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
  Category:English appendix-only phrases
  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
  Category:English two-letter words
  Template:ethnologue
  Template:kk-regional
  Template:R:OxfordJapanese
  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
  Category:Czechoslovakia
  Category:West Germany
  Category:Yugoslavia
  Appendix:Italian suffixes
  Rhymes:Thai/aːt̚
  Rhymes:Thai/aːn
  Rhymes:Thai/aːj
  Rhymes:Thai/iː
  Template:less common spelling of
  Template:prg-pronoun declension -as w asse
  Template:prg-noun declension -s ptv
  Template:prg-verb conjugation -ītun to-be normal full
  Template:prg-verb conjugation -ītun to-be normal short
  Template:prg-noun declension -s ai
  Template:prg-noun declension -s na
  Template:prg-noun declension -s noarch
  Template:prg-noun declension -s xx
  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
  Appendix:Glossary of Welsh words of English origin
  Category:af:Fruit
  Module:ja-furigana
  Module:family tree/data/documentation
  Category:Noun plural forms by language
  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:Borneo-Philippines languages
  Category:Sunda-Sulawesi languages
  Category:Reference templates
  Category:en:Phobias
  Category:Languages of the Caucasus
  Template:object-shaped
  Rhymes:Thai/uj
  Rhymes:Thai/ɯːt̚
  Rhymes:Thai/aːn/2
  Rhymes:Thai/aːt̚/2
  Rhymes:Thai/aːj/2
  Template:zh-verb/documentation
  Template:l-nn
  Template:l-nb
  Template:derived terms
  Template:ur-x/documentation
  Template:hi-usex/documentation
  Category:en:Directives
  Template:hi-usex
  Template:ur-x
  Template:rfcoll
  Template:kk-scripts
  Template:zh-obsolete
  Category:Chuvash productive suffixes
  Appendix:Glossary of contract bridge
  Category:Ambiguity
  Template:cite-thesis/documentation
  Template:cite-thesis
  Template:el-UK-US
  Category:Adjective plural forms by language
  Category:Maltese noun plural forms
  Category:Norwegian Nynorsk noun forms
  Category:Swedish noun forms
  Category:French adjective forms
  Category:Spanish adjective forms
  Category:Portuguese adjective forms
  Category:Italian adjective forms
  Category:Albanian noun forms
  Category:Greek noun forms
  Category:Polish noun forms
  Category:Romanian noun forms
  Category:Turkish noun forms
  Category:Aromanian noun forms
  Category:Hebrew noun forms
  Category:Irish adjective forms
  Category:Scottish Gaelic noun forms
  Category:Volapük noun forms
  Category:Welsh adjective forms
  Category:Norwegian Bokmål noun forms
  Category:Portuguese noun forms
  Category:Arabic noun forms
  Category:Arabic adjective forms
  Category:Catalan noun forms
  Category:Welsh noun forms
  Category:Chechen noun forms
  Category:Urdu noun forms
  Category:Azerbaijani noun forms
  Category:Portuguese adjective plural forms
  Category:Yiddish noun forms
  Category:Manx noun forms
  Category:Old Irish noun forms
  Category:Middle English noun forms
  Category:Cornish noun plural forms
  Category:Cornish noun forms
  Category:Breton noun forms
  Category:Ngarrindjeri noun forms
  Category:Interlingua noun forms
  Category:Maltese adjective forms
  Category:Norwegian Bokmål adjective forms
  Category:Middle Irish noun forms
  Category:Classical Nahuatl noun forms
  Category:Persian noun forms
  Category:Luxembourgish noun forms
  Category:Akkadian noun forms
  Category:Egyptian Arabic noun forms
  Category:Latgalian noun forms
  Category:Vilamovian noun forms
  Category:Telugu noun forms
  Category:Venetian noun forms
  Category:Bashkir noun forms
  Category:Neapolitan noun forms
  Category:Translingual noun forms
  Category:Swahili noun forms
  Category:German Low German noun forms
  Category:Maltese noun forms
  Category:Malay noun forms
  Category:Scots noun forms
  Category:Pashto noun forms
  Category:Sotho noun forms
  Category:Luganda noun forms
  Category:Somali noun forms
  Category:Tamil noun forms
  Category:Marathi noun forms
  Category:Rapa Nui noun forms
  Category:Romani noun forms
  Category:Central Nahuatl noun forms
  Category:Algonquin noun forms
  Category:Novial noun forms
  Category:Unami noun forms
  Category:Tashelhit noun forms
  Category:Alemannic German noun forms
  Category:Inupiaq noun forms
  Category:Ottoman Turkish noun forms
  Category:Inuktitut noun forms
  Category:Ewe noun forms
  Category:Maori noun forms
  Category:Yucatec Maya noun forms
  Category:Libyan Arabic noun forms
  Category:Low German noun forms
  Category:Uzbek noun forms
  Category:Hawaiian noun forms
  Category:Ghotuo noun forms
  Category:Choctaw noun forms
  Category:Kott noun forms
  Category:Ga noun forms
  Category:Kom (Cameroon) noun forms
  Category:Saterland Frisian noun forms
  Category:ǃXóõ noun forms
  Category:Lombard noun forms
  Category:Pipil noun forms
  Category:Tswana noun forms
  Category:Tajik noun forms
  Category:Fula noun forms
  Category:Abenaki noun forms
  Category:Cherokee noun forms
  Category:Egyptian noun forms
  

June 2013

Template:defn

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

One good reason might be to keep the various request categories from being cluttered, as there is no particular other way to prioritize. It would be better if we had a system for collected "likes" for requests and sorted by the number of likes. DCDuring TALK 19:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That might work if the typical use case was "person looks for some entries to fix". But the reality is more likely "person happens to visit entry, notices request to fix it". Because of that, I don't think adding a notice will have any negative effect whatsoever. And there is concrete evidence that adding notices in other cases has had a positive effect. For example, it has cause many more Dutch entries to have their genders/plurals fixed, compared to when those notices were not there. So they really do work. It's really just psychology: it is well known that humans are bad at noticing the absence of something, whereas the presence of something is more easily noticed, and something unexpected or unusual is noticed especially fast. —CodeCat 19:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I've wondered this myself. I agree that a notice should always be displayed. I support merging (redirecting) defn into rfdef. - -sche (discuss) 21:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I oppose the merger. The only noticeable effect will be to make Chinese character entries painfully messy and harder to use. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure it's even possible to make Chinese character entries painfully messy and harder to use. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Kept due to no consensus.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:ISO 639

These transwikis aren't actually needed because the information was restored back on Wikipedia (see w:ISO 639:a). And I don't think it's really appropriate for Wiktionary because we have our own list of languages. —CodeCat 11:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Lots of templates by User:Sae1962

Propose deleting the following:

• Template:first-person negative singular of
• Template:first-person negative singular past definite of
• Template:first-person plural of
• Template:first-person plural possessive of
• Template:first-person plural possessive ablative of
• Template:first-person plural possessive accusative of
• Template:first-person plural possessive dative of
• Template:first-person plural possessive genitive of
• Template:first-person plural possessive locative of
• Template:first-person singular possessive of
• Template:first-person singular possessive ablative of
• Template:first-person singular possessive accusative of
• Template:first-person singular possessive dative of
• Template:first-person singular possessive genitive of
• Template:first-person singular possessive locative of
• Template:first-person singular usage notes → moved to Template:U:tr:first-person singular
• Template:first-person singular imperative of
• Template:first-person singular negative imperative of
• Template:first-person singular past definite of
• Template:first-person singular predicative of
• Template:first-person singular preterite of
• Template:intrusive form of
• Template:negative imperative of
• Template:tr-num
• Template:second-person negative singular of
• Template:second-person negative plural of
• Template:second-person plural negative imperative of
• Template:second-person plural possessive of
• Template:second-person plural possessive ablative of
• Template:second-person plural possessive accusative of
• Template:second-person plural possessive dative of
• Template:second-person plural possessive genitive of
• Template:second-person plural possessive locative of
• Template:second-person singular negative imperative of/Template:second person singular negative imperative of
• Template:second-person singular possessive of
• Template:second-person singular possessive ablative of
• Template:second-person singular possessive accusative of
• Template:second-person singular possessive dative of
• Template:second-person singular possessive genitive of
• Template:second-person singular possessive locative of
• Template:second-person singular imperative of
• Template:second-person singular predicative of
• Template:Seldom or unused Turkish plurals not
• Template:third-person negative plural of
• Template:third-person negative singular of
• Template:third-person negative singular past of
• Template:third-person plural possessive of
• Template:third-person plural possessive ablative of
• Template:third-person plural possessive accusative of
• Template:third-person plural possessive dative of
• Template:third-person plural possessive locative of
• Template:third-person plural simple present possessive accusative of
• Template:third-person singular possessive of
• Template:third-person singular possessive ablative of
• Template:third-person singular possessive accusative of
• Template:third-person singular possessive dative of
• Template:third-person singular possessive genitive of
• Template:third-person singular possessive locative of
• Template:third-person singular optative of
• Template:third-person singular past of
• Template:third-person singular possessive of/Template:third person singular possesive of
• Template:third-person singular predicative of
• Template:Turkish identically written words pronounciation
• Template:Turkish intrusive verbs usage note
• Template:Turkish suffix usage notes

I don't even know where to begin with this...

• These templates were meant only for Turkish, but instead they were created as general templates, even though they have no use except for Turkish. They are overly specific, which has necessitated creating many of them. For situations like this, a custom template (or {{inflection of}} or {{conjugation of}}) is highly preferred.
• Even for Turkish, they're not even correctly named. It seems as if they were just created on a whim without any thought whatsoever.
• All of these template add entries to their own category. This has flooded Special:WantedCategories with lots of categories that really serve no purpose. Why on earth would all these inflected forms need distinct categories, especially for a highly inflected language like Turkish (where a single noun might have dozens of forms)?
• Barely any of the templates is categorised. Most of them can't be found through normal means, except by looking through his edits. Because {{documentation}} adds a category when the documentation page is missing, none of these show up on Special:UncategorizedTemplates. I removed that from {{documentation}}, so expect that page to be flooded with all of these soon.
• Barely documentation about their usage or meaning. Intrusive form? What's that?
• Putting pronunciation details in usage notes. The "suffix usage notes" template is redundant because that applies to all Turkish suffixes, so it's part of the grammar and should be familiar to anyone who knows basic Turkish. (Leaving aside the fact that it's really vague, and doesn't say what variant forms there are of the suffix!)
• Some aren't even used on any pages. Some were actually errors that were created, then abandoned, and a replacement was created without deleting the error. Like Template:tr-conjugation which should have been Template:tr-conjunction, but was just left there.
• This isn't even all of them! There are a lot more templates that he created, but have now been "lost" because they have no categories. Maybe someone should make a list of all the templates he created that have no category?

The newest of these was created only a week or two ago, and there have been other disputes with him in the past over the CFI-validity of a lot of his entries. So I've blocked Sae1962 as a form of "damage control". But what are we going to do to fix this mess... —CodeCat 15:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy delete of all templates created by this user, and speedy validation of all entries this user has made. Razorflame 15:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Unblock him immediately. If you feel authorized to prevent him from creating templates, ask him on this talk page to no longer create templates or you will block him. Recall WT:BLOCK, a voted policy: "The block tool should only be used to prevent edits that will, directly or indirectly, hinder or harm the progress of the English Wiktionary. It should not be used unless less drastic means of stopping these edits are, by the assessment of the blocking administrator, highly unlikely to succeed.".

  As for the templates, they seem deletion worthy. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

In fairness Dan, I think that text supports the block; we've talked to him plenty so there's good reason to think that more talking won't help. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This shouldn't be that big of a surprise- see #A Bunch of Inflected-Form Templates, above. I nominated for deletion the nine I new about, but there was only one comment aside from mine and SAE1962's (a Turkish native speaker who argued for deletion) Chuck Entz (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the block (although I would have given a much broader / more encompassing rationale for it). We have to spend a lot of time cleaning up after this contributor: they create a lot of SOP terms, and terms with incorrect definitions (e.g. am Ende), and they make quite a few of the same formatting mistakes repeatedly, such as tagging things as the wrong language, or sometimes as two different wrong languages, as with WT:BJ#aktiven_galaktischen_Kerns. We could be spending that time on other things... - -sche (discuss) 07:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

"less drastic means" have been employed several times in the past with no success. Block should stay. But who has got the time or inclination for such a massive cleanup operation? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Seldom or unused Turkish plurals not is an interesting one. It seems to say that all nouns have plurals, if not attested then hypothetical. I suppose it's okay to link to such plurals but not to create them as everything has to meet WT:CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the most common practice is to create entries for regular formations even if that specific form is not attested. I really doubt whether all of the verb form entries in the various Romance languages actually meet CFI. But we don't have a problem creating entries for them anyway. —CodeCat 20:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record, here are the list of templates and [categories TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:U:tr:first-person singular kept under that new name (it was previously Template:first-person singular usage notes), since it's a useful (and fairly widely used) template. - -sche (discuss) 13:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/bʰago

Seems to have been reconstructed on the basis of a single branch (Indo-Iranian). Slavic *bagu (*bogъ) is usually considered an Iranian borrowing in the literature. Furthermore it contains phoneme */a/ which is of disputed status in the reconstruction of PIE segments. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

a and o merge in Balto-Slavic, so from the evidence of Slavic alone, *bʰogo- is equally valid. And there's nothing against replacing *bʰ with *b or *g with *gʰ either. So this reconstruction isn't really well founded enough to include it. —CodeCat 16:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

They would lengthen by Winter's law which would yield Common Slavic **bagъ. And how you account for aspiration in Sanskrit bh? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It's always possible it's not a cognate. The meaning is different enough. —CodeCat 19:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Bahuvrihi adjectives *ubogъ and *nebogъ "poor, miserable" and *bogatъ "rich" prove that *bogъ was originally also an adjective, and that it meant meaning something along "earthly wealth/well-being; fortune" and then "dispenser of wealth/fortune" and then "god". Exactly same thing happened in Iranian which according to some is too much of a coincidence to happen in parallel (hence the borrowing theory, postulated even before WL was discovered which on a more formal level implies the same).

However, I've found out that according to Beekes PIE *bʰ(e)h₂g- (LIV: bʰag-) would be the source of (deprecated template usage) ἔφαγον (éphagon) as well, but how the meanings match to II and Slavic escapes me. At any case, PIE noun *bʰago(s) "god, deity" seems worthy of deletion, because that meaning arose independently in two different subbranches. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Appendix:List of Proto-Indo-European roots

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

• Keep. Do we have a separate PIE appendix entry containing every root and the corresponding reflex on that list? No. So it is worth keeping until we do because it contains (potentially) valuable information. Besides, I can spot some pretty doubtful roots and nominals inside th Category:Proto-Indo-European roots as well (*sū-, *sap-, *ǵénu-, *perḱ-, *pisḱ- - and that's just from the third column of the category!). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Swan diving in for keep as well. Just because no one's come to fix it doesn't mean it's beyond saving. It's just that there seem to be so few PIE linguists around- if I knew more about what I was doing myself, I'd fix it. I just don't want to risk making a worse mess of it than it already is, although I can give it a go if someone wants me to... also, Ivan brings up a good point about it needing to stay until an index is complete. Polar Night (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to delete this? Seriously ...— This unsigned comment was added by 201.15.55.98 (talk) at 01:19, 24 September 2013‎.

