Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

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
add new | history | archives | old index

Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Requests for deletion 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.

{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} -

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


March 2014[edit]

Template:en-ing form of[edit]

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)
All the pages linked here have been changed, so it's useless as it is. --Stubborn Pen (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Any reason to keep this DCDuring? Or is it just voting? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
{{gerund of}} isn't an English-only template, where {{en-ing form of}} has an inherent language in it. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
So? That means that gerund is more general, and therefore, of gerund and -ing, should be the one that is kept. Purplebackpack89 20:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
A redirect won't technically work as one requires lang=en and the other doesn't. Basically, the way to bypass this problem is deletion. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Seems like it wouldn't be too much work for a bot to add a lang=en while it's changing all the -ings to gerunds. Purplebackpack89 17:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
But the templates have different functions; it would be like redirecting {{plural of}} to {{form of}} and expecting nothing to break. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The point is that we shouldn't be reinforcing the pointless distinction in English between the form of a participle and that of a gerund, those being identical in every case in English. Such forms take on predictable transformed meanings in generic noun, adjective, and verb (progressive) use. We have — and use — distinct PoS headers for any non-generic, less predictable meanings. DCDuring TALK 18:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep and use for all English -ing forms. The current state of the page ploughing is incomplete since it mentions only the present participle and does not mention the gerund. These are two very different forms and it's pure coincidence that they happen to have the same superficial form in English. Nevertheless, since, they do, I can see that it's tidier to mention both forms on a single line ("present participle and gerund of") rather than two separate lines ("1. present participle of"<br/>"2. gerund of"). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
    I'd say it needs a vote. DCDuring TALK 23:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. The present participle and gerund aren't 'superficially the same' in English, they are identical. The fact that they aren't in other languages has literally zero to do with English. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
    They are identical in form; they are not identical in function. There is no participle in the sentence "Ploughing rocky soil is difficult." —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Interesting point. I don't like the distinction much. Another thing, is a gerund a verb form? Because if it isn't then we need separate templates to go under the noun and verb headings. Or even the verb and gerund headings. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, I think the gerund can be considered a verb form. A noun couldn't stand in the empty slot of "_______ rocky soil is difficult". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I completely withdraw my delete vote. If kept, which looks likely, Beer Parlour discussion is going to be needed to roll this out en masse. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Category:English noun forms[edit]

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)
Convert to {{parent-only}}. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
With changes to the overall category structure, I consider this debate obsolete and should be closed with no further actions taken. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:WC and its language subcategories[edit]

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)

May 2014[edit]

Template:definite and plural of[edit]

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)
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)

  • Can we have this deleted per consensus? Result from above: Delete: CodeCat, Dan Polansky, Aɴɢʀ, -sche, Renard Migrant; Keep: Purplebackpack89, Ready Steady Yeti. Not perfectly clear: Donnanz (seems pro-deletion), Keφr (seems pro-deletion). --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Category:Dragons and Category:Merpeople and their subcategories[edit]

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)
I agree with the principle of splitting out scores of entries into subcategories, but perhaps a more general category for aquatic mythological creatures would be preferable, which could also encompass naiads and nixies and kelpies and kappas and so forth. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Abstain. Looking at Category:en:Dragons, it now has 16 entries while its immediately larger broader category Category:en:Mythological creatures has 127 entries. Looking at Category:en:Leprosy, it now has 15 entries. I deemed Leprosy too specific or granular and Diseases the appropriate granularity but I was outvoted in Category talk:en:Leprosy. As for granularity, the relationship dragons :: mythological creatures seems very much like leprosy :: diseases. Category:en:Merpeople has 33 entries. I would vote delete but I do not want to go against a broad trend of keeping highly granular category if there is such a trend; the leprosy discussion suggests there is such a trend. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)



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)
      • Changing my vote to keep, and restore Template:trreq Template trreq shouldn't have been deleted in the middle of the discussion. Purplebackpack89 14:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

{{trreq}} was deleted, since it was already orphaned, and no erroneous usage arised. (Feel free to recreate as a redirect.) Orphaning {{ttbc}} will take longer; xte can help with it. Keφr 17:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep, and thereby make old revisions more legible. I don't object to deprecating the templates. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
You could use that reason to keep anything that's ever had a link to it. I think it's a terrible idea. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I could use that reason to keep any template that was ever very widely used. And that is a good reason. It helps keep old page revisions legible. Very widely used templates should be deprecated, not deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Just noting that Template:ttbc is still used by ~1450 pages. - -sche (discuss) 01:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Just noting that it is still used by 1292 pages. - -sche (discuss) 18:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • For the record: Template {{trreq}} was deleted by Kephir on 10 January 2015. Per above, the deletion seems to be supported by Kephir and less explicitly by -sche, CodeCat and Renard Migrant; it is opposed by Purplebackpack89 and Dan Polansky (me). --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]





