- Liliana • 19:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete the categories; make and link from entries to an appendix, if desired. - -sche (discuss) 18:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• 1. I don't get the relevance of there being a thesaurus entry in Roget for having a category in Wiktionary. For having a Wikisaurus entry, yes.
  2. Appendices are great places for laying out thematic relationships with much more detail and richness than a simple listing.

  Delete each and every one. DCDuring TALK 19:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

  You have already voted delete, DCDuring. Topical categories classify words by semantics, just like a thesaurus does. (A true thesaurus like the Roget's one, not a dictionary of synonyms.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the English variants of the categories now have the following numbers of member entries:

• Category:en:One: 33
• Category:en:Two: 47
• Category:en:Three: 92
• Category:en:Four: 52
• Category:en:Five: 66

The great job of filling the categories seems to have been done by Robin Lionheart (talk • contribs); kudos. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Indian numerals

The symbols in this category are only used in Devanagari script, the other languages and scripts of India use their own symbols with their own encodings. So this category is misnamed. It could be renamed, maybe, but I don't think we have any other categories that group numerals by script, other than Category:Roman numerals (which isn't made up of single symbols alone), Category:Arabic numerals (also misnamed). —CodeCat 19:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)