• Obvious keep, per Ivan and on general principles. DCDuring TALK 04:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. It has its flaws, but has been very useful to me so far. David Marjanović (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Keep: I think it's usable as is and similar resources in print can be expensive (save for Calvert Watkins) --70.192.3.20 04:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

KEEP. I use the links by sound quite often in research. The other appendix list you mention doesn't branch to those pages. If you think the page needs editing more than deleting, then be bold and edit it. 74.78.155.128

KEEP. The simplest fix is to revert to the version that was vandalized in >> this edit. << If your browser cannot handle the detail in that page, try Chrome; Chrome loads that detail in 15 seconds on an ancient 2004 laptop running Windows XP. -- Rednblu (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Esperanto words suffixed with -a

Category:Esperanto words suffixed with -o

These are really just part-of-speech endings, so these categories don't seem terribly useful. "Esperanto words suffixed with -i" is really synonymous with Category:Esperanto verbs. —CodeCat 14:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

These are there as a result of the automatic categorization of {{suffix}}. Is there any way to suppress the category? --Yair rand (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't use {{suffix}}. They're not suffixes. -- Liliana • 14:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

They're not? Why is that? And what should be used instead? --Yair rand (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, if an adjective is formed by replacing the final -o of a noun with an -a, why not categorize it as such? All of Category:English words suffixed with -ize are going to be verbs, so what? How is that a reason for its deletion? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The difference is, not all English verbs are suffixed with -ize, while all Esperanto verbs are suffixed with -i. I agree with the first part of Liliana's statement ("Don't use {{suffix}}") but not with the second part. They are suffixes, but that doesn't mean we have to use {{suffix}} in their etymology sections. —Angr 20:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There is |nocat=1. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

We've had this kind of debate about Category:English words suffixed with -s. It's obvious we don't want each and every English plural to end up in here, and it should be the same for other languages as well. -- Liliana • 20:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There was also Category:German words suffixed with -en, although there are also words with -en that are not verbs. In Esperanto, all (polysyllabic) words ending in -i are verbs, and all verbs end in -i, so they are one and the same set of words. —CodeCat 20:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that not all Esperanto verbs are stem + suffix, (deprecated template usage) pensi is borrowed from Latin (deprecated template usage) penso for example. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

But it's still formed by with the stem pens- + the suffix -i. —CodeCat 19:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The way to test this concept is to look for Category:Esperanto words suffixed with -as, since that's probably a more widely-attested form than the infinitive. Notice the redlink. These words aren't suffixed with -i, they're converted to verbs, and -i just happens to be the suffix on the lemma. I suppose the lemma's suffix could be used as a stand-in for the whole set of conjugation suffixes in the same way the lemma itself is used as a stand-in for the whole conjugation, but I would argue against it. Having it categorized this way strongly implies that -i is a derivational suffix- something that would be followed by inflectional suffixes, rather than an inflectional suffix itself. We should have some way to indicate verbalization, nominalization, etc. in etymologies, without kluging something up with a framework designed for something else. What do we do in cases where there's no inflectional ending on the lemma- use a "words suffixed with -∅" category? Chuck Entz (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

That problem happens in Dutch and German as well, and English too. All three of them, like Esperanto, can derive verbs without changing the stem of the word. Only the inflectional endings are changed from those of one PoS to those of another. In Dutch and German, the lemma form of verbs ends in (deprecated template usage) -en while the lemma forms of other parts of speech have no ending. That can give the impression that (deprecated template usage) -en is being suffixed when a verb is created, but that isn't the case because this ending isn't intrinsically part of the verb; only of the infinitive. The same is true of many Esperanto derivations as well. —CodeCat 21:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

And then there's the matter of things like ablaut, umlaut, etc. that have no discrete surface morpheme to point to, e.g. with fall vs. fell and sit vs. set. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

How about "Esperanto verbs derived from (PoS) stems" ? —CodeCat 22:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be better to have "LANGNAME POS-PLURAL derived from POS-PLURAL". Perhaps we could have a template like etyl that would take from-POS to-POS and lang as parameters, and produce something like "from the POS-SINGULAR " followed by the from-word. I'm not sure what we should do where the source is both a different language and a different POS, or where we don't know the exact source POS, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

If we are going to add foreign etymologies to it, then we effectively end up with a template that combines {{term}} and {{etyl}}, along with PoS names. I'm not against that as such, but we have to be aware of this implication. —CodeCat 22:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the implications, which is why I hesitated to lump the other-language case in with the rest. As for term, I was envisioning a template like etyl, which adds the correct category, but is independent from the term itself and produces a string of text derived from the parameters that goes in front of the term template- sort of like a POS-based counterpart to the language-name based etyl. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:romanization of Hebrew

This seems like a template that goes back to earlier days, when multilingual support wasn't as neatly standardised as it is nowadays, and editors for each language had to make up their own things. I don't think it's really needed anymore. —CodeCat 23:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, ACCEL still relies on this template, AFAIK. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Which is an argument for updating it, right? And deleting this when it's safe to do so. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of these entries are left over from mistakes made during the orphaning of {{he-link}}. I think we should fix them, and once this is orphaned we should delete it; however, for the record, I think we should not bot-orphan this in the obvious way. The template is useful for finding the entries to fix, and a bot should be used only if it will really fix them. —Ruakh_TALK 07:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, there are 76 main-namespace uses of this tmeplate which remain to be addressed. - -sche (discuss) 13:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:ro-past

I notice that since this edit in 2008, the template automatically adds the entry to Category:Romanian terms needing attention. Presumably because it doesn't have a function not already covered by {{past participle of}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I've changed it to add the entry to Category:Romanian entries using Template:ro-past instead, since there were a lot of these; they made up more than 75% of the entries in Category:Romanian terms needing attention. —Ruakh_TALK 07:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Although it's clearly intended to be a headword template, some entries use it as a form-of template. —Ruakh_TALK 07:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Category:Miguxês

Category:pt:Tiopês

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

Template:ja-suru etyl

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

Deleted for lack of further input. There were no transclusions. — Keφr 19:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:en-verb form

The categorization should always be done by the definition-line template like {{en-past of}} or {{present participle of}}. This template serves to double-categorize entries by Category:English verb forms as well as the more specific category. Replace with {{head|en}} and delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this template adds much value, so I agree with deleting it. But why do we have categories for all of the individual verb form types? Are those really useful or necessary? —CodeCat 17:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think they're either more or less useful than Category:English verb forms. Categories that are very small or very big aren't generally useful to human users. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete, there are similar templates for other languages, they should be deleted as well. --Z 06:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. (I'm not sure if all "similar templates" should go, but this one should.) —Ruakh_TALK 07:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Not all form-of templates categorise. In fact a lot of those used for languages other than English don't. {{inflection of}} and {{conjugation of}} don't, nor do {{feminine of}}, {{masculine plural of}} and such. I was hoping that we could make this more consistent by adopting a rule that the headword template always categorises, and the form-of template never does, but I don't know how realistic that is. —CodeCat 12:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's a reason to keep this template though; it might justify {{en-past}}, {{en-simple past}} and so on as headword templates, but not one template to cover all different cases. 95.148.116.152 12:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:l/en

Too much trouble for too little benefit. Too little benefit because it's not that urgent to link to "English" section, as the section is usually the first one, and specifying lang="en" is not needed in 99% of cases (we can use {{l}} for the rest). Too much trouble because it complicates wikicode and 'adds to mental burden of editing.' If {{l/en|...}} is an improvement, we should replace all wikilinks ([[...]]) with {{l/en|...}} in the main namespace (I don't think anyone would support this?), otherwise all of its usages should be replaced with [[...]], because it causes inconsistency. Currently we are using [[...]], {{l/en|...}} (and even {{l|en|...}}), sometimes at the same time in a single page, what a mess. --Z 06:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment. ==English== is actually not always the first section: it follows ==Translingual==. Also, for those of us using Tabbed Languages, the gadget remembers the language section we last visited, and sends us there when we visit a language-unspecified link. As for your other comments . . . for some reason, we deleted the meaningful {{onym}} in favor of the meaningless {{l}}, so I'm no longer sure. I used to think it made sense to explicitly language-tag all mentions, but since we're no longer explicitly tagging them as mentions, I guess it might not make sense anymore. —Ruakh_TALK 06:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the idea was anything useful from {{onym}} could be incorporated into {{l}} rather than having them as rival, very very similar templates. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep While it often isn't necessary to link to the English section, explicitly linking to it tells us that the link isn't to a "foreign"/non-English word. You don't need to tell that, but it would be nice if you allowed other to tell it. --80.114.178.7 22:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete. --Vahag (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I prefer to delete all of these l/ templates. I think the best 'low cost' way of doing it is either [[foo]] or [[foo#English|foo]]. It depends how low cost you want to go. This is somewhere in the middle where {{l}} is at the top of the range, but hopefully improved by Lua and other changes. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep for the reasons I posted here. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 20:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep, as per Ungoliant. Linking to the proper section may be not so important for the longer words (which are less likely to be available in more than one language), but comes very handy for the shorter ones (as in: a.) The importance of the proper xml:lang= coding may currently be low, but I’d expect it to steadly rise as time goes by. (And why, aren’t w:Word processors of today use that information for spell-checking?) — Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 14:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:list:moons of Mars/en

A template for a two-item list. Looks like overkill to me. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 00:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Why aren't we using the Appendix: namespace for lists like these? Pages there can still be transcluded, if that's why templates were being used. - dcljr (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Because these aren't intended to be appendices. Not sure what else to say, it's a bit like asking why the entry house isn't Appendix:house. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Not really. More like asking why {{types of houses}} isn't at Appendix:Houses. In any case, now that I've looked through the list of "list:" templates more carefully, I guess I see the difference. Still, there is potentially much overlap in the kinds of topics covered by the two methods... (And note, BTW, that some "appendices" are in fact simply bare lists, as well.) - dcljr (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

One notable example of the "overlap" I was referring to: Appendix:Days of the week vs. Template:list:days of the week/*. - dcljr (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Because it's intended to function as a template, so the template namespace is somewhat unsurprisingly the best choice. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Template:nn-decl-noun-m1

Any ideas? --ElisaVan (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Whatlinkshere has some, but I don't understand them.​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Category:Serbo-Croatian imperfective forms and Category:Serbo-Croatian perfective forms

These seem redundant to Category:Serbo-Croatian imperfective verbs and Category:Serbo-Croatian perfective verbs. Apparently those categories were never created, which is strange as most other Slavic languages do have them. Compare Category:Slovene imperfective verbs and Category:Russian imperfective verbs. Also note that the categories up for deletion are categorised as lexical, meaning they are considered by their meaning/connotation rather than grammar. I think that's a bit strange. —CodeCat 23:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I think they should they be moved, rather than deleted and entries formatted accordingly, if it makes it any easier. We should invite Ivan Štambuk (talk • contribs). Category:Imperfective forms by language (and perfective) are only used by Serbo-Croatian, Category:Imperfective verbs by language used by other Slavic languages + Georgian (Ukrainian and Belarusian were modeled from Russian, anyway). Bulgarian and Macedonian verbs could also be categorised by imperfective/perfective, nobody bothered, though. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Perfective/imperfective distinction is lexical (i.e. meaning-based), but I don't see how is that relevant. Those categories are supposed to contain alternative forms only, i.e. not full-blown entries, but those that have {{perfective form of}} and {{imperfective form of}} as their definition lines. Yes They should also categorize in Category:Serbo-Croatian imperfective verbs and Category:Serbo-Croatian perfective verbs but it's useful to have them as well. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

IMO, it's a grammatical difference, not lexical, even if Serbian or Croatian grammarians haven't describe it yet (I really don't know). There are substantial differences in usage and forms between perfective and imperfective, which are similar but not the same across Slavic languages, e.g. absence of present tense for perfective verbs, e.g. написа́ть (napisátʹ) has no present but писа́ть (pisátʹ) does, future tense for imperfective is made using auxiliary verbs (e.g. бу́ду писа́ть) but perfectives are solid (e.g. напишу́) (Ukrainian has a unique alternative future for imperfective - e.g. писа́тиму).

Admittedly, perfective forms (and sometimes the other way around) often add to the original meaning (start an action, end an action, semelfactive verbs, etc.) and it can be at times difficult to determine what perfective verb is an equivalent of an imperfective one, e.g. цвести́ (cvestí, “to bloom”) has various perfective equivalents, which substantially change the original meaning of "to bloom" but for majority of verbs it's easy. Perfective and imperfective verbs are in separate entries and any lexical difference can ALSO be defined. Both писа́ть (pisátʹ) and написа́ть (napisátʹ) mean "to write", the variations are implied by the aspect itself - "на-" in this case implies completed action. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

When you say that the difference is grammatical, it means that there are some specific grammatical markers (prefixes, suffixes, ablaut) that ensure that the verb is perfective or imperfective based on its form (present and infinitive stem), regardless of its meaning. Since there are both perfective and imperfective verbs belonging to the same inflectional class in Russian, it is the meaning which dictates whether the verb is perfective or imperfective, and which possible slots in the entire hypothetical paradigm "make sense". E.g. you cannot guess that цвес-ти/цвет- is "inherently" imperfective, whereas сес-ть/ся́д- is "inherenty" perfective, on the basis of their spelling. In SC in some verbs the only difference is tone (e.g. poglédati impf. vs. pògledati pf. - the entire paradigm is identical, the only difference is accent).

Regarding the soft-redirection: it's for pragmatic reasons. SC has the problem of two scripts, Ijekavian/Ekavian pairs, and in the worst cases you get 6-8 entries which should then duplicate all of the definitions, usage samples....keeping them in sync is painful and time-wasting for editors, and probably confusing to readers. Note that only the verbs where there is no difference in meaning other than perfectiveness/imperfectiveness of action are redirected this way, All forms built through prefixation such as (deprecated template usage) pisati - (deprecated template usage) napisati are treated as separate entries with different definitions because all of those prefixes such as na- can create several subtle variations in meaning of the base verb. Same goes semantically marked suffixation (e.g. creating pejorative or diminutive verbs) or generally changing the meaning (e.g. iterative forms built through various suffixes) - they all have separate entries. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ivan here. --WikiTiki89 23:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you elaborate, please? Does that mean that all Russian/Polish/Czech, etc. verbs are formatted/categorised incorrectly, in your opinion or one of the forms doesn't need definitions? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The way I understood it is that Ivan is not saying that Category:Serbo-Croatian imperfective verbs and Category:Serbo-Croatian perfective verbs are wrong and Category:Serbo-Croatian imperfective forms and Category:Serbo-Croatian perfective forms are right. He is saying that they mean two different things and therefore should be created and kept, respectively. --WikiTiki89 02:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I see. Do we really need both categories, though? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Currently SC verbs are not categorized by perfectiveness, and {{sh-verb}} has no parameter for it that would enable autosort. My reasoning behind the categorization introduced by {{perfective form of}} and {{imperfective form of}} was that all soft-redirect templates ({{alternative form of}}, {{abbreviation of}}, {{diminutive of}} etc.) autocategorize on the basis of their function. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Not all of them do. {{inflection of}} and {{conjugation of}} don't, nor do {{feminine of}} or {{definite of}}. —CodeCat 21:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

But those are all for inflected forms. Entries redirected by {{perfective form of}} and {{imperfective form of}} are lemma entries, and only definition lines are missing. Soft-redirected lemmas always categorize according to the criteria of redirection. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Even so, is it useful to have these categories in preference to Category:Serbo-Croatian imperfective verbs and the like? In the current categorisation, at most half of all verbs will be appropriately categorised for perfective/imperfective, which doesn't seem useful at all. —CodeCat 03:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I never said it wouldn't. Reread my answers above. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to reiterate my vote to delete these categories. I really don't understand why they're needed. From what I've understood, Ivan wants them to contain, specifically, all imperfective or perfective verbs that are the less-common of each pair of imperfective and perfective verbs. He hasn't yet expressed any intention to create a category for the more-common of each pair, nor a category for all imperfective and one for all perfective verbs. So it seems like this is more a case of categorising for the sake of categorising, without any real purpose in mind. If we have both Category:Serbo-Croatian imperfective verbs and Category:Serbo-Croatian imperfective forms side by side, what is the value of the latter over the former? What use does it add, even if the contents are different? Not to mention the names are confusingly similar, and "imperfective forms" doesn't do much to clarify the real purpose (whatever it is). —CodeCat 22:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The more common form is used as a lemma, the less common as a redirect. They mean exactly the same thing, apart from being modified for perfectiveness. There is no need to categorize the unmarked form (the more common one). It is done for practical purposes, to reduce content duplication due to SC being written in two scripts, and often having Ijekavian/Ekavian pairs. As I've expressed above, I have nothing against creating the category of all perfective or imperfective verbs - though I find it less useful. It's exactly one of those categories for the sake of categorizing that you mention. (Like categorizing nouns by gender, verbal meanings by transitivity and so on). The value of the latter is that it would contain only verbs who have perfective base lemma. All alternative forms lemmas for all language categorize into their own special categories so I don't see why these shouldn't as well. The usage criterion is used by paper dictionaries and not made up by me - that's how in most of the cases user lands on an entry that has definition lines (as opposed to our American/British spellings which soft-redirect randomly). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Template:ko-form of

We don't really need it anymore, we can use {{form of}}. —CodeCat 18:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The italicisation isn't an issue because {{form of}} only italicises the English. The bolding debatably is. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

That is done by CSS, not by the template. —CodeCat 14:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It's bold by default though, or else why would I be seeing it as bold? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:place:Brazil

Tagged but not listed. I don't know what this is for, we already have {{accent:Brazil}} so it's not that. Documentation is empty too. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Apparently for {{place}} (abandoned project?). — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it may have been created as a context label type template, so that we can distinguish terms used in Brazil from terms related to Brazil. Our current labels don't distinguish these, and place names are normally considered dialect specifiers rather than topical labels. So if we ever wanted a label to specify "when talking about (place)", we'd have to devise a workaround. —CodeCat 23:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The documentation says it’s for definitions of placenames. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:appendix

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

Template:ja-rom

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

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

@Haplogy or TeleComNasSprVen, if you can fix the 21 current uses of this template, it can be deleted. - -sche (discuss) 13:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Module:arguments

Along with Module:math. Imported by User:Mxn for the sake of having a two-line rounding function (which does not even depend on most of this code) for his archive navigation module. I doubt we will ever need this in the dictionary proper. Not nominating Module:yesno, but we seem to have managed without it until now, so it might go as well. Keφr 14:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say keep, but remove what we don't really need. I think it would be nice to be able to avoid the constant "if x == "" then x = nil end" on all parameters, it does get tedious. I've thought of writing a module like this before. There's also something else I've wanted to add, which is checking arguments for usage, and a global category tracking system.