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)
  • Keep all. If you want people to stop using them, edit their documentation to point to an alternative way of achieving what they were intended to achieve. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • RFDO kept for no consensus: 3 for deletion, 2 for keeping, 1 for being careful and providing a good replacement and documentation. If new people arrive soon who want to delete this, we can reopen this discussion, otherwise it gets archived. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Caucasian languages[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries[edit]

...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)
Keep (roughly per DCDuring). Many of the discussions linked to from the nominated pages are only in old revisions of pages (the links on the nominated pages are to oldids). There is no other way to access those.​—msh210 (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • RFDO kept: no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

Index:English and subpages[edit]

Should we delete this, since it hasn't been updated since 2012, and Category:English lemmas (which is updated automatically with every new entry) seems to serve the same purpose? Equinox 19:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

We should keep it (and update it if possible). The index contains the PoS and audio links, plus you can jump closer to a certain word from the first page using the TOC. The lemma category can't do these. --Panda10 (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • RFDO kept: no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:English vyadhikarana compounds[edit]

What on Earth is this supposed to be? (There are other similar weird categories by the same person) SemperBlotto (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

See Sanskrit compound for a very poorly written and hard-to-understand explanation of these terms. That article says "All these normal Tatpuruṣa compounds are called vyadhikarana Tatpuruṣa, because the case ending should depend upon the second member because semantically the second member has primacy, but actually the case ending depends upon the first member." However, since English doesn't have case endings I don't see how it can have vyadhikarana compounds. Delete. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
There are areas where traditional English grammatical vocabulary is deficient. Eg, does traditional English vocabulary have a term for those compound nouns that form plurals by pluralizing the first term of the compound, eg, attorney-general? CGEL (2001) uses dvandva in its discussion of nouns.
We have entries for some of these (tatpurusa, bahuvrihi), but not vyadhikarana.
Though I'd prefer a category name that was more readily understood, I'd like to see some effort to categorize English compounds along these lines. It might even help with some of our RfD discussion for open-spelled compounds. DCDuring TALK 12:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
If I've understood the WP page correctly (which may not be the case considering how confusingly it's written) vyadhikaranas are a kind of tatpurusha, so we could still categorize these words as Category:English tatpurusa compounds without making more detailed distinctions that may well be Sanskrit-specific. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how any of the three entries in the category fit. They all pluralize based on the second element, don't they?—like regular nouns, and unlike Angr's description of vyadhikarana. Pinging User:DerekWinters to explain. - -sche (discuss) 19:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Likewise, the one entry in Category:French dvandva compounds is not a compound of two elements connected by an "and", it distinctly lacks an "and"/"et"... - -sche (discuss) 19:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
A dvandva is compound that could be connected by an and and thus its lack defines the compound. Aigre-doux is literally means 'both bitter and sweet' and could be written as aigre et doux. Its lack however here makes it a dvandva compound by becoming 'aigre-doux'. Vyadhikaranas are compounds that are not coordinative like dvandvas but indicate a different relationship between the two. Thus, a vyadhikarana like god-given indicates the phrase 'given by the gods', an instrumental relationship. Battlefield is a 'field for battle' or a 'field of battle', dative or genitive relationships respectively. DerekWinters (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, in vyadhikaranas, the second member has primacy, unlike avyayibhavas, and thus should be pluralized on such a basis. DerekWinters (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The question remains whether the Sanskrit concepts are well-suited for application to English. "Dvandva" seems to be at least minimally accepted. Bahuvrihi) is sometimes deemed synonymous with exocentric. Insofar as the Sanskrit compound-noun terms depend on inflectional grammar rather than semantics, they are difficult to apply to English.
A more basic approach to English compounds of each PoS would analyze them by the word-class from which the components derive and which was the head, eg, back nine (ADJ-NOUN), back down (VERB-ADV). Some further categorization would be possible, including, for example, the nature of the case/prepositional semantic relationship between the components of endocentric noun-noun compounds. Eg, backrest (rest for the back), backseat (seat in the back), backstabber (one who stabs (in) the back [accusative]), backbone (bone of the back).
This leads me to conclude that English does not fit into the scheme that this category represents. I welcome any demonstration of its applicability and intelligibility to normal folks or acceptance by English grammarians. Delete DCDuring TALK 21:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Just because it may not be so applicable to English does not mean it wouldn't be applicable to many other languages. English is simply one of many. Also, Merriam Webster does have definitions of dvandva, bahuvrihi, tatpurusa, and karmadharaya. For example, their definition of karmadharaya is
A class of compound words typically having a noun as second constituent and a descriptive adjective as first constituent (as bluegrass, blackberry), a noun as second constituent and an attributive noun as first constituent (as houseboat), or an adjective as second constituent and an adverb as first constituent (as everlasting, widespread) and having meanings that follow the formula “a B that is A ” for nouns or “B in the manner expressed by A ” for adjectives, where A stands for the first constituent and B for the second; also : a compound word belonging to this class.
I'm also seeing quite a few non-Indic linguistics books employing terms like tatpurusa and bahuvrihi, for example: https://books.google.com/books?id=CerT4n6N26AC&dq=tatpurusa+oed&source=gbs_navlinks_s. Thus I'm inclined to believe that the terms have already been somewhat accepted into linguistics (my basis for adding them) and have true applicability in the linguistics of a variety of languages. DerekWinters (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@DerekWinters: This particular RfD is only for Category:English vyadhikarana compounds. I have no opinion on the applicability of vyadhikarana to other languages, nor necessarily of the applicability of other Sanskrit-derived compound-describing terms to English. But we should definitely start with attested definitions of the terms before we use them in category names. DCDuring TALK 23:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Right; I'm not saying we should get rid of all Sanskrit-named compound types. Tatpurusha, dvandva, and bahuvrihi are all pretty well established terms in linguistics and are certainly applicable to many other languages than Sanskrit. But I'm not convinced that vyadhikarana is applicable to English, or that it's useful to use even if someone does manage to dig up an instance of it being used to describe English. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, well if that's the case then I'm not sure what we should do. DerekWinters (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
For now, if I understand the situation correctly, you could recategorize the English nouns into Category:English tatpurusa compounds. You could also see whether vyadhikarana is attestable and, if it is, create the entry. If it is not, we could try to see if there is a term that is suitable for a name for the category. DCDuring TALK 21:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I didn't see any use of vyadhikarana applied to English at Google Books. DCDuring TALK 22:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Just one at Google Scholar. DCDuring TALK 22:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Can we have this deleted per consensus? For deletion: SemperBlotto, AnGr, DCDuring; For keeping: maybe DerekWinters. Unclear: -sche; current category content: battlefield, battleground, battleship. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


