User talk:Yair rand/uncategorized language sections/Not English

Remaining

It seems to me a fair few of these will never get done, or at least not in the next few years. I'll try and finish the Dutch, German and Russian. The Chinese characters for the most part don't have any headers, so there's nothing to categorize as such. Perhaps Category:Mandarin Han characters (and Cantonese, Middle Chinese, etc.) though that's not a part of speech; it doesn't say what function the characters have.

Norwegian is again tricky as many of them aren't uncategorized, but they use {{head|nb|verb}} or {{head|nn|verb}}, in which cases I don't know whether to change the language header or the language code, so I just leave them for fear of making them worse. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with them? Asker for instance comes up with a tab on the left saying "Norwegian". How should it look? Banaticus 08:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks ok; it needed '''Asker''' replacing with {{head|no|proper noun}} which also bolds the headword, but furthermore adds Category:Norwegian proper nouns. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Translingual (Roman script)

Would it be possible to do this for Translingual entries, at least for taxons? DCDuring TALK 22:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

My question is why have any translingual entries been excluded at all?! There must be quite a lot of them, enough for me to find them by chance every few days, without even looking for them. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have since found 2000 of what most concerned me: taxon entries improperly categorized. That is Category:Taxonomic names rather than Category:mul:Taxonomic names. There may also be other Translingual entries for taxonomic names that are not categorized as taxonomic names at all. DCDuring TALK 23:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Undetermined

The ==Undetermined== entries were actually correctly formatted, {{und-Phaistos}} is an acceptable headword-line template, as is {{und-Buyla}}, etc. - -sche (discuss) 06:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Any tips for identifying those? Should I just assume that any ==Undetermined== section containing {{und- is O.K.? (Actually, despite your "etc.", it seems that {{und-Phaistos}} and {{und-Buyla}} are currently the only two Undetermined templates, so maybe I should just special-case those?) —Ruakh_TALK 18:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for creating confusion, those are indeed the only two templates / undetermined languages in use at the moment. - -sche (discuss) 20:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Numbers

I notice that (some? all?) numbers which are only declared as {{head|languagecode}}+ a part-of-speech category (rather than {{head|languagecode|POS}}) are included. But many of these are the way they are because {{head}} wouldn't categorise {{head|languagecode|POS}} properly when the POS is a kind of number/numeral. Something should be changed... probably {{head}}. - -sche (discuss) 08:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood what this page is about. This page lists language sections ==Foo== that do not contain any categories of the form Category:Foo .... Whether those categories are added by {{head}} or by explicit category-links is irrelevant, in that while one of these categories should be added either by {{head}} or by a form-of template, this page is generated from code that makes no effort to detect that. The motivation for this page is to try to find cases that the Tabbed-languages Gadget can't handle so well. (It's not at all a perfect tool — there are a number of things that will trip up the Tabbed-languages Gadget but that this code does not, and perhaps cannot, detect — but it's a start.)
For this reason, your suggestion to change {{head}} so it can generate categories of the form Category:foo:... is counterproductive, in that it would help promote an already-problematic practice. (I mean, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. Maybe it should. But this page should not be taken to justify doing it, because it will make this page worse, not better.)
—Ruakh_TALK 21:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)