Checking arguments for usage would mean that each argument that gets used by the module is marked "used", and at the end if any arguments remain unused, this adds a category or error or something like that. That would allow us to find out easily which pages are using modules with mis-typed parameter names, or parameters that aren't actually recognised or supported by the template.

Tracking categories globally would make it much easier for any module to add tracking categories and such. In templates, you can just put a category anywhere and it works, but in modules you can't do that, which is a limitation. —CodeCat 14:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I cannot imagine why we would ever write something that would require Module:math. It mostly wraps basic mathematical functions so that templates can use them: we would probably do most of the work inside modules, making the wrappers unnecessary.

As for Module:arguments… I am unsure what that thing actually does. Looks like some kind of input sanitisation. For now I would prefer to do it directly in the modules which receive a frame. I actually do have one idea for a module for tracking argument usage, categories and errors, but this module would not be of much help there. Keφr 18:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Template:list:states of Austria/en

An unused list template.

Template:abbr

Template:circa3

Created last November, but never used since then it seems. —CodeCat 23:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Appendix:Latin suffixes

This doesn't add anything beyond Category:Latin suffixes. —CodeCat 18:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Not correct. It shows that there are some Latin inflectional endings that we have and some that we lack.

• Keep or use before deleting. If we delete all of the Latin inflectional endings, then we should probably use use to start the Latin inflectional endings appendix. DCDuring TALK 19:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Inflectional endings aren't suffixes, though, and shouldn't be in either this Appendix or the identically named Category. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:English metaphors

Delete. This is largely superflous to Category:English idioms, IMHO. Currently has 7 entries: angels dancing on the head of a pin, bite, fox in the henhouse, god, one's marbles, piss more than one drinks, raised by wolves. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:English live metaphors

I think this is also relevant, so might as well add. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete Category:English live metaphors as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

{{hangulization of}}

I suggest to move {{hangulization of}} to normal {{etyl}}. Hangulization is not a very common term, Korean loanwords are no different from others, Hangeul is the only current writing system in both Koreas (with occasional Hanja) and Cyrillic based loanwords are not called "cyrillization of", we don't have arabization, katakanization, etc.

The spelling "hangul" is based on McCune–Reischauer romanisation of 한글 (hangeul) "hangŭl", the official spelling in South Korea is "hangeul", so is the more modern spelling. North Korea uses the term "Chosŏn'gŭl" - 조선글 (joseongeul). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but "Hangul" is by far the more common spelling in English. But either way, I agree the template should be deleted. (This is more of an WT:RFDO thing, but I personally don't really care which page the discussion is on.) --WikiTiki89 04:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I moved the page here, since it's not simply a deletion, {{hangulization of}} should be orphaned first. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Well it is simply a deletion. We always orphan templates before deleting them. It's not a move, because we're not moving the template. --WikiTiki89 08:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:imperative of

An old Sae1962 creation. This template is redundant to {{conjugation of|...||imp|lang=xyz}}, and it categorizes forms into "Category:Foobar imperative forms" even though no such category exists for any language (even Category:Imperative forms by language doesn't exist). It's utterly unnecessary. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It's also used for Danish, Swedish and Norwegian. It's not really necessary, but then again we also have many other form-of templates, some very common like {{plural of}} or {{feminine of}}, that could also be "converted" into {{inflection of}}. So the question is really if we want to do that. —CodeCat 18:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep: Well, typing {{imperative of|keep|lang=en}} is easier or typing {{conjugation of|keep||imp|lang=en}} is easier? If they have the same function, isn't it better to type less? --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Only if the template is edited so that it doesn't automatically sort things into nonexistent and unwanted categories. Also, a large number of languages (though not English) distinguish between singular and plural imperative forms, and many also have 1st and 3rd person imperatives in addition to 2nd person imperatives, and this template doesn't accommodate any of that. It just labels things "imperative" without specifying person and number. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that, but it's likely that removing the category will orphan many entries. We'd have to make sure that all of them add a part-of speech category through some other means first, like with {{plural of}}. —CodeCat 19:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Why don't we just have it redirect to {{conjugation of|...||imp|...}}? (I don't mean a hard redirect, but just have {{imperative of}} call {{conjugation of}}.) --WikiTiki89 16:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

There's not much benefit in that over just having it call Module:form of directly and tell it to display "imperative". —CodeCat 16:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The benefit would be if we ever change how {{conjugation of}} categorizes, then we won't have to also change {{imperative of}}. --WikiTiki89 16:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Still doesn't solve the problem of the template's not specifying which imperative form the term is. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it does solve that problem. If you do this the right way, {{imperative of}} will support any arguments that {{conjugation of}} supports. --WikiTiki89 17:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Three redirects to be deleted

Template:de-adj+noun-n

NB that it is the redirects that are being requested to be deleted, not the templates themselves. --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Eight template redirects: Special:PrefixIndex/Template:de-noun-

Template:de-noun-n-es-unc

--kc_kennylau (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

@CodeCat, Phol, Atitarev, The Evil IP address, SemperBlotto Pinging you guys because you guys have edited at least one of the aforementioned pages. --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

@CodeCat, Phol, Atitarev, The Evil IP address, SemperBlotto Pinging you guys again for there is no answer. --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Dejamenpaz. — [Ric Laurent] — 19:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

¿Que? — Keφr 06:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Nadie salvo ti te puedes dar paz. --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep all How is anybody being harmed by template redirects? Template redirects are useful and should be kept Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
• Delete all. Redirects do cause harm; they cause confusion for the users who have to learn them and what they point to. It adds to the mental load of editing Wiktionary, which is already quite high. —CodeCat 21:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a straw-man argument, and anyway, it makes viewing easier Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Template redirects don't affect viewing a page at all, they only affect editing. —CodeCat 21:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kc kennylau Thanks for inviting but I have no strong opinion on this. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete, I guess, for the sake of consistency with other declension templates. — Keφr 06:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

These redirects are named as if they were headword-line templates, but they are not; therefore, they should be deleted. - -sche (discuss) 17:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

These names are common practice. Compare Category:Russian noun inflection-table templates. --WikiTiki89 18:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:cy-mut-none

This mutation template for Welsh shows that nothing happens. That's right, every cell just displays unchanged. Angr (talk • contribs) and I have agreed that it can go. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the information that a word does not mutate needs to be conveyed somehow; simple absence of a mutation table is far too ambiguous (considering that it is also what results from someone neglecting to add a table). Of course, a table that displays "unchanged" in all its fields is an unnecessarily bulky way of conveying that information... what if all the entries that currently use it were modified to have a templatised usage note "This term does not mutate" or an even shorter comment on the headword line, "does not mutate"? - -sche (discuss) 03:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Why should that be given, though? It's predictable — certain initial consonants just don't have mutated forms. And if someone doesn't know that, then our mutation tables in general will be useless to them, because they won't know what the mutations entail and when to use them, which is fairly complex. So it's not like people are going to be misled by removing these, because only people who can be expected to already understand this fact will even look at mutation tables and comprehend them. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

On further reflection, this template may be useful for unmutatable loanwords and proper nouns that begin with sounds that are normally mutatable. Cdhaptomos, a native speaker who unfortunately seems to have left the project, added it to albwm and its plural albymau presumably to show that these words do not have aspirate-mutation forms *halbwm and *halbymau, and it could be used at, say, Manceinion to show that that word does not have a soft-mutation form *Fanceinion. On the other hand, it may need to be made more flexible since some loanwords like gêm are immune to soft mutation but not to nasal mutation. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

See also the previous discussion at Template talk:cy-mut-o. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

For indeclinable nouns in Russian (such as пианино (pianino)) and probably many other languages, we just display (indeclinable) in the headword line and omit the declension table. A declension table would be silly for indeclinable nouns. Why can't we do a similar thing here? --WikiTiki89 17:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Because mutation is not a form of declension. It's a grammaticalised sandhi effect and it depends on the preceding word, not the current one. Any word at all can be mutated if there is a mutation-triggering word before it. —CodeCat 17:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Then maybe I misunderstood something. I thought this discussion was about how to handle words that don't mutate. --WikiTiki89 18:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

There are words that don't mutate even when there is a mutation-triggering word in front of them. Sometimes this is natural (the initial consonant of the word just has no distinct mutated form) but it can also be lexical (the word just doesn't happen to mutate, even if its first consonant has a mutated form in other words beginning with it). But this is complicated further in that there are several types of mutation, where different preceding words can trigger different types. Irish for example has leniting (aka aspirating/soft) mutation and nasalising mutation on its nouns, as well as more limited types of mutation like the t-mutation that's only triggered by the definite article. It's entirely possible that a specific noun could allow only some of these types of mutation but not others. So it is still necessary to be able to show "does not mutate" in some of the table cells in those cases. And at that point it's more consistent if we just use a table regardless. —CodeCat 18:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see how this would be different from displaying a declension table with the same form for all cases, just to be consistent. --WikiTiki89 18:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that idea either, to be honest. —CodeCat 18:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Template:cross

Template:Tick

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

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

Added to the nomination. Keφr 09:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. — Keφr 11:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete all categories associated with the Romance of the Three Kingdoms

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

• Category:cmn:Places_in_Romance_of_the_Three_Kingdoms_in_simplified_script
• Category:cmn:Places_in_Romance_of_the_Three_Kingdoms_in_traditional_script
• Category:cmn:Romance_of_the_Three_Kingdoms_in_simplified_script
• Category:cmn:Romance_of_the_Three_Kingdoms_in_traditional_script
• Category:cmn:Job_titles_in_Romance_of_the_Three_Kingdoms_in_simplified_script
• Category:cmn:Job_titles_in_Romance_of_the_Three_Kingdoms_in_traditional_script

Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Struck as all the categories are now nonexistent. Do we need to archive this? And if so, where? — Keφr 20:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:hot sense

I disagree with this. Let this thing created on 6 March 2014‎ be deleted unless there is consensus to keep it: no consensus => status quo ante. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

There was a large amount of consensus for it and very little opposition at the BP discussion. --WikiTiki89 20:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep: Also, no consensus defaults to keep, Dan, so you can't really demand that no consensus default to delete for this particular article Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)}

Template:hot word

I disagree with this. Let this thing created on 6 March 2014‎ be deleted unless there is consensus to keep it: no consensus => status quo ante. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

As above, there was a large amount of consensus for it and very little opposition at the BP discussion. --WikiTiki89 20:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep both. If we are to include widely publicised protologisms, as has been the consensus at WT:RFD and WT:RFV, we should tag them as such instead of pretending they are in clearly widespread use. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the RFD nomination from the template. It's very clear that this is being discussed in the BP, so RFDing it is only going to annoy people and serves no purpose other than to be obstructive. —CodeCat 21:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with CodeCat's action; let's keep discussion in one forum (in this case, the BP). - -sche (discuss) 22:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep, at least for now. DCDuring TALK 22:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, but reduce to a tiny, barely noticeable sliver of its current form, per the BP proposal. bd2412 T 16:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, but only in reduced form as in User:Cloudcuckoolander's flamelet version. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  For reference, here is the User:Cloudcuckoolander flamelet version posted to Beer parlour:

  This English term is a hot word. Its inclusion on Wiktionary is provisional.

  --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• I've stricken these nominations as they can't be addressed as long as there is still a discussion about it on the BP. See also my statement above. In any case, judging from this discussion, the current one on the BP, and also the one last month, it appears there is no consensus for anything but keeping the templates, and the current discussion is only about what they look like, which is not a matter for RFDO. —CodeCat 19:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• And if anyone doesn't like nominations being stricken like that, then I'll just say I'm closing this debate with a clear keep as the result. —CodeCat 19:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Unstriking as pending resolution of BP. No apparent consensus to keep. Excessively interested party ought not to closing this matter. DCDuring TALK 21:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Then where are the delete votes? Where are the objections to the template when it was created last month? I see none, except Dan Polansky's. That's a pretty clear snowball "keep" in my eyes. If you dispute that, I'd really love to know what arguments there are for that. —CodeCat 21:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete in their current forms. That's one. I viewed BD's "Keep" as the same. Clearly the author of a template can have impaired judgment when it comes to the author's own creation, hence the good practice of not having such a person close out such matters. DCDuring TALK 21:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm going to invoke WT:NPA here. I feel you're doing this more to annoy me and/or be obstructive to make a point, than because it is actually reasonable to. —CodeCat 21:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't accept responsibility for your feelings. Perhaps you might consider lying down until the feeling goes away. DCDuring TALK 19:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Ugliness of the template is addressed by editing it, not by deleting it. You really are being obstructive to make a point here. (Although I agree that it is not CodeCat who should be closing this vote.) — Keφr 05:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I am concerned about misconstrual of the closing of such a vote, which misconstrual has some precedents. DCDuring TALK 13:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: per discussion at the BP discussion Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 18:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, but only if we come up with some less vague criteria about which terms are eligible for "hot word" status. Two recently started WT:RFVs suggest that we might be too eager to grant this status to neologisms, which is what DP has been worrying about (presumably; he never actually stated a reason for opposing this). — Keφr 05:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  Which two recently started RFVs?--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

  proalitionist and selfiest. I think "hot word" status should be restricted to terms whose referents have been recently discovered/established and/or for which citations of usage (not necessarily durable) have been shown to exist in a wide range of media; this would include Euromaidan, olinguito, pithovirus, new senses of Crimea and maybe dogecoin, but not airpocalypse (“the presence of dense smog in China”) or selfiest (“in which the most selfies are taken”). — Keφr 19:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Keep; what the template looks like is not relevant to a deletion discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:en-pron

This seems like just a thin wrapper around {{head}}. Not only is that not necessary, but I disagree with the way it shows the "description" on the headword line. Something like "first person singular" is really part of the definition, and it should be placed there. —CodeCat 22:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: Nom seems to be nothing more than an "I-don't-like" argument Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 19:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • And your argument for keeping is nonexistent altogether. —CodeCat 19:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • If a deletion rationale is invalid, an article is kept. Your deletion rationale is invalid, so this should be kept. I find it very disheartening how many templates are being deleted, when they should be kept or at least redirected Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 19:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Why should we keep templates if there is no reason to keep them? —CodeCat 19:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Shame on you for using the w:fallacy fallacy. Also, the practice here is that unpopulated non-entry deletion discussions default to "delete". — Keφr 19:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Unless there's a clear reason that a template is harmful, templates should be kept or redirected. I believe that. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 02:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Template:l/en alert! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 02:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Purplebackpack89 is trolling. I also don't think Ungoliant was entirely serious in this accusation. --WikiTiki89 02:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I am dead serious. PBP isn’t trolling in the traditional sense, but he is definitely concern trolling. Things like voting keep just because CodeCat’s reason for RFDing the template was not liking it (which is patently wrong, as anyone who bothers to actually read the nomination can see) is pure concern trolling. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 12:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Concern trolling implies that his intentions are to disrupt Witktionary, which I don't think is the case. --WikiTiki89 13:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

"Insufficient deletion rationale" is an acceptable reason for keeping. I cannot fathom why people who vote "keep" are subjected to so much pressure from you and others. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't "insufficient keeping rationale" an acceptable reason for deleting? --WikiTiki89 21:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn’t have anything to do with voting keep. It has to do with the absurd nonargument you gave. Giving no reason at all would have been better than your accusation that CodeCat nominated the template due to not liking it. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