This page was created on the basis of an entry in the Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Languages, which in turn was created to be the etymology of Lower Sorbian bazowy ‎(pertaining to elder trees). Perhaps the authors of that dictionary are unaware that Proto-Slavic ъ can sometimes surface as a in Lower Sorbian, but it can, and the etymon of the word is actually *bъzovъ, which also has an entry in the same dictionary. Alternatively, bazowy may simply have been coined in Lower Sorbian as baz + -owy, but either way, it isn't from *bazovъ. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

In *bazъ and *bъzъ you can find Lower Sorbian baz. *bazъ: Lower Sorbian baz ‎(бузина Sambucus nigra); *bъzъ: Lower Sorbian dial. bez, baz. First entry also gives Russian dial. бас ‎(bas, бузина), Ukrainian dial. базни́к ‎(baznýk, сирень), базни́к ‎(baznýk, собачья бузина Sambucus ebulus L, сирень Syringa vulgaris). —Игорь Телкачь 16:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I feel I would be more useful in interpreting this source if I could actually read any Slavic language. CodeCat? —JohnC5 05:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I guess my preferred resolution would be to move this to Appendix:Proto-Slavic/bъzovъ, but I don't know whether Useigor would agree to that. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know Lower Sorbian but judging by Slavic cognates there could be *bezowy or *bzowy from *bъzovъ. The dictionary points to *bʰeh₂ǵos > *bazъ and *bʰu₂ǵos > *bъzъ. So *bazovъ could be an alternative etymology of Lower Sorbian bazowy. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


This template and all referenced ones below can probably be safely deleted since the logic has been moved to Module:pt-conj and Module:pt-headword.

