Appendix talk:Latin reduplicative conjugation
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Unnecessary. Reduplicated Latin verbs are garden-variety third-conjugation verbs with an unusual way of forming the perfect stem (third principal part), but there is no one "usual" way of forming the perfect stem in the third conjugation anyway. It always has to be memorized on a word-by-word basis. The actual conjugation of the reduplicated verbs is no different from that of verbs whose perfect stem has been formed differently, making this appendix (to which nothing links, incidentally) superfluous. All information in it is already covered by Appendix:Latin third conjugation. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- We have Template:la-conj-2nd-redup and Template:la-conj-3rd-redup as well, which do the exact same thing as the usual inflection templates, except that they also categorise in Category:Latin reduplicative verbs. —CodeCat 19:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but they point to Appendix:Latin second conjugation and Appendix:Latin third conjugation respectively, so still no one gets taken to Appendix:Latin reduplicative conjugation. I had forgotten about the second-conjugation reduplicating verbs; now this appendix isn't only unnecessary, it's downright incorrect for verbs like spondeō. I don't mind having the category; it's interesting and useful for historical linguists to have a list of reduplicating verbs in Latin. But the conjugation appendix isn't helping anyone. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Having identical templates just for the purpose of adding an extra category doesn't seem hugely useful either, though. I think those templates should go, and the categories added by other means. —CodeCat 19:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK, but maybe that should be a separate RFDO rather than a rider to this one. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Having identical templates just for the purpose of adding an extra category doesn't seem hugely useful either, though. I think those templates should go, and the categories added by other means. —CodeCat 19:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but they point to Appendix:Latin second conjugation and Appendix:Latin third conjugation respectively, so still no one gets taken to Appendix:Latin reduplicative conjugation. I had forgotten about the second-conjugation reduplicating verbs; now this appendix isn't only unnecessary, it's downright incorrect for verbs like spondeō. I don't mind having the category; it's interesting and useful for historical linguists to have a list of reduplicating verbs in Latin. But the conjugation appendix isn't helping anyone. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Support Delete all that has been mentioned (useless templates + this page) altogether. --Fsojic (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Deleted the appendix and the templates. —CodeCat 19:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)