CodeCat's rationale included "I disagree with the way it shows the "description" on the headword line". That's something he doesn't like. It's something that could be easily fixed without blowing up the entire template. I stand 100% behind my initial rationale, and 100% behind my belief that accusing me of trolling is inaccurate. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

And the sentence following that bit explains why she thinks it’s a bad thing. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 21:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The following sentence doesn't negate the part about it being fixable without deletion. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 22:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It does, actually. Because if you remove the desc= parameter, you end up with a carbon copy of {{head}}. —CodeCat 22:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

But there's nothing wrong with that. --WikiTiki89 22:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Really? You think having two templates that do the same thing is ok? —CodeCat 22:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, why not? At the very least, one should redirect to the other in case entries still use it. Otherwise, you can potentially break entries or confuse users. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 22:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, preferably one should be implemented in terms of the other to make sure they really do do the same thing. But yes, there is nothing wrong that. {{en-pron}} is easier to type than {{head|en|pronoun}}, and it is parallel to other POS templates. I already said this below, and msh210 added more reasons. --WikiTiki89 22:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep DCDuring TALK 20:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Why? —CodeCat 20:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

    @CodeCat Why not? It isn't hurting anyone. I don't see much reason for anyone to waste time tidying and I have no enthusiasm for double-checking whether someone's tidying instinct is leading to loss of anything worthwhile, especially when tidying is the sole stated motive. If there were some compelling reason to wipe out easy access to the history of the project, much of which is embedded in templates, I could be convinced otherwise. DCDuring TALK 23:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep per majority. Clearly notable. Harmless and funny. Meets WT:CFI and WT:ELE. The creator worked on this very hard. I like it and find it useful and interesting. It would be censorship to delete this. It contains valuable information. There must be sources somewhere. Vandals and sockpuppets will just keep on re-creating it. It exists and has a zillion Google hits. People are talking about it all over the blogs. It is on the news tonight and of interest around the entire globe. Wiktionary should be about everything. And we should not lose the editors' effort. — Keφr 20:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Is the actual motive for wiping this out to make any transition, even on an experimental basis, to something other than {{head}} more difficult? DCDuring TALK 23:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • To what do you want to migrate this? — Keφr 11:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep despite Purplebackpack89's flawless argument for deletion (am I committing "fallacy fallacy fallacy"?). This template is parallel to other English POS templates and thus people will naturally try to use it even if it doesn't exist. --WikiTiki89 00:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Except that it's not. Don't let the name deceive you, look at the code. It takes pairs of labels and forms, just like {{head}} does. Like I said in the nomination, it's nothing more than a thin wrapper around {{head}}, it just forwards on some of the parameters and doesn't do anything itself. —CodeCat 00:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • You didn't contradict anything I said. --WikiTiki89 00:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Wikitiki89: people will try to use it (and wish to re-create it) to match other en-POS and langcode-pron templates. And per DCDuring.​—msh210℠ (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "pron" may be mistaken to stand for "pronunciation", though. I think this template, if kept, should at least switch places with {{en-pronoun}}. — Keφr 10:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree completely, and the same for all languages' counterparts, with redirects kept, but that's not the issue here.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:substub

I have never seen this template used to any good effect. Mostly it is used in entries that are speedily deleted. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
• Ditto. Delete. Keφr 16:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Changing my mind. It at least allows us to find useless pages quickly. What will be the replacement for Category:Section stubs? — Keφr 15:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Is the RfD for the redirect or both the redirect and the redirect target? DCDuring TALK 16:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:sectstub

For the sake of clarity, delete; see also #substub above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, delete this as well, but note:- it is used in some "new en" templates. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:vi-script helper

Module:vi (function "applyHanFonts")

The first is a fork of {{script helper}} (a bad idea in itself) that only does anything different if the script is "Hani". The other two are supposed to apply Vietnamese-specific Chinese-character fonts as inline styles. That completely circumvents our style sheets, and it's really bad practice. @Mzajac, Mxn for comment too. —CodeCat 19:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Migrate to MediaWiki:Common.css; otherwise delete. — Keφr 15:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:en-ing form of

Delete this template. It purports to treat verb and noun behaviors of the likes of ploughing (see also Talk:ploughing) under one definition line, which would probably be placed under Verb heading. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It is, for now, a simple demonstration of an alternative presentation, used to illustrate a discussion of WT:RFD#waxing. Though deleted from waxing, it is still available for its intended use in the discussion in the former version and should remain at until the later of termination of that discussion and a successful RfDO.

Keep. DCDuring TALK 20:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You can use your user page for demonstration purposes. To demonstrate a proposed format of certain kind of entries, there was absolutely no need to create a template and place it to a discussed entry. Alternatively, you could have placed a demonstration of proposed formatting directly into the discussion, a thing very easy and straightforward to do. You can still do it. This template is unneeded and should be deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Wiktionary:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/Translation

I have no idea what this is. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

See User talk:Bgwhite. I am somethat less enthusiastic about it than User:Bgwhite, it probably should have been advertised on WT:GP/WT:BP and the page's name is somewhat unfortunate, but otherwise keep this. — Keφr 15:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Transwiki:ISO 639:a

...and Transwiki:ISO 639:b all the other appendices through to Transwiki:ISO 639:z. Like the appendices discussed on Appendix talk:ISO 639-1 language codes, these Transwiki pages are just out-of-date forks/duplicates of pages Wikipedia has up-to-date copies of. They should be orphaned and then deleted. - -sche (discuss) 23:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:list:possessives/pt

I have already orphaned it as other languages' possessives don't use lists. See Special:PrefixIndex/Template:list:possessives. --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Other languages have inflection tables for that kind of thing. —CodeCat 02:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Support. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 13:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 08:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Obsolete Ancient Greek IPA templates

The following templates are obsolete (replaced by {{grc-ipa-rows}}) and unused:

• {{grc-ipa-pron}}
• {{grc-ipa-ck}}
• {{grc-ipa-ckk}}
• {{grc-ipa-ckb}}
• {{grc-ipa-ckbk}}

EDIT: I'm adding {{grc-ipa-cla-acute}}, {{grc-ipa-cla-circ}}, {{grc-ipa-cla-grave}}, {{grc-ipa-con-aspir}}, {{grc-ipa-con-double}}, {{grc-ipa-koi-long}}, {{grc-ipadnup}}, {{grc-ipaupdn}}, and every template in Category:Ancient Greek IPA tokens, as well as the categories, which are long past due.

Additionally, if I may ask, what is the purpose of {{Template:grc-ipa-cla-acute}} and other similar apparently unused templates? ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 17:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP: Template:grc-ipa-rows uses Template:grc-ipa-row which uses the above five templates. --kc_kennylau (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure? Because I checked, and I'm pretty sure the five templates Template:grc-ipa-rows uses are grc-ipa-cla, grc-ipa-koi, grc-ipa-koi2, grc-ipa-byz, and grc-ipa-byz2, not any of those. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 18:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete I'm pretty sure all of the listed templates are no longer used and can be safely deleted. {{grc-ipa-row}} can use the listed templates, but it never actually does. Quite frankly, this only covers the tip of the iceberg. All of the individual IPA tokens have been abandoned in favor of an in-template switch, and there has to be hundreds of them. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm deceived by my pride again. --kc_kennylau (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

So you mean that {{grc-ipa-byz}} &c. are also superfluous? And what is the purpose of {{grc-ipa-cla-acute}}? ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 21:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

{{grc-ipa-byz}} is not obsolete. It is one of perhaps five templates which are still used by {{grc-ipa-rows}}. However, all the entries in Category:Ancient Greek IPA tokens can be deleted. I have no idea what {{grc-ipa-cla-acute}} was meant for. I suspect it was an approach which Gilgamesh tried and later abandoned. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, I misunderstood you. I've added all the templates you mentioned to the RfD. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 21:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Someday. Someday I shall lua-cize the Greek pronunciation template. --kc_kennylau (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It's already been done. See {{grc-pron}}. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

So when does that become the standard? ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 02:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it becomes the standard when everyone who writes Ancient Greek entries uses it. I've been using it on all my new entries, and Fsojic has started to as well. I posted a note on the talk page of WT:AGRC, which I assume most grc editors have on their watchlist. I'm hoping that editors will eventually be won over by its ease of use, correct treatment of syllables and accents, and other advantages. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

All deleted. — Keφr 12:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:English noun forms

I removed all the non-English ones (mostly Volapük) and then moved all the English plurals to Category:English plurals and lo and behold it's empty. I think it was once a parent category for Category:English plurals but now it isn't. So delete, or keep as a parent category only and create a {{parent category}} template. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I proposed some time ago that Category:English plurals should be moved to Category:English noun plural forms. We don't need two different categories for noun plurals, after all. Are there any other noun forms in English, perhaps archaic case forms that are no longer in use? —CodeCat 19:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The only other form is the possessive, which is now more of a morpheme than a case. --WikiTiki89 19:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

But is it possible that we can cite other noun forms in old texts, like Shakespeare for example? —CodeCat 19:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

No, because they disappeared phonologically. The last remnants were the presence or lack of a final schwa and by Shakespeare's time it was already entirely silent. --WikiTiki89 19:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Well in any case, I still think this should be kept as a parent category for Category:English noun plural forms. Or we could place the plurals straight in Category:English noun forms, if those are the only noun forms that exist anyway. —CodeCat 20:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:English noun plural forms wasn't a very popular idea, pure and simple. Nor was moving Category:English plurals to Category:English noun forms. I doubt the consensus has changed, but feel free to give it a go. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:WC and its language subcategories

We already have Wikisaurus:toilet with just about the same content. Anything in it can also either go in the parent category Category:Rooms or the subcategory Category:Toiletry. --WikiTiki89 23:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. —CodeCat 23:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

User:OrenBochman/creation.js, User talk:OrenBochman/creation.js

Verbatim copy of User:Conrad.Irwin/creation.js. User:OrenBochman is inactive (has made only four edits last year), and it seems even he has never used these pages himself. They only serve to pollute transclusion lists. — Keφr 12:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleted both. — Keφr 14:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

More superfluous grc templates

While I'm on the subject of introducing reforms into the grc system, I've noticed these templates:

• {{grc-decl-1st-ala-prp}}
• {{grc-decl-1st-ets-prp}}
• {{grc-decl-2nd-prp}}
• {{grc-decl-2nd-N-prp}}
• {{grc-decl-3rd-dn-prp}}
• {{grc-decl-3rd-ln-prp}}
• {{grc-decl-3rd-N-ln-prp}}
• {{grc-decl-3rd-weak-υ-prp}}

They are meant for nouns with properispomenal accent, but they are not only functionally identical but in fact identical in coding (except in the cases where the prp templates have not been updated) to the corresponding prx templates.

I therefore propose that the first seven of these be orphaned and deleted, their transcluders to use instead the prx templates, and the last be moved to {{grc-decl-3rd-weak-υ-prx}}. (If this constitutes more accurately an RfM, I'll move it there.) ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 14:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete Seems reasonable to me. We actually considered doing this ever so long ago, and didn't. At this point I feel rather more confident in stating that it should work just fine, and cut down on some rarely used (and thus typically poorly maintained) templates. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that's a hell of a long time ago. --WikiTiki89 03:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Appendix:Latin/oclus

Oclus is attested, so this content doesn’t need to be in the appendix. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Where is it attested? DTLHS (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Based on the etymology section, it seems to be attested as a mention, not a use. --WikiTiki89 23:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Mentions are valid for ancient languages. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Are they? --WikiTiki89 00:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Not even Classical Latin is listed at WT:WDL, and Vulgar Latin is even less well attested. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The CFI says “For terms in extinct languages, one use in a contemporaneous source is the minimum, or one mention is adequate subject to the below requirements.” I know that one of these requirements is that a list of acceptable sources be maintained, but in practice people just take it for granted that a source is adequate unless someone calls it into question. — Ungoliant ^(falai)

Fair enough. I presume that the mention also needs to be contemporary (as it is in this case), since we wouldn't want bogus entries from a modern Dictionary of Vulgar Latin. --WikiTiki89 14:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why. Surely we allow mentions from other modern dictionaries of ancient languages. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Because if a modern dictionary has a word that cannot be found anywhere else, then where did the dictionary itself get it from? In the case of a contemporary mention, we can at least presume that the author had access to sources that were not preserved, as well as to the spoken language itself. --WikiTiki89 19:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

So start a list of appropriate sources and add this one. What is it by the way? Old French has a list (of one item): Wiktionary:About Old French#Appropriate sources for a single mention. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:fr-verb-form

This is just a shortcut to {{head|fr|verb form}}. It has no functionality that {{head|fr|verb form}} does not. It never has, as far as I know, either. Italian gets by fine on {{head|it|verb form}} why can't French too. The 'good news' is that it just doesn't matter whether we keep or delete this or not; it is identical to {{head|fr|verb form}}. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like many languages create such shortcut also. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes but careful. Some of them have parameters that head doesn't. Just French isn't one of them. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Circeus, Connel MacKenzie, Mglovesfun, Yair rand, Metaknowledge Pinging the authors of this template. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Move to Wikiquote

Template:dicdef

a redirect to the previous

Template:Move to wiktionary

another redirect

The first two still have the "If the page can be expanded into an encyclopedic article," verbiage that shows their Wikipedia origins. The third is just a soft redirect to the Wikipedia template of that name.

Do we really need any of these? Sure, interwikis will have links to some of them, but why is a dummy template any better than a redlink? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:exthomophones

A module Module:homophones has already been created to make Template:homophones able to accept virtually infinitely many parameters, thus the request for deletion. If there is no objection within one week, I will start orphaning Template:exthomophones. --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Do it! Renard Migrant (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:audio-pron-dev

Not used anywhere. Seems to be an experiment that was abandoned. —CodeCat 18:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:definite and plural of

This was just created. But given the wild growth of form-of templates for any random combination of inflections that we had in the past, I'm very reluctant to keep this template. —CodeCat 21:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably means definite singular and plural form of [adjective], if it's used for Danish or Norwegian. I usually list them separately, on two lines. Donnanz (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Currently only used at hyggelige, Danish. An example of formatting of a similar Danish entry is engelske; see also Category:Danish adjective forms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The wording used is far too vague anyway. Donnanz (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Put it on two lines. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
• Keep: If it can be used in multiple places, best to have it Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 15:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

  @Purplebackpack89 Care to clarify? Why should the template be used instead of what is currently being done at engelske? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

  Conversely, why doesn't engelske consolidate things into a single definition? And why can't users have the option of choosing between multiple templates? And why are we so quick to delete templates that being are used? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 17:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

  Because usage alone doesn't determine how desirable a template is. —CodeCat 18:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete per Angr. - -sche (discuss) 17:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Keep. This is very important for the Danish language. If you delete it, all my work on this adjective form will be deleted. Are you guys kidding me? Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete and put on two lines. Two different definitions, two lines. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ready Steady Yeti no need to 'delete' anything, just modify by bot and put onto two lines. This is a wiki; everything is constantly being reviewed! Renard Migrant (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Do NOT delete. I know there is already a way to say "definite and plural of" with another template but trust me, it's much more complicated, and I need that template, so don't delete TEMPLATES, why would you delete useful templates? Keeping this template will help the project in the Danish language field. If you still think this should be deleted then how should I make an alternative, because there was no other way to do this before, and there are thousands of Danish adjectives that have no definite and plural form entries, but are still listed on their head templates. Please do not delete, either that or make another easy alternative.

I understand everything is constantly being reviewed. But this must not be deleted. Every Danish adjective form has a definite and plural form so it would be useless to make two separate lines. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

And how often do they coincide? Is it on the order of magnitude of English "-ed" forms (where passive participle coincides with past tense)? — Keφr 16:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you're spot on when you say "I need that template". You're thinking about what's best for you, not what's best for the wiki. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

And even for English, the template is language-specific: {{en-past of}}. —CodeCat 17:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You realise of course that this argument can be turned on you by suggesting a rename of the nominated template to {{da-definite and plural of}}. — Keφr 17:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I would be ok with that, although in that case the wording still isn't ideal, because it still underspecifies what is meant. —CodeCat 17:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, the wording is far too vague. If this template were to be kept, it should read "definite singular and plural form of". The same applies in Norwegian and maybe Swedish, but I always split it in Norwegian into two lines, and will probably continue to do so in Danish. I suspect a short cut is being looked for here. Donnanz (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Is the plural also definite, or only the singular? —CodeCat 17:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The plural form can be either definite or indefinite. The spelling varies when used in singular form, depending on the gender of the noun the adjective is used with, or whether it's used in definite form. The definite singular and plural form always have the same spelling, with very few exceptions. But there are also indeclinable adjectives, which don't vary in spelling, no matter what. They're the easiest ones to deal with. Donnanz (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm a very wrong human being that should never have existed. I'm extremely abnormal.