Jberkel (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Support, but let’s not close this discussion too fast, in case we notice something wrong with the module. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Unit tests, people. Keφr 17:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll add some, but almost impossible to cover all possible cases / inflection types. On a second thought, generating test cases à la QuickCheck might help here. – Jberkel (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've added unit tests for the new code. Don't forget to add a testcase if you find a bug in the module. – Jberkel (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
It's been over 6 months now. I think it's safe to delete the templates now. Jberkel (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:IPA pronunciations with repetition[edit]

I don't see the point of this category. It's a subcat of Category:Pronunciation cleanup, but nothing needs cleaning up. There is nothing wrong with repeating a symbol in IPA transcription. Long vowels and geminate consonants can be transcribed either with the long mark (ː) or by doubling the symbol. Both methods are legitimate. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete While it contains a handful of legitimately bad entries (eg this and this) and slightly messy looking entries where syllable marking might be a good idea (this), the module that does this generates too much chaff to sort through. For instance, it tags deinen#German, because it reads nn̩ as nn̩, budget#Italian because it reads dd͡ʒ as dd͡ʒ and chū...khai-sí because it doesn't like the ellipsis*. There are also entries like fountain, Hermione and 雛祭り which are apparently only there because of the {{ of a nested template. It would be better if there were more specific categories for things that can only be errors (doubled stress markers or ties, tripled characters, etc). Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
(*) Incidentally, I note that whoever put this together was clever enough to recognise that tone markers can legitimately be doubled, so khai-sí isn't tagged. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment re "It would be better if there were more specific categories for things that can only be errors": or we could simply re-purpose this category. - -sche (discuss) 14:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

February 2015[edit]

Template:list:cardinals from zero to forty-nine/en[edit]

Not used. If we really want to make this kind of list it should have a different form (like Appendix or the like).--Dixtosa (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

{{list:ordinals_from_zeroth_to_forty-ninth/en}}--Dixtosa (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Even supposing one would want this kind of brute-force method of showing variation in numeral formation, fifty is excessive. Almost all the languages I've studied show no difference in formation strategy between the thirties and fourties (or seventies, for that matter). In English, there's the archaic use of score, so that "two score and nine" is different from thirty-nine, but that's not included here.
I don't see the purpose of having links to fifty numbers in one language section- does anyone benefit from being able to click on forty-three in the sixteen entry? It seems more like a stunt than anything useful. I would add all the other subtemplates, too: only the Navajo, Telegu and Russian subtemplates are transcluded at all, and half of the Navajo links are redlinks.
List templates in general use a disproportionate amount of system resources for minimal benefits, but this bunch is particularly bad. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
No, they do not :?
Actually they save much space as you do not have to put the same list all over. This is why I am thinking of creating templates for each group related terms. At least for such long lists: #Related_terms, членство#Related_terms. --Dixtosa (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Delete Replace with appendices, which have way more potential value, as they can readily accommodate language peculiarities, archaisms etc. DCDuring TALK 21:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

this one too--Dixtosa (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


works exactly like head|ka|conjunction. --Dixtosa (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep As I've said before, there's no point deleting these sorts of templates. They simply serve as redirects to reduce typing and make it easier for people to remember all the templates systematically . Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Having less of these templates makes it easier for people to remember all the templates. Right now, it's not obvious whether someone should be using {{ka-con}} or {{head|ka|conjunction}}. —CodeCat 20:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    Yes. I think we should make a ruling that dedicated templates must only be created when they require more (or language-specific) features than {{head}}. But, yeah, it's too late xD--Dixtosa (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per CodeCat. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

March 2015

April 2015[edit]

Wikisaurus:moon of Uranus[edit]

Wikisaurus:moon of Haumea[edit]

Wikisaurus:moon of Jupiter[edit]

Wikisaurus:moon of Mars[edit]

Wikisaurus:moon of Saturn[edit]

Wikisaurus:moon of Neptune[edit]

Wikisaurus:moon of Pluto[edit]

None of these pages lists a single synonym! The content that they contain is already included both in the subcategories of Category:en:Moons (Category:en:Moons of Jupiter etc), which are easier to maintain, and in the list templates (template:list:moons of Haumea/en etc). These Wikisaurus pages all seem to be unused (not linked to from mainspace). Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It does not matter that they do not list synonyms. Wikisaurus is about all semantic relations. E.g. Wikisaurus:bird is perfectly fine regardless of hosting almost no synonyms. And an overlap with categories is not a reason for deletion of a Wikisaurus entry. As for the moon pages, I abstain. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Abstain as the creator of all these pages, I don't particularly care if they survive or not in the Wikisaurus. But in any event, maybe these lists could be kept in appendices. --Daniel 07:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom; use list templates (template:list:moons of Haumea/en, etc). - -sche (discuss) 06:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Eh, list templates are also stupid for those which only have a few moons. Just spell them out. - -sche (discuss) 08:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I've deleted [[Wikisaurus:moon of Haumea]] and [[template:list:moons of Haumea/en]], which only listed two moons; as noted above, other methods (such as categories and simple inclusion of the content in entries) is better for such cases. - -sche (discuss) 18:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as too granual and non-atomic for the theasaurus; switched from abstain. I copied the content of the nominated pages to WS:moon; they can now be all deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:es-conj-ir (abolir)[edit]