Anyhow, I think Template:da-definite and plural of is acceptable. I do want what is best for the wiki. That's why I'm here. Sorry, sometimes I get hyper like this. I'm pretty sure that all Danish adjectives that have one form with the suffix -e (which most do), they all are definite and plural so my argument is there's no point in making two separate lines.

I really was planning to apply for sysop privileges here in like 3 or 4 years but it doesn't look like I'm at a good start right now. I hope I can get better at this. I really, I promise, I want to help this website change the world of words and language. You can quote me on that. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Template:en-past of

Per WT:RFDO#Template:definite and plural of. This is the same principle, just the template is more widely used. Two definitions, two lines. Not combined onto one line.

It would be very easy to replace this by bot. Quick, no; easy, yes. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Common practice for language-specific templates is very different from general ones. Language-specific templates can and should cater to the specific needs of that one language, that's why we have them. —CodeCat 17:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: per CodeCat — This unsigned comment was added by Purplebackpack89 (talk • contribs).

KEEP per me too. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

All "transliterations of (family) languages terms" type categories

This means Category:English transliterations of Slavic languages terms and so on, which are maintained by {{translitcatboiler}}. This category was created by User:Kc kennylau and based on {{derivcatboiler}} but it seems like a bit of cargo cult programming, as a lot of the additional code for handling language family categories from that template was copied over without much regard for whether it was needed. I don't think these categories are useful at all. What is significant about transliterating a term from a Slavic language? It's not nearly as significant as a term derived from a Slavic language. —CodeCat 18:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Substantial cleanup is needed if these are kept: several of them contain themselves (e.g. Category:English transliterations of East Slavic languages terms); they're also not fluently named (it would be better to say "English transliterations of East Slavic language terms" or "English transliterations of terms from East Slavic languages"). They also seem to not cover, or to be poised to misleadingly label, terms transliterated according to language-nonspecific schemes like ISO 9. - -sche (discuss) 19:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Terms shouldn’t be defined as “a transliteration” of something. Somebody is confusing meaning and form. A term may have several spellings, and some of these spellings may correspond to transliterations, or transcriptions, or both, or neither. (“Transliteration” probably doesn’t belong in an etymology either, without documentation of a specific first use.) —Michael Z. 2014-07-01 15:17 z

Template:User en-us-N

Category:User en-us-N, Category:User en-us, Category:User en-uk-N, Category:User en-uk

I think we should not encourage this sort of hair-splitting in Babel boxes. English is English, if a user has something to say about their particular idiolect, they should probably do it in prose, because I doubt that differences between dialects can be meaningfully captured by pigeonholing them into a simplistic "British or American" dichotomy. I doubt any speaker actually speaks "pure" British or "pure" American dialect. And it does not even cover all "native" varieties of English.

In other words, this is not very useful, it makes browsing categories harder, it is a maintenance burden and a fodder for nationalistic splinters, which we generally tend to discourage. (Well, except in the logo.) — Keφr 13:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, a stupid typo I see on one of the templates.

"These users are native speakers of British English." Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I have changed "these users..." to "this user..." to match the rest. Equinox ◑ 19:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably delete: I agree that this seems to reflect a them-and-us false dichotomy between UK and US. Equinox ◑ 19:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, the other templates are bad. They word it incorrectly. "This user speaks English (American)" instead of "This user speaks American English at a native level." Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 20:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: So Kephir gets to decide what users get to call themselves now? The only reason a userbox should be deleted is if it is offensive. This isn't offensive, so keep it. Purplebackpack89 03:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The very existence of this discussion contradicts your childish personal remark. I would have just speedied it if I thought so. A userbox should be deleted if it is not expressly allowed by WT:USER, so not only because it is offensive. Also, offensive to whom? Nationalism offends me.

  Is that supposed to anger me or what? It fails. But if you want to spend your time here attempting to aggravate everyone who disagrees with you, as you have been doing pretty much all the time in recent months, we have tools to address that. — Keφr 06:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree with the user guidelines. I think users should be allowed to post whatever they damn well please in their user pages, including non-Babel userboxes. And just because you don't like that I voted keep on something you want deleted is not reason enough to block me, sorry. Purplebackpack89 14:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I think your disagreement has little merit, but whatever. You voted "keep", fine. You are bloody entitled to do so. I do have a problem with turning every dispute into "this-and-that user acts purely on their whim and is evil" and a "ha ha ha, you can't block me you stupid admins" attitude. Though frankly, given your track record at w:simple:, I doubt you can understand any of that. End of topic. — Keφr 15:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Look, it seems to me that there are some things on this project that are motivated by personal likes and dislikes rather than actually being a good idea. Your silly little block proposal last month was one of those. Not having userboxes is another. Is having a bunch of non-language-related user boxes detrimental in any way to Wiktionary? No! So let users have all the userboxes they want! And, even under the present guidelines, there's not really a policy basis for deleting this. It appears that a significant portion of this nominated was that seeing this template used struck a discordant note with you. Purplebackpack89 17:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

(Surprisingly) I agree with Purplebackpack89: keep templates (not necessarily the categories). People should be able to use whatever Babel boxes they want, even if they want to say they speak Serbian rather than Serbo-Croatian. --WikiTiki89 14:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Appendix:List of protologisms by topic

I propose to delete this, since Appendix:List of protologisms/A-P and Appendix:List of protologisms/Q-Z are more than sufficient for the purpose of listing protologisms. Note that Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2013-09/Deleting list of protologisms failed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• I support deleting in part, because there is a lot of junk on the page, but would like to salvage the time and technology sections, which have some redeeming propositions. bd2412 T 19:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete. 'Tis indeed a strange junkyard. Equinox ◑ 20:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete, if this is not already obvious from the above. — Keφr 05:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: I'm seeing an argument for fixing, not for deletion. Purplebackpack89 13:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Appendix:Video game consoles

If this were more than a bunch of links I'd probably not care about it, but as it is this can hardly be called an Appendix. -- Liliana • 20:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Bleurk, delete. One of those cases where someone's pet hobby overrules their sense of what is appropriate dictionary content, like all those anime and Harry Potter appendices we recently (mostly) got rid of. Equinox ◑ 20:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Why not just use this idea to make a category? Category:en:Video game consoles Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 20:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

My thought exactly, actually, since abbreviations curiously manage to be exempt of CFI rules altogether... -- Liliana • 20:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

So the category will really be "Category:Abbreviations of video game console names"? Sounds super useful. Equinox ◑ 20:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually it would be "Category:en:Abbreviations of video game console names", because abbreviations may be slightly different in other languages. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 20:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Delete: Most of the things in the appendix probably fail NOT anyway as brand names Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Not something a dictionary needs to have. --WikiTiki89 23:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

For comparison purposes, here are the Appendices of the Chambers Dictionary I have on CD-ROM. Readers can draw their own conclusions; I'm just going to say that they don't have a list of Pokémon. So: "some first names" (we already allow names); "phrases and quotations from foreign languages" (largely classical, i.e. Latin and Greek, but also e.g. cherchez la femme, grosse Seelen dulden still, etc.); alphabets (Greek, Russian, Hebrew, Arabic); Roman numerals; Internet suffixes (wow, I was surprised!); Bible books; Shakespeare plays; chemical elements; SI units; various scales (Beaufort, Mohs, earthquakes, wine bottle sizes, wedding anniversaries); math symbols; physical constants; conversion factors (paper sizes, temperature, etc.); and planets and major satellites. Equinox ◑ 23:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Category:English female given names from A Song of Ice and Fire

Includes only one name, Khaleesi, assuming it will pass the RFV. The names Brienne, Arya and Margaery were cited by -sche to have existed before. Category:English female given names from coinages is a suitable for fictional names like Khaleesi. It's not likely that more than one or two given names will derive from any fictional work - it's hard to invent a real-sounding name that is taken up by young parents, and yet has never been used anywhere else. Category:en:A Song of Ice and Fire seems more suitable for an Appendix, too, or to Wikipedia. --Makaokalani (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete: more overspecific pop culture. Equinox ◑ 12:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete. An etymology or two might include such an origin, but there's no need to categorize entries this way. bd2412 T 13:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete per bd. - -sche (discuss) 03:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Unused usage note templates

As I was standardizing the naming of these, I noticed that they weren't used anywhere. So, should we start using them in entries, or delete them? - -sche (discuss) 03:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:U:fr:may take être

(cf. Template:U:fr:takes être, which is used)

Passer and sortir fit these criteria. Presumably those verbs just write it out longhand or omit it , both of which are suboptimal. Keep. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Though passer and sortir already have usage notes to handle this. Perhaps I was wrong. Any other verbs that need checking? Renard Migrant (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The entries' usage notes suggest that the circumstances under which passer uses "être" are not identical to the circumstances under which sortir uses "être". If that's the case, this template can't even be reworded to replace passer and sortir’s usage notes (without inaccuracy or loss of information), and — if it isn't needed in any other entries — it seems it should be deleted. But if sortir and passer actually use "être" under exactly and only the same circumstances, then by all means we should reword Template:U:fr:may take être and deploy it on those entries so that they no longer imply a difference. - -sche (discuss) 03:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:U:fr:cannot take être

(cf. Template:U:fr:takes être, which is used)

I'd imagine it's for things like dépasser and surpasser which take avoir while passer takes être (sometimes anyway). The conjugation tables already say this (e.g. {{fr-conj-er|dépass|avoir}}) so it's not essential. I wouldn't keep it. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Appendix:Proto-Slavic/ablo

Huh? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I looked up the references, and it is there in both. Both seem to give the definition of apple the fruit, though, so I changed that. The reconstruction itself seems to hold some water, but I am less confident about the declension; hard-o stem declension looks more believable. — Keφr 05:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've seen a reference now as well. Still seems strange. Does Old Polish "jabło" seem valid to you? Are speakers of other daughter languages available for comments? Pinging @Biblbroks, @Ivan Štambuk, @Dan Polansky. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems somewhat plausible. If someone used it in my presence, I would perceive it as an odd back-formed augmentative of jabłko, by discarding the diminutive suffix -ko, and inflected analogously to ciasto or sito. And there are some words suffixed with -ń f which suggest that jabłoń might as well be derivative of some other word: przystań, czerwień, zieleń, though there are also sień, skroń, dłoń, toń with no obvious base word. — Keφr 06:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Vasmer describes Russian я́блоня (jáblonja) as derived from Proto-Slavic *(j)ablonь and я́блоко (jábloko) from *ablъko, listing other Slavic languages as well. Is *ablo the link between the two or rather, the origin of both? The sources at *ablo sort of contradict Vasmer.--Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I even managed to find some citations for jabło. Quite hard to find among misscans of inflections of dyjabeł or Jabłoński, but it is there.

• 1863, Encyklopedyja powszechna, page 812

  Wreszcie: apporty zimowe (Pomme d'Oporto), wielkie, portugalskie jabła. Ananasówki zimowe (Pomme d'Ananas). Bursztówki zimowe płaskie i podlugowate (Barstorfer). Fioletówki zimowe (Pomme violette d'hiver).

• 1936, Bolesław Leśmian, "Jadwiga"

  Pyskiem własił się i włudził w piersi wonne, jak dwa jabła / Aż Jadwiga stęknęła, aż Jadwiga osłabła.

• 1954, Maria Dąbrowska, "Trzecia jesień", Dzień dzisiejszy, Czytelnik, page 132

  Już co ten profesor ma na tej działce owoców, to tam się gałęzie urywają pod temi gruchami, temi jabłami.

The last one is for the "apple tree" sense. The kind of seem like nonce back-formations, but still. — Keφr 07:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I have withdrawn the rfd. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Just saying, the existence of Polish jabło is not enough by itself to confirm *ablo. --WikiTiki89 19:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

True. Especially that I am not even convinced that it has been established. The word seems to be so incredibly rare that the citations above look rather like independent nonce re-coinages rather than uses of a word established in the lexicon. — Keφr 20:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Unstruck because I am failing to find attestations of any of the other supposed descendants, outside of etymological dictionaries. This is becoming really suspicious. — Keφr 11:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

My reasons for removing my own RFD was not only the existence of jabło but existence of working references. The accuracy of the information, of course, can be disputed but I have nothing to add on the topic. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• FYI, I posted the results of my search for Czech *jablo at Talk:jablo. I have found no attesting quotations; I only found dictionaries listing jablo or gablo, which is its obsolete orthography. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• The problem with the references is that they could be asily wrong. Trubačóv seems to rely on dictionaries rather than actually attested quotations. In http://essja.narod.ru/pg/01/f040-041.htm, Trubačóv mentions Czech *jablo with "Kott" in brackets, presumably František Kott, a dictionary maker; if Kott is wrong, and if the sources used for the other languages are wrong as well, then the whole reconstruction is wrong. I think that if we won't be able to attest the putative forms derived from *ablo, the reconstruction should be deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  Even if the reconstruction is "wrong", obsolete or not very plausible, it should be kept with an appropriate comment because it's listed in etymological dictionaries. We are not seeking the One True Reconstruction, but describing what others (trained scholars) do. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  I disagree that we should keep items of which we have good reason to believe are wrong. Whether the source is trained, eminent or whatnot has little bearing in true science. We should go in the opposite direction: if a source turns out to repeatedly contain errors, we should treat it with increasing suspition. (As an aside, I think that, in general, all etymological sources should be treated with a considerable degree of suspicion.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  There is no "truth" in protolanguage reconstructions, it's all guesswork and acceptance is based on consensus which is not written anywhere but is to be inferred by scanning the available literature. It is not science and reconstructions cannot be proved or disproved. The purpose of WMF projects (apart from the failed Wikiversity) is to collect and describe existing human knowledge and not to discover or promote the Truth. We have reconstructions invented by Wiktionarians (User:CodeCat) based on a single supposed reflex so I see no reason why multiply-backed ones should be challenged. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  One can approach reconstructions with a scientific mindset, even if they are uncertain. A reconstruction inferred from terms that are not even attested in use is a good candidate for deletion as implausible. A reconstruction can be supported, even if not "proved" to have existed in the exact form; a reconstruction whose support is poor can be deleted as unsupported and unsubstantiated. In a similar vein, out attestation process for definitions cannot prove that a would-be word was never used, but we delete the would-be word for the lack of substantiation anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  Old Czech, Old Polish as well as dialects are under LDL category which means that merely a headword in a dictionary compiled long ago by a lexicographer on fieldwork suffices. Outdated and dubious etymologies and reconstructions are important and should stay because they are interesting, mentioned in dictionaries and legitimate field of research. All of the reliable etymologies have been solved a century ago, and today only speculative ones remain. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  You make it sound like the mere fact that someone with professional credentials has posited a reconstruction forces us to regurgitate it in our space. We do need to be critical and not just automatically perpetuate known mistakes.

  Still, when I brought this up in the Etymology Scriptorum, my main concern was the implausibility of the Descendents section, not the existence of the entry itself. It looks plausible to me at the very least as a constituent of the compound form that is reconstructable as the source for reflexes throughout the Slavic languages. The absence of the suffix in the cognates makes it hard to rule out the possibility that it existed at some point in Proto-Slavic before being displaced by its suffixed form. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  All we know is that the form with the -k- suffix was innovated at some point in the time span between Slavic split off from Proto-Balto-Slavic, and the end of the Common Slavic period. Thus, the older k-less form must have existed during some part of that period as well. But I don't know for how long it remained in use during that time, nor whether it merits a Proto-Slavic entry (which is usually mid-late Common Slavic). —CodeCat 20:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Croatian entries are from some reason (I can only assume which) removed repeatedly by user Ivan Štambuk, also because of this I am experiencing attacks from him. Stop inventing word or you will be blocked. and If I catch you again inventing words I will kick you out. What is this? What kind of behavior this is? All because of some stupid word *ablo. I wish I never put the word in the first place. Une nymphe (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed them because you made them up, and you admitted it yourself on my talk page. (Da, u srpskohrvatskom ona ne postoji). You're a sockpuppet of User:Slavić who under that account similarly fabricated dozens of other words, in a similar vein (what the word would've looked like if it existed). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Ivan, re reconstructions, here's something to consider: on the basis of various Algonquian languages' words for the item, and using sound correspondences which are well-established, the influential linguist of Algonquian Leonard Bloomfield reconstructed an Algonquian term for whiskey: *eškote·wa·po·wi (*eškwet-). Should we have an entry for it? In this case, we know for a fact the reconstruction is bogus, because (as later scholars criticizing Bloomfield's reconstruction of this particular term have pointed out) whiskey wasn't introduced to North America until the Europeans arrived, thousands of years after Proto-Algonquian ceased to exist. The first Algonquian language(s) to be introduced to the drink just happened to refer to it with a compound meaning "fire-water", and later Algonquian languages, and Siouan languages, and even European languages, calqued that term. - -sche (discuss) 02:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:dynamic list

Transwikied along with the only page that uses it. All it does is add a rather nondescript disclaimer, reference a Wikipedia policy that has no relevance here, and add a redlinked category that contains only the template and the aforementioned transwiki. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:fr-adv

This has now (and indeed long ago) been surpassed by {{head}}. I would change all instances to {{head|fr|adverb}}, fr-adv does nothing that head doesn't already do better. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect: If two templates do the same thing and both are used in articles, one should be redirected to the other and neither should be deleted. Purplebackpack89 03:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Delete, a redirect wouldn't work. —CodeCat 13:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 20:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:fr-adj-form

As above, offers nothing that {{head}} doesn't already. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect: If two templates do the same thing and both are used in articles, one should be redirected to the other and neither should be deleted. Purplebackpack89 03:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Delete, a redirect wouldn't work. —CodeCat 13:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 20:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:rfquotek

This template asks whether we can find a quote by a particular author for a sense. For example, in free, there are two instances which display as:

(Can we [[:Category:Requests for quotations/{{{2}}}|find and add]] a quotation of {{{2}}} to this entry?)

The answer, for our purposes as a general dictionary, should be "who gives a crap if we can find an add a quotation of 'Burill' to this entry?" Frankly, I have no idea who this 'Burill' is in the first place (Wikipedia has a dozen or more people named 'Burrill'), and the usage of this template i Wiktionary tends to supply only a surname, with no other identifying information about the author whose quote is sought.

Our senses are not contingent on use by a particular author, and no one is ever going to bother to address the vast majority of these requests - there are over 11,000 sitting in definitions now. I presume that they are some kind of relic left over from importing definitions from some public domain source. If the template is deleted, a bot can do the job of removing all instances. bd2412 T 16:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• I never saw the point of these requests. Delete. — Keφr 16:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Based on discussion below, I withdraw my vote. However, I think we should change the template to something more self-explanatory. — Keφr 19:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep The templates, with the name of a work or author, give us a clue as to how to find a citation to support a definition, almost always one from Webster 1913. In some of these cases, the term is polysemous and the definitions use words with 19th or very early 20th century meanings that are not at all obvious to us now. Finding a citation to support a particular sense for a polysemous word is always tedious, verging on impossible. Any help we can get, in this case usually from the long-dead lexicographers at Merriam Webster, is useful. As to the utility of the terse name abbreviations, we have Wiktionary:Abbreviated Authorities in Webster, recently rediscovered and brought to our attention at WT:BP#Abbreviated Authorities in Webster. In the instance mentioned "Burrill" is one Alexander Mansfield Burrill (1807-1869), compiler of Law Dict., N. Y., 1859. DCDuring TALK 17:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Do we really need 11,000+ "clues" nested into our definitions? Is anyone actually bothering to track these down and substitute the mysterious citation in question for the template? Are the citations proffered by "the long-dead lexicographers at Merriam Webster" any better than citations we can find with Google? bd2412 T 18:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

    As to the "mysterious" nature of the references, I have added a link to the Authorities table to the template's documentation. If we believe, as I do that Webster 1913 definitions give us a useful window into late 19th century usage, often substantially different from our own, we need all the help we can get to provide citations to make these older definitions defensible and intelligible for contemporary users. I am reasonably sure that a good number of the easier cases have been filled in and that what remain are the more refractory cases, for which the rediscovery of the Authorities table should be a help. Extracting the list of "authorities" which remain among the 11K transclusions, sorted by frequency, might enable us to put links to full-text online versions of the works most commonly referenced into the Authorities table, thereby speeding the process of eliminating these. We could even embed links to the table entry or to the online full-text work in {{rfquotek}}. DCDuring TALK 18:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

    • A good start to that would be having a bot spell out all the names in the entries themselves, for example changing all instances of (Can we [[:Category:Requests for quotations/{{{2}}}|find and add]] a quotation of {{{2}}} to this entry?) to (Can we [[:Category:Requests for quotations/{{{2}}}|find and add]] a quotation of {{{2}}} to this entry?). bd2412 T 19:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

      Or we could have the template expand those abbreviations. — Keφr 19:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

      With the number of them that are there, we'd be packing an awful lot of code into the template. Frankly, I think writing a bot to do the expansion in the definitions would be easier. It would be even better if we had a bot that could search the works of the named author and find sentences using the word at issue. bd2412 T 19:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

      A module? Looks feasible, maybe. Wiktionary:Abbreviated Authorities in Webster has about 180K bytes of markup; converting that to Lua might shrink it a bit. Plus, the module could generate links to sources where the quotations could be found. I would rather avoid relying on bots. — Keφr 19:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

      Yes, I think I will convert it to use the Module:Quotations framework. DTLHS (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

      Please keep the existing page at least until we have a fully functioning replacement.

      Also, I believe that a great number of these authorities abbreviations are completely unused. It would probably be more useful to have some kind of assistive tool to speed the addition of citations from the oft-cited "authorities" like Shakespeare, Milton, Chaucer, and Spenser than to cover the whole set of perhaps 3,000 authorities. Those authors have works that may be published in multiple volumes, which to me means that simple Google books searches for the word with the author's name will go far to help locate the citations. DCDuring TALK 20:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

      I have modified the template to subcategorize by author. DTLHS (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

      Thanks. That will be very useful once Special:WantedCategories is updated. Last update was July 22, 2014. DCDuring TALK 20:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

      One would get in some ways a more useful listing until Special:WantedCategories is updated by simply sorting into the original category by "authority" name. That way one would not have to look for each authority category. IOW, double categorization into both the top category and the subcategory would give us more to work with for now. DCDuring TALK 22:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep: yes, quite a few users, including anon IPs, do fill these in. Also, for rare and obsolete words, it really helps to know which authors have used them. Equinox ◑ 18:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Equinox Might this template be applied to more entries? DCDuring TALK 22:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean, will I continue to use it? Only rarely: the Webster 1913 remnants are multi-word phrases, not headwords (which almost never cite an author). I have once or twice used it for my own new entries, where I knew a good work to cite from, but couldn't be bothered to find it at the time, but I don't do this often. Equinox ◑ 22:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: has proven useful in the past. Purplebackpack89 18:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep per DCDuring. This template seems to me to be even more useful than {{rfquote}}, because when used beneath obscure or obsolete senses, particularly of polysemous words, it clues us in to where to look for a citation, which is even more helpful than just asking for a citation like {{rfquote}} does. Regular users and even passersby are slowly fulfilling the requests; see e.g. Wiktionary:Tea room/2014/June#deperdits_-_found_the_Paley_quote. And note that before the template was created, the practice was to supply an empty citation, i.e. just the author's name in plaintext, like this, which was decidedly worse: as it is now, users know to (and sometimes do) fill in the quotations; as it was before, it sometimes took a mind reader to tell the situation apart from graffiti; see Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2011/October#Wonderfool_.28Rockpilot.29. - -sche (discuss) 19:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep especially per -sche, but also per Equinox. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• A quick search for some author names after "Can we find and add a quotation of" yields:

Shakespeare 1,351

Milton 656

Chaucer 622

Spenser 618

Beaumont and Fletcher 156

Burrill 91

Donne 47

Marlowe 12

Looking at specific words, I would be hard-pressed to guess good collocations that assured me of finding appropriate citations for the senses involved. But, for example, adding "Milton" to the search for "pound|pounding|pounded" gave me a citation for pound#Etymology 2 (verb: "impound") on the first search page. DCDuring TALK 19:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Can a bot populate a page with formatted likely sentences intended for the most referenced authors? bd2412 T 19:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, any cross-population we can do with Wikiquote would be great. bd2412 T 20:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikisource is probably a better resource for this. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@BD2412 I don't understand the question. DCDuring TALK 20:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I mean, can a bot create a page in project space and place on that page sentences from the work of the author identified containing the word identified. Can a bot see that strange has this template asking "Can we find and add a quotation of Nathaniel Hawthorne to this entry?", search the works of Hawthorne on Wikisource or wherever else we search, and place a bunch of Hawthorne sentence containing "strange" on that project space subpage? bd2412 T 21:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That is a question I can't answer. If it were easy, I could see net value. DCDuring TALK 22:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Many solid points have been made in favor. -- · (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Kept, though I will note that some enhancements are in order. — Keφr 14:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Dragons and Category:Merpeople and their subcategories

These are way too specific. Category:Mythological creatures is enough. --WikiTiki89 16:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There's 12 entries in Category:en:Dragons and 23 in Category:en:Merpeople. The first is maybe questionable, but I don't see any need to merge a category with 23 entries into a larger category.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that 2 of the 12 Dragons are currently at RfD Purplebackpack89 18:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that Category:English words prefixed with mer- is a better category for the merpeople. (I didn't even know it existed, and it turns out it has more entries than Category:en:Merpeople!) --WikiTiki89 11:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't use the categories much, but I don't see the advantage in dumping 23 more entries into an already full Mythological creatures. Splitting out groups of 20 for subcategorization is usually a good thing in my experience from other Wikis.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:ttbc

Template:trreq

Previous discussion: Wiktionary:Grease pit/2014/July#Template:t-check and Template:t-needed. I am too lazy to link to the rest of the discussion, but you can follow the links.

The replacements for these templates are {{t-check}}, {{t+check}} and {{t-needed}}. {{trreq}} has been migrated already once, but I notice some people still using {{trreq}} as before, which makes me reconsider with my idea of moving {{t-needed}} back to {{trreq}} (with the new syntax).

I think there is a clear advantage to the replacements, and the proposal had quite wide support and no oppose. Can we get these formally deprecated, so to speak? — Keφr 17:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Redirect: Purplebackpack89 18:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
• Redirecting is just going to cause more breaking. People will expect the old template to work as it always did, which it doesn't of course. —CodeCat 00:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Case in point. (Though there have been surprisingly few such mistakes, it seems.) — Keφr 13:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:impf

Template:pf.

These have been deprecated for quite some time, but never actually nominated, I think. The replacement is using the appropriate template's parameter (|a=, |g=, or positional arguments for {{t}}), or failing that, {{g|impf}} and {{g|pf}}. Some singular userspace uses remain. — Keφr 09:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete to prevent people using them outside templates. --Vahag (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

What's the problem with using them outside templates? So, you're letting me manually clean all uses of {{impf}} and {{pf}}? what alternative you're suggesting, e.g. in чини́ть (činítʹ)? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the bot has an alternative. —CodeCat 00:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Copying Kephir's long list here from my talk page:

— Keφr 08:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Arabic needs a different approach and Slavic terms/translations were not processed by Kephir's script. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the Arabic ones (يزرع, يطرح, يلوم). --WikiTiki89 02:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't sure where to put "imperfective" in {{conjugation of}}. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Module:string

Template:ifNotValidPageName

Functionality of all of those has been integrated into Module:ugly hacks (formerly named Module:template utilities; please take care of that one too). Which was named so because this is not the type of functionality that we want to encourage to be used in templates. That module also has the advantage that it tracks templates into which it is transcluded; they should show up at Special:WantedTemplates soon.

No single replacement for these, unfortunately. Most users of {{isValidPageName}} should be probably adjusted to use a template like {{l}}, {{l-self}}, {{m}} or {{head}}. Other templates may need to be entirely converted to Lua. For yet others, a new framework or at least one special-purpose module will probably need to be devised (reference templates?).

— Keφr 15:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep per "No single replacement for these" Purplebackpack89 17:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  Delete. @Purplebackpack89 I think you misunderstood. There is "no single replacement" for the ugly hacks module, but the nominated templates have already been replaced by the ugly hacks module. --WikiTiki89 17:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  No, @Wikitiki89, I understood that. I've come to the position that it's a bad idea to outright delete templates, as it confuses editors who don't follow RFD/O too much. Purplebackpack89 18:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  The argument you gave in you first post contradicts that, but at least now you made a reasonable one. I still disagree because these templates are only used by expert template programmers, who will have no trouble adapting. These are not the kind of templates like {{head}} or {{context}} that everyone uses all the time. --WikiTiki89 23:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete, no reason to keep if they're orphaned and not needed. —CodeCat 17:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
• Template:isValidPageName is a very useful template to use when authoring other templates, and not everyone who will want to author a template knows Lua. If we delete template:isValidPageName, I very strongly recommend that (a) the deletion summary indicates what can be used instead (viz module:ugly hacks) and (b) module:ugly hacks have good documentation on how to use its functions in templates. (No comment/vote on the proposed deletions.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:obsolete capitalization of

Delete. To me it seems a bit over the top to be creating separate entries for every noun that was once written with a capital letter. That would be almost every noun, wouldn't it? What's next -- separate entries for every term that was once spelled with the long "s"? -- · (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and while we're at it, we need to delete Extenuation, the one page it's used on. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

OK,

1. What about {{alternative capitalization of}}, on which I based the template?
2. Extenuation has five supporting quotations, so, on what basis should it be deleted?

 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

# See the difference between blood (which uses this template) and Blood.

# Because we don't by convention list English words with initial capital letters separately from English words without, except where they're always capitals, where the capitals makes a difference. There's no value in keeping Extenuation, when people can find it by extenuation just as easily, and a definite cost to keeping it, as it implies we should have at least ten thousand more entries for no value.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: I agree with you regarding Extenuation, so I wouldn't mind at all it that entry were deleted. Re {{obsolete capitalization of}}, however, I believe it should be kept, because there will be cases analogous with the Blood–blood case, except that the capitalising variability will no longer be current. One of those analogous cases, I think, is god in its long-obsolete use to denote the proper noun which we would now spell God (see Citations:god). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

(after e/c) Extenuation and anything like it should be deleted per Prosfilaes and per longstanding practice; compare also Talk:The and the comments I made on Talk:euery. That might mean that this template has no legitimate uses and should be deleted, but I'm not sure. I notice the addition of a proper noun section using this template to god. The very same lack of standardization of Capitalization which led to Terms being made uppercase if they were Important also led to terms we would now capitalize (including e.g. personal- and place-names) sometimes being found in lowercase, and I don't think we should have entries like michael and germany. But perhaps god (lowercase) / God (honorific/proper-nounal uppercase) and lord (lowercase) / Lord (honorific/proper-nounal uppercase) / LORD (proper name, translation of the Tetragrammaton) are special cases in one way or another and should be kept even if we continue to delete entries like michael and germany. This requires more thought... - -sche (discuss) 21:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@-sche: I think Profilaes hinted at a salient point with "[t]here's no value in keeping Extenuation, when people can find it by extenuation just as easily". The system autoredirects to extant entries from searches for forms with the opposite capitalisation (e.g., if Extenuation didn't exist, searching for Extenuation would automatically redirect the user to extenuation); therefore, sense lines for {{alternative capitalization of}} or {{obsolete capitalization of}} are only useful where both pages exist anyway. Does that make sense? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying if someone finds three instances of Hand being capitalized in English, then we should add an English section to [[Hand]] and call it an "obsolete capitalization of hand"? That seems silly to me. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

All pages like Hand should have headnotes pointing to hand. It's generally not a problem; it doesn't take much English to realize that pages are indexed under their lowercase forms. I think it was the Merriam-Webster's 3rd Unabridged that had one word listed as a capital--God--with the rest listed as lowercase with (usu. cap.) in the definition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

...although, as someone (DCDuring or Angr?) commented elsewhere, it took them a while to learn that MW's "usu. cap." actually meant "always and invariably capitalized". Anyway, yes, pages like [[Hand]] should use {{also}}, they shouldn't have "alternative/obsolete capitalization of" if the only reason for it would be instances of the capitalized Form in old Texts, or Honorific Capitalization (as in "the Holy Church"). Contrast aboriginal/native and Aboriginal/Native, where the capitalization generally imparts a semantic difference, even though it is (notably) not always followed (one can find instances of honorific "Native" where it does not mean "American Indian", and instances of "native" where it does). - -sche (discuss) 00:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That was me. Always and invariably capitalized unless you're Archy the Cockroach. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Angr: I suppose, strictly speaking, that would follow, yes; however, as Prosfilaes notes, {{also}} should do in cases where the only entries at the opposite capitalisation are for terms in other languages (except where {{also}} only links to Appendix:Variations of "string"). When there are entries at both capitalisation variants for terms in the same language, by contrast, noting alternative or obsolete capitalisation is more necessary, because otherwise it is quite likely for a user to assume that the sense is simply missing.

@Talking Point Please explain why you did this. (I'd like to hear a rationale, instead of just reverting you.)

 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello META -- Sorry, I thought I had explained adequately in the edit summary for that edit. The source of my disapproval with the edit was not that it assigned a Proper Noun POS to (deprecated template usage) god, but, rather, the edit's use of the "capitalization" template, which constituted the whole definition and which was not a correct definition. Although User:-sche thinks otherwise, I see no credible support anywhere (not in OneLook, the unabridged Random House, or the OED, or the citations at capitalisation) for using "capitalization" to refer to the act or result of writing a term in lowercase letters. Anyhow, I have now restored the Proper Noun POS for (deprecated template usage) god, avoiding the use of "capitalization". (In addition to my believing that the {{obsolete capitalization of}} template should be deleted, it also seems to me that a number of the usages of the {{alternative capitalization of}} template are wrong (because they refer to lowercase terms). I discussed this with User:-sche on my talk page and User:Donnanz and User:DCDuring also previously raised this objection with User:-sche on his talk page.) I hope this clears up my reasons. Respectfully -- · (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Talking Point: Yes, that clears up my confusion perfectly. I've also checked the OED on this, and it's certainly true that they do not list a sense that reflects the usage at issue. How would you feel about substituting casing for capitalization, resulting in and ? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete this and delete Extenuation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:ady:Proto-Circassian language

It's not at all clear what this category is supposed to signify. Is it terms derived from Proto-Circassian? Or something else? —CodeCat 18:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Adamsa123, what is the purpose of this category? --Vahag (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It is terms derived from Proto-Circassian, but later on I figured it is better simply mentioning those terms in Etymology in each entry rather than creating an entire entry for those terms.--Adamʂa123 (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The correct name for the category is thus Category:Adyghe terms derived from Proto-Circassian, which although it's red does already have some terms in it. However, before it can be properly created, we have to devise a code for Proto-Circassian, which apparently we don't have yet. My suggestion would be cau-cir for the Circassian family and cau-cir-pro the protolanguage. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Even so, these should probably be converted from raw categories to a call to {{etyl}} in the etymology section. —CodeCat 13:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course, but a code for Proto-Circassian is a prerequiste for that too. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@-sche Since you are involved with checking languages, can you weigh in on this? —CodeCat 14:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Angr is right, the thing to do is assign codes to the Circassian family and Proto-Circassian, and and cau-cir and cau-cir-pro are fine suggestions. Then we can start using {{etyl}} for this, as you note. - -sche (discuss) 17:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I've created the language and family codes now. —CodeCat 18:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:sockpuppet

Seemingly unused. Looks like stuff taken from Wikipedia. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Also, I don't think sockpuppets are a problem over here. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course you're a problem over here; it's just that no one can be bothered puttnig this template on all of your userpages. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:sockpuppeteer

As Template:sockpuppet --Type56op9 (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep both: There have been sockpuppets in Wiktionary's history, so there are potential uses for this template. Purplebackpack89 13:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  Prime example above (just to be clear, not you PBP). --WikiTiki89 14:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:FAQ:cites

Pointless --Type56op9 (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be in use, but this is probably because people aren't aware it exists. I don't agree with the deletion rationale. Equinox ◑ 16:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: per Equinox. "Pointless" is not in itself a deletion rationale, Type56op9 must also assert that it's either never gonna get used; or is redundant to another template. Purplebackpack89 20:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Delete because it's overly general; it doesn't apply to LDLs. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:citeboiler

Template:homophonecat

This has been merged into {{poscatboiler}} now. —CodeCat 14:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Archive templates

Template:archive box, Template:archive box top, Template:archive box bottom

The replacement for these is the pair: {{archive-top}} and {{archive-bottom}}. aWa already uses these two, if you noticed. The benefits of using them are that you no longer have to worry about escaping = and | characters. Also, fewer templates means fewer changes needed when archive categories are to be reorganised for some reason.

The above templates can be simply substituted to yield their replacement; some are already orphaned.

— Keφr 12:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Caucasian languages

Also included: the family code "cau" and all the categories that use it. This survived deletion back in 2009, but, even after reading through the discussion archived at Category talk:Caucasian languages, I'm not sure why.

This is strictly a geographical grouping: although many linguists have an unprovable hunch that the w:Northeast Caucasian languages and the w:Northwest Caucasian languages may be related, there's been very little support for linking them to the w:Kartvelian languages. Indeed, even among those proposing that the w:North Caucasian languages are related to everything from Basque to Sino-Tibetan to the Na-Dene languages of North America, and those who say the Kartvelian languages are related to Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic Dravidian, and many others, linking North Caucasian and South Caucasian/Kartvelian is rarely even considered. If there were such a family, it would probably be named the w:Ibero-Caucasian languages.

This category is mostly a holding category for the three families mentioned, but, judging from the derivational categories, there are a dozen entries that refer to the Caucasian languages as a group in their etymologies, of which seven are Old Armenian. Perhaps we can get an idea from Vahagn Petrosyan (talk • contribs) about whether this is a serious obstacle. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Scholarly sources, modern or dated, dealing with Armenian linguistics often refer to "Caucasian languages", when they cannot distinguish between Kartvelian/East Caucasian/West Caucasian. The code cau is very convenient for such cases. However, I understand that our etymological categories are based on genetic relationship and that the laziness of sources does not justify having this category. I will go through the Old Armenian entries and try to assign them to different branches. So, delete. PS By the way, your ping did not work. --Vahag (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep. There is no reason that we cannot have a category for languages that are often referred to as "Caucasian languages" outside of our etymological tree. --WikiTiki89 14:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Appendix:Word formation verb -en noun -ness

WF marked this for speedy deletion with the comment "nothing special here". It isn't the kind of thing that should be speedied, so I'm bringing it here. While I can see the argument that it's enshrining the obvious in list form, I'm not so sure, myself, that this should be deleted, especially since there are so many transwikis that are far more deserving of the honor (for some reason, the transporter accident from the first Star Trek movie comes to mind when I think about those...). Chuck Entz (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. What's wrong with an appendix collecting instances of a certain linguistic function? bd2412 T 13:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It needs a better title but it does seem to have a specific enough function to be kept. If it were just all nouns ending in -ness, a category would be much better, but it isn't. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Renard Migrant See Category:English words suffixed with -ness, which is almost what you want, but is all that CodeCat will let us do. DCDuring TALK 14:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep. DCDuring TALK 14:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Desserts and subcategories

A dessert is anything eaten to end a meal. But that doesn't say anything about the food served; anything can be served at the end of a meal. Steak can be a dessert, so can soup, chili con carne or a biscuit. So this is not a good way to classify food and the items in this category should probably be distributed among other categories. —CodeCat 22:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you may be mistaken; our entry and many other dictionaries' entries agree that desserts are sweet foods served as final courses, not just any final courses. Cambridge defines dessert as "sweet food eaten at the end of a meal", oxforddictionaries.com as "sweet course eaten at the end of a meal". Merriam-Webster defines it as "a usually sweet course or dish (as of pastry or ice cream) usually served at the end of a meal", and Dictionary.com goes as far as to define it as "cake, pie, fruit, pudding, ice cream, etc., served as the final course of a meal". BTW, those last two give a second sense we lack, along the lines of "{{label|en|UK}} fresh fruit served after another course" (Dictionary.com says "after a main course", MW says "after a sweet course"). - -sche (discuss) 22:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

But even so, being served as a dessert does not make any food inherently a dessert. Labelling any particular kind of food "dessert" is based on a particular instance of it being served as a dessert, not because that kind of food is a dessert by nature. It's a very ambiguous term that does little to help users in practice. Just consider the wide range of things we might list in a hypothetical Category:Breakfasts, Category:Lunches, Category:Dinners, Category:Starters, Category:Main courses and yes, even the existing Category:Snacks suffers from the same vagueness. Furthermore, how foods are served differs widely across the world. In the Netherlands for example, pancakes are primarily a main course dinner, and I was rather surprised to learn that Americans consider them breakfast. It would be rather strange to put pancake into Category:en:Breakfasts but to put its Dutch translation pannenkoek in Category:nl:Dinners instead. —CodeCat 22:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If something is commonly eaten as a both a breakfast and a dinner dish (sausage is a good example), it should be categorized in both the breakfast and dinner categories. The two categories needn't be mutually exclusive. Purplebackpack89 23:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't solve the real problem though. Wiktionary categories should be culturally agnostic, so these categories would end up with foods that make no sense to many users. Putting worst in Category:nl:Breakfasts would not reflect the practices of Dutch people for example. More crucially though, it's possible to eat any kind of food at any time, for any meal. So what criterium is there for filling these categories? Is it about being commonly eaten as a certain meal? If so, in what part of the world? What if it's common only in one part of the world? —CodeCat 23:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Neatly enough, I saw a video on "what the world eats for breakfast" just yesterday, though I'm sceptical of its accuracy. I don't think there's anything wrong with categorising on a case-by-case, culture-by-culture (term-in-one-language vs term-in-another-language) basis, such that pancake is in Category:en:Breakfast foods while pannenkoek is not in Category:nl:Breakfast foods.
You make a good point that we don't have Category:Breakfasts, Category:Lunches or Category:Dinners (yet). On the other hand, I suspect we should have Category:Breakfast foods to go along with Category:Desserts, as the foods that belong to those categories do seem to retain their identities as "breakfast foods" and "desserts" regardless of when they're eaten. For example, [eat/ate/serve/served/have/had] "breakfast for dinner" gets a lot of hits at Google Books, and I found a lot of restaurants in the US (including IHOP) that served "breakfast all day" to people who had eaten one or more meals already. And "eat dessert before dinner" gets a lot of hits.
In contrast, "lunch" and "dinner" foods seem not to retain their identities if they are not eaten at lunchtime or dinnertime: "eat dinner before lunch" gets no hits, and the hits "lunch for dinner" gets are spurious (e.g. "serves buffet breakfast and lunch; for dinner there is..."). Also, "various breakfast foods" and "various desserts" get many Google Books hits, while "various lunch foods" and "various dinner foods" get only one hit each.
- -sche (discuss) 02:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Probably because many places serve or eat the same foods for lunch and dinner. Purplebackpack89 03:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, probably. (If the video is to be believed, India, Mexico, Vietnam and a few other countries seem to eat the same foods for all three meals.) - -sche (discuss) 19:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, and keep Ice cream, cake, and pie as subcategories of Dessert: per sche, and because cake, ice cream and pie are generally referred to that way. Purplebackpack89 22:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@CodeCat That line of reasoning could challenge many of our topical categories, eventually making Wiktionary less interesting and useful to folks who are, after all, often only interested in one culture, or at best the few cultures that coexist near where they live. DCDuring TALK 00:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

And maybe we should indeed challenge them. The topical category tree is quite a mess and I think some others have expressed similar views, although I don't remember who. It came up not too long ago when I brought up the names categories for discussion, I think. —CodeCat 00:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Huh. I don't believe that steak is ever a "dessert", even if it's eaten last. I don't care much about the topical categories either way, though. Equinox ◑ 18:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Equinox This is slightly off-topic, but Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com have a second definition of "dessert", labelled "British", namely "fresh fruit served after a main course" (per Dictionary.com) / "fresh fruit served after a sweet course" (per MW). Can you say if either of those is actually a sense that "dessert" has in Britain, that our entry should cover? - -sche (discuss) 19:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"Fresh fruits served after the main course" is inherently included in the main sense of the word and is most certainly not unique to Britain. --WikiTiki89 20:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, our "sweet confection" sense is really inadequate, since you could have e.g. grapes for dessert (in a way that you couldn't have a beef steak for dessert). I suppose they are trying to distinguish between dessert-as-recipe (e.g. chocolate cake) and dessert-as-course (just something you bring out to the table, like fruit, or a box of chocolates). Chambers' double entry is similar: "a final course of a meal, pudding or other sweet item; fruit, sweetmeats, etc served at the end of a meal". Equinox ◑ 20:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It is common to joke about having steak as a dessert: What was the main course? Steak. What did you have for dessert? More steak. --WikiTiki89 20:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. I find the rationale for deletion unconvincing. Not every food item can be considered a dessert. Furthermore, Category:en:Desserts has 72 items, so its granularity seems ok. Moreover, for reasons not entirely clear to me, I find google:"dessert recipes" and Google image search for dessert interesting; the former suggests that those who classify food recipes find the category of "dessert" worthwhile; if they do, so can the English Wiktionary. Finally, I do not think the requirement that categories be culturally agnostic (or independent) is unquestionably desirable and practicable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Per my comments above, keep Category:Desserts and create Category:Breakfast foods (not Category:Breakfasts, IMO, since the point would be to include typical breakfast foods, not just any food that has ever been eaten as the first meal of a day). - -sche (discuss) 19:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries

...and its A-Z subpages. These haven't been updated for years, and don't really hold any useful information: they are just links to past discussions, which could now be found on deleted entries' talk pages. Should we consider deleting these? Equinox ◑ 13:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries, Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries/A and the other subpages. Note, however, that many of the discussions linked from there are not found on talk pages; e.g. macrocosmus has empty Talk:macrocosmus; curiously enough, macrocosmus is at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Archives/2007/03 anyway. If this gets deleted, remove a link to it from {{rfv-failed}}. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I see no harm in keeping it until everything from it is moved to talk pages. Though of course it should be eventually deleted. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Renard Migrant The harm is in increasing the entropy of the web site for very little benefit. For instance, {{rfv-failed}} currently links the reader to Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries as if this page were of any import. Having very old discussions on talk pages is inessential since they can be found in RFV and RFD page histories by looking by the date of deletion. In case of doubt, a deleted page can be restored and sent to RFD anew. Originally, I hesitated to support, but I now see immediate deletion as the best course of action. I do not think it worthwhile to wait until someone spends their resources (time, attention) to ensure that all discussions linked from Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries are copied to talk pages. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This seems a lot like deleting the record of judicial decisions. In a common-law country such decisions certainly reflect efforts to interpret and apply laws and principles to situations not contemplated when the principles and laws are articulated and passed. Our decision-making is similar. Erasing convenient history seems to me to be a mistake, making investigation of our decision-making limited to those who can manipulate the edit history in XML dumps. I am aware of no such efforts. As it is, there is no effort to record speedy deletions and no ready means of accessing whatever record the wiki software retains.

More desirable would be a more systematic record of ALL deleted terms, at least via the RfD process, and a link to the current location of the discussion. Even better would be to make sure that there was a copy of the discussion in the talk page corresponding to the entry or definition deleted.

Accordingly, Keep until a more effective means of accessing such decisions and their rationale is implemented. DCDuring TALK 15:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand much of what you are saying. A systematic list of all terms deleted via RFD and archived using the method currently in place (placing dicussions on talk pages) can be found by looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:rfd-failed (2536 pages per AWB) and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:rfd-passed (1892 pages per AWB); ditto for RFV. This gives you an extensive history of discussions of past deletions. They are searchable using Goggle; Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries/A does not give you the text of the discussion, so it does not help searchability. As for terms deleted and not so archived, one only has to take the year and the month of the deletion, and then search in history, using the online wiki functions, no dump processing. Moreover, multiple of these links in Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries/A are broken anyway; e.g. for "adipoli" or Ábraham (never deleted). --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC) I have striken my comment that is worthless. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

At best the coverage of 'what links here' pages covers only a period for which the templates have been applied. It is likely to fall short of complete coverage even during that period due to imperfect implementation. It would not be a surprise to me if someone decided to replace these templates or change or dispense with the archiving process, further fragmenting our readily accessible historical record. I'd favor someone mining these pages to more appropriately archive the discussions of the included deleted items before the pages are deleted. If someone can do so more effectively by instead mining the XML edit history, they should do so.

I suppose it is possible, even likely, that we won't ever have the resources to actually be systematic about much of anything, let alone making sense of our actual practice in deciding to keep or delete entries and definitions. Making some of the history less available doesn't really matter if such history isn't going to be looked at. I have some hope that we will have the resources to do so and would like to preserve anything that might help. DCDuring TALK 17:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:click

Does nothing substantial that plain markup cannot. Contents are: [[File:{{{image}}}|{{{width}}}|link={{{link}}}]]. — Keφr 10:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be only used on user pages that are copied and pasted from Wikipedia. I don't really care. It could easily be subst:ed if we wanted to. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Or not even that. Users who made those pages have hardly made any contributions apart from their fancy user pages. I would not care for them breaking. — Keφr 15:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per nom: does nothing substantial that plain markup cannot, and is fairly rarely used. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Deleted for lack of any other input. — Keφr 10:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:be-adj1, Template:be-adj2, Template:be-adj3, Template:be-adj4, Template:be-adj5

In favor of the easier-to-use {{be-adj-table}}{{be-decl-adj}}, to which the above essentially redirect. --WikiTiki89 15:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The new template is kind of misnamed though. Generally, the templates named -table are the ones that contain the table, to which other templates supply the information to fill it in. It does not normally contain any grammar logic. —CodeCat 16:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That's an arbitrary rule though, it makes sense both ways, but happens to go against your personal naming convention. The reason for my naming scheme is that I named them the same way I named the Russian noun template, and when I named the Russian noun template, Template:ru-decl-noun already existed, containing tables, so the first thing I thought of for the automatic declension table was Template:ru-noun-table. Then I named the Russian adjective template the same way, and now I used the same scheme for Ukrainian and Belarusian. --WikiTiki89 16:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It's arbitrary and it did start off as my own personal convention, but I do think it's still sensible to follow it. And it's better to give the template the right name before it becomes widely used. —CodeCat 17:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Who else has followed your convention? I honestly don't mind switching them (it is arbitrary, after all) as long as the Russian templates are switched as well, but the Russian ones are widely used. --WikiTiki89 17:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought we had a module for Russian already? We probably don't need the template anymore then. And I don't know who else followed the convention, that would be up to those who followed it to say? —CodeCat 17:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Searching for "Template:table" gives templates I created, but also quite a few created by others from what I can see. —CodeCat 17:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that module is accessed through Template:ru-noun-table. The old template Template:ru-decl-noun, which is the backup table for irregular nouns, is still very widely used. And can you link to an example or two of a "-table" template that you did not create? --WikiTiki89 18:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No wonder I'm confused. We have two or three entirely separate methods for making Russian inflection tables. I thought that when the module was created, the existing templates were changed to use it. But that wasn't done for some reason and an entirely new parallel template was created. We should probably try to sort that out by deleting what we no longer need, and merging/renaming what we want to keep.

A list of the templates named -table that I did not name, but do work in the way I described: {{osx-decl-noun-table}}, {{is-conj-table}}, {{fr-conj-table}}, {{enm-conj-table}}, {{uk-conj-table}}, {{ca-conj-table}}, {{be-conj-table}}, {{lv-conj-table}}, {{hit-conj-table}}, {{el-decl-adj-table}}, {{lv-decl-noun-table}}, {{cel-gau-decl-noun-table}}, {{ka-conj-table-transitive}}, {{el-conj-table}} {{el-conj-table-passive}}, {{nds-conj-table}}, {{non-conj-table}}, {{nn-verb table}}, {{nn-verb-table}}, {{nb-verb table}}, {{nn-adj table}}, {{nn-adj-table}}, {{nb-adj table}}, {{nb-adj-table}}, {{nn-noun table}}, {{nn-noun-table}}, {{nb-noun-table}}, {{gml-conj-table}}, {{nds-conj-table}}, {{egy-decl-noun-table}}, {{ang-decl-adj-table}}, {{kn-decl-table}}, {{oc-conj-table}}, {{lv-decl-part-table}}, {{ast-conj-table}}, {{sem-decl-noun-table}}. There may be more. —CodeCat 18:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I was going to propose deleting the old non-module templates for Russian right after this, but I thought I might as well get the easy stuff over with first. --WikiTiki89 18:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. —CodeCat 18:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Done swapping the templates (very convoluted work). Now I'll do the Ukrainian ones. --WikiTiki89 19:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Done swapping the Ukrainian ones as well. @CodeCat do you plan on voting on these now? --WikiTiki89 20:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I supported the proposal from the start. I guess I forgot to say so... —CodeCat 20:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:uk-adj1, Template:uk-adj2, Template:uk-adj3

In favor of the easier-to-use {{uk-adj-table}}{{uk-decl-adj}}, to which the above essentially redirect. --WikiTiki89 15:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Support —CodeCat 20:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Authors and subcategories

Since we don't allow entries for people, this category won't have any entries in any language. Instead, it has ended up as the parent category for three categories about specific authors. But those categories are quite ill-defined. What is Category:William Shakespeare meant to contain? Words related to the author? Names of his works? Names occurring in his works? Words he invented? Words derived from any of these? I don't think a category simply for anything related to some person is dictionary-worthy. I mean, paper is related to Shakespeare, because he wrote on it, and book is related to Tolkien, because he published it. If someone were to create Category:Albert Einstein, would we then put gravity in it, since that's what he studied? —CodeCat 00:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Currently, names of his works. Which makes sense, to a degree, but if we're going to keep it I suggest it be renamed to "William Shakespeare's works" or somesuch. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 02:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep. The purpose of these three categories is to create central places in which terms related to these authors and their works can be collected as part of the topical categorization system. Category:J. R. R. Tolkien is meant to slot into Category:British fiction and Category:Fantasy along with Category:Harry Potter, allowing readers to easily find terms related to Tolkien, his works, and the fandom thereof. The descriptions of the three categories currently explain what they're intended to contain, but if these descriptions are not sufficiently clear, they could always be modified.

I find it troubling that CodeCat isn't proposing any alternatives, such as renaming Category:Lewis Carroll to Category:Alice in Wonderland, or Category:J. R. R. Tolkien to Category:Tolkien legendarium. I think the current titles are preferable, as they are broad enough to allow for the inclusion of terms like Carrollian and Tolkienite, which are related to the authors, rather than to specific works by them. But changing the titles of the categories to the names of works would resolve CodeCat's concerns about having categories named after people. Wiktionary is a collaborative project, and compromise solutions are preferrable whenever feasible.

I don't think having categories named after specific authors is the same as having dictionary entries for them. Shakespeare, Carroll, and Tolkien have all helped shape language. The categories are meant to serve as jumping-off points for anyone interested in their individual linguistic contributions.

It's also worth pointing out that Category:Authors can be used to house general terms for authors like ghostwriter, biographer, etc. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: You can fill categories about people with words they invented. For example, truthiness and any other of Colbert's WØrds could go into Category:Stephen Colbert. It's also probably a mistake to take the hard line we have about no people entries; every paper dictionary I own has a smattering of biographical entries. We should at a bare minimum have any person who is etymologically significant. Purplebackpack89 05:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

If we do keep this stuff, can we please put a prominent note at the top of the category index pages, stating that it is not a free pass to add any character or made-up item from their books? Otherwise we will keep getting people who "helpfully" start filling a category with Harry Potter potions and so on. Equinox ◑ 06:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: These are major authors who, as Cloudcuckoolander points out, have had wide and varied influence on English literature and vocabulary. And because their influence is wide and varied, it's difficult or impossible to draw up a specific and detailed description of what the category should contain. But I agree with Equinox that we need to put some explicit guidelines at the top.
  Suggested kinds of content, whether subcategories or not (these are just the ones I can think of at the moment; I'm sure there are more possibilities):
  • Certainly the titles of their works should be included, if they have entries.
  • Words that the authors coined: e.g.,
    • chortle, Carroll
    • Newspeak, Orwell
  • Words that they did not coin but whose use they significantly influenced:
    • orc, Tolkien
    • Cheshire cat, Carroll
  • Senses that they originated:
    • portmanteau, Carroll
  • Words derived from their names: Shakespearian, Carrollian, Tolkienian

User:CodeCat raises the question, "If someone were to create Category:Albert Einstein, would we then put gravity in it, since that's what he studied?" No, we wouldn't, because Einstein's studies of gravity didn't have a significant effect on the use or meaning of the word gravity, and this is a dictionary.

Thnidu (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Why would we lump all of those things together into one rather vague category? We already have Category:English terms derived from The Simpsons and Category:English terms derived from Nineteen Eighty-Four and such, so why not extend that principle and create a variety of other categories? —CodeCat 17:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Because there's an etymological categorization system and a topical categorization system. We've got the topical Category:Harry Potter and the etymological Category:English terms derived from Harry Potter. Some words fit into both categories, but there's others that don't, since they were coined by the Harry Potter fandom (e.g. (deprecated template usage) Drarry, (deprecated template usage) Snapefic, (deprecated template usage) wizard rock) rather than drawn directly from the Harry Potter books (e.g. (deprecated template usage) Quidditch or (deprecated template usage) Muggle). Thus, it would be inaccurate to place such terms in Category:English terms derived from Harry Potter, but there's still value in gathering them within the framework of the topical categorization system. That said, I do think we should create a etymological categories for Tolkien, Carroll, etc. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 10:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:orangepi

Never used much, now completely disused. Improved functionality in {{epinew}}. DCDuring TALK 14:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Just delete them. As far as I know you were the only person to use them, and if they're not being used anymore, I'd be fine with a speedy deletion here. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:redepi

As above. DCDuring TALK 15:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:epired

As above. DCDuring TALK 11:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Ladino headword-line templates

Unneeded, all information has been already moved to Category:Ladino numerals; moreover, it has only one subcategory. JSBrowand13 (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Moved from RfD. bd2412 T 18:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

To be honest I can't even guess what it is your trying to nominate for deletion. From the title it would be Category:Ladino headword-line templates but that doesn't fit your description. Not even close. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Module:languages/stable

This was created to hold languages whose information would be unlikely to change over time. But it hasn't been used yet, and I think it's more practical to leave things as they are:

1. By using this module, looking up a language's data means loading two modules instead of just one. First the stable module has to be checked, before looking in the regular module. This actually makes things a bit slower rather than faster.
2. It's easier for users to find the data if they can predict where it is. Right now we sort them by the number of characters in the code, and the first letter of the code. This is pretty straightforward and putting certain codes in the stable module would only complicate it.

I'm not sure if the advantages (if there even are any) are worth the extra complexity. —CodeCat 12:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, delete. It has turned out that modifying widely used modules such as Module:languages is not as expensive as we had thought. --WikiTiki89 17:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Deleted —CodeCat 22:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:zh:Variant pronunciations

Category:Mandarin variant pronunciations

It's not at all clear what these categories actually contain. Terms, in themselves, are not variant pronunciations, so this needs to be clarified if they are to be kept. Also, these are not topical categories so they should not be named as such. —CodeCat 22:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I would just delete the fuck out of them. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Unicode:Hindu-Arabic script

Template:Unicode:Katakana script

These are used on only one appendix page. Can they be substituted and then deleted? —CodeCat 01:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:English words prefixed with Palestino-

I mean, really? Is this productive at all? Highly doubt it. {{affix|en|Palestine|-o-}} would work better for these three words. — Keφr 14:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Palestino- is used as a nationality prefix like Sino-, Italo-, etc. Words formed using these types of prefixes have been deleted in the past so I don’t know if a category for them can be expected to have entries. I agree that its current contents correspond to Palestine + -o-. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the pronunciation is the same as just Palestine + -o-, is it? —CodeCat 16:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Palestine: /-aɪn/. Palestino-: /-iːn-/. --WikiTiki89 22:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Then these must be separate terms, as there's no regular rule in English that would account for the change in pronunciation. —CodeCat 22:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:process header

Almost unused, and only on very rarely visited pages. Do we need it? — Keφr 17:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

How would its function be replaced? DCDuring TALK 15:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

…which is…? I find this template completely useless. — Keφr 16:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It would help if you would say why you wanted to delete something that is in use outside of User space. Clearly it is not useless: It is used to format some pages that are not in user space. How would you want to format those pages? Why bother deleting it? Do you really want to delete those pages? Does the template clutter up some cleanup list? DCDuring TALK 16:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Move the content of |notes= outside the template, convert |shortcut=... into {{shortcut|...}} and remove the rest of it. I see no value in this completely illogical navigation this template provides. Cleanup lists? Well, some of these pages show up on Category:Shortcut boxes needing attention. Which gave me the idea of cleaning up project namespace pages: deleting some or marking as inactive. But whatever. — Keφr 17:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's been around for more than eight years. It has a format not really consistent with other generally similar pages, though that may have been the intent. I guess it won't be missed.

There is something curiously satisfying about working on reducing lists: redlinks, cleanups or whatever. It's probably most important to be working on the right set of lists. DCDuring TALK 18:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep; no defect of the template reported; no replacement offerred. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:alternative capitalization of

Delete this per what seems to be consensus re {{obsolete capitalization of}} above. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

By my reading, there may be consensus to delete {{obsolete capitalization of}} because it has no or almost no legitimate uses — there being consensus that we shouldn't have entries for Extenuation, The, Hand, etc (Words given uppercase Letters in old Texts because they were Important). {{alternative capitalization of}}, on the other hand, has legitimate uses, like native/Native, sapphic/Sapphic, platonic/Platonic (words where both uppercase and lowercase forms are used in modern language, and used distinctly). (And I see nothing in the discussion of {{obsolete capitalization of}} that suggests any sentiment that {{alternative capitalization of}} should be deleted.) Note this RFM about whether or not to rename / change the display of this template. (So, keep.) - -sche (discuss) 23:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I simply don't understand the reason for this inconsistent approach. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Because obsolete capitalization of is uninteresting and unuseful, and alternative capitalization of is interesting and useful?--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: How do you figure that? Why does currency affect interestingness? And noting alternative capitalisation is only more useful than noting obsolete capitalisation if what interests you is current usage (which begs the previous question). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote above, Extenuation etc is just extenuation etc plus the Tendency of older english Works to begin some things with uppercase letters (and sometimes to begin other things, like personal names or "english", etc, with lowercase letters). It's like "s" vs "ſ": theoretically all words are attested in both uppercase and lowercase forms, like theoretically all words that contain "ſ" also contain "s" (though we are unlikely to have access to the resources, or time, to confirm that every one is attested). In titles, you even find EXTENUATION. We've decided to handle that sort of automatically-recognisable, lexically insignificant alternation using the software's auto-redirection and "did you mean" features and {{also}}.
In contrast, there's a lexical difference between e.g. native, platonic, sapphic and Native, Platonic, Sapphic: they're attested with different senses; capitalization is used to impart lexical information. But occasionally, one capitalization is attested with the senses of the other one — and that's where {{alternative capitalization of}} comes in. Given the tendency of some ornithological resources to capitalize birds' names, "crow" (the bird) is probably found with the same capitalization as "Crow" (the tribe) often enough (in phrases like "American Crow", "Hooded Crow") that the latter could have {{alternative capitalization of}} pointing to the former. - -sche (discuss) 21:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@-sche: Thank you for taking the time to explain that rationale so clearly. I am not aware of an obsolete example of that kind of case-dependent lexical distinction. Accordingly, keeping {{alternative capitalization of}} whilst deleting {{obsolete capitalization of}} seems a lot more defensible to me now. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep, I'd make a comment but there's really no logic behind the nomination so there's nothing to reply to. Renard Migrant (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:English phrasal verbs with particle (rid)

Whether or not we call get rid of/be rid of phrasal verbs, I don't see that rid is a w:Grammatical particle in the same way as down might be so considered in write down or sit down. Accordingly, I think the category should be removed. DCDuring TALK 00:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Quercus Hypernyms/documentation

Orphaned, not the standard approach of having such templates only for taxonomic families and orders. DCDuring TALK 01:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Module:error message

This module is not necessary, especially given that Scribunto now displays the error message when using error(). Templates can use {{#invoke:debug|error}} instead. What is worse, this module does not put the page in a category, making the error a bit harder to notice. The module is hardly used anyway. — Keφr 12:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Dan Polansky

Shouldn't we delete this page as a user page of an indefinitely blocked user? Or am I just mistaken? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 15:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: Let's see if the indef block holds first. I am of the opinion that Kephir's unilateral indef block was hideously unnecessary and should be immediately undone. Purplebackpack89 15:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, the block has been reduced to 3 months. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The block was lowered by User:Ivan Štambuk to three months, to which I think I can agree. Since the reason for this nomination is no longer valid, I declare this discussion moot. (I will note though, that we have not been very strict about this rule anyway; some of the latest Wonderfool sockpuppets' pages have stayed, for one.) — Keφr 16:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Dan Polansky seems fishy to me. Are you guys sure that he's not a sockpuppet of another user? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 18:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)