Is this necessary? According to Spanish Wiktionary, abolir is entirely regular. Esszet (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

After doing some research, I've found that the RAE is not entirely clear as to whether abolir is a defective verb or not: according to the Diccionario de la lengua española, it is, but according to the Diccionario panhispánico de dudas, it used to be but no longer is. I'll send them an e-mail once their contact service is back up (it's disabled until Monday). Esszet (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this entry for the conjugation of "Abolir" should not be deleted but marked as "colloquial" and not "RAE approved" which defines this verb as defective.
The only reason this verb is defective is because of the lack of a consensus on how to conjugate it, not because of a logical impossibility.
(defectiveness rendered mute)
None the less if supposed conjugation are called here upon; five possible verbal templates could be called forth.

I'll make example of the present, past historic and present subjunctive tenses of each since the other verbal tenses can be deduced from it:


FIRST possible conjugational paradigm,

by making it analogous to "poder" (to be able to)

I think of this template as very objectionable the least fit one of all.

The problem with the above conjugational analogy is the striking homophony with the word
"abuelo" (grandfather)
and "abuela" (grandmother)
which actually if this conjugational model is followed, the form
"abuela"would arise in the present subjunctive and mean alternately "were he, she or it to abolish at this present time" and "were I to abolish at this present time",
also "abuelas" which means "grandmothers" would mean "were you (thou) to abolish at this present time".
For these reasons I think of this template as very objectionable the least fit one of all.

SECOND possible conjugational paradigm,

by making it analogous to "tener" (to possess)

The above template doesn't have the homophony problems of the former and would theoretically be much fitter than the former template.
Though Spanish euphonic patterns would weaken the tonic "o" vowel thusly:

The above template (2.2) would arguably be along with (3.2) the fittest within the five possible paradigms.

THIRD possible conjugational paradigm,
If the irregularity of the second template's past historic were to be a problem then it could be conjugated

by making it analogous to: "salir" (to exit)

Which would be exactly like the former one, including the euphonic weakening of the tonic "o" vowel, with the exception of a regular historic past. Like so:

In general I deem (3.2) just as fit as (2.2).
I would argue for the dual alternate past historic both regular and irregular as many verbs already do.

FOURTH possible conjugational paradigm,

by making it analogous to "comer" (to eat)

This template is cacophonic and ambiguous

The above template aside from being most cacophonic
would in the present and present subjunctive tenses give to the notion of "to make ball-like" from the hypothetical but perfectly understandable verb "abolar" "to make ball-like" since "bola" means "ball, round mass, sphere".

FIFTH possible conjugational paradigm,

by making it analogous to "poner" (to place down)

This template isn't that objectionable but in the present tense it would partly also give to the notion of "to make ball-like"; and I reiterate; from the hypothetical but perfectly understandable verb "abolar" "to make ball-like" since "bola" means "ball, round mass, sphere".

We don't really comment on what other dictionaries write, as there as so many of them! Name one dictionary that comments that another dictionary has an entry or has no entry. Also, your comment its pretty much unreadable. Also, is anything being nominated for deletion here? Move to RFC? Move to Talk:abolir, even. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

User_Gesælig Æsc : The conjugational template for the verb was nominated for deletion, probably because there is no consensus on how to conjugate it and is regarded as a defective verb though it can technically be conjugated as I have shown above within many verbal paradigms but a consensus is needed, I find (2.2) and (3.2) the fittest, which are basically one paradigm with an alternate dual historic past.

User_Gesælig Æsc :
In conclusion I'll argue for the following conjugational template not only the fittest but completely unambiguous, most euphonic and completely analogical with Spanish verbal paradigms:
As with every verb with dual or multiple forms, which one to use and stick to, is left to the discretion and preference of the speaker.

Optimum verbal paradigm of ABOLIR

1st person singular "abulgo"
2nd person singular "abueles"
3rd person singular "abuele"
1st person plural "abolimos"
2nd person plural "abolís"
3rd person plural "abuelen"

1st person singular "abule" and dually along with "abolí"
2nd person singular "abuliste" and dually along with "aboliste"
3rd person singular "abulo" and dually along with "abolió"
1st person plural "abulímos" and dually along with "abolímos"
2nd person plural "abulísteis" and dually along with "abolísteis"
3rd person plural "abulieron" and dually along with "abolieron"

1st person singular "abulga"
2nd person singular "abulgas"
3rd person singular "abulga"
1st person plural "abolgamos"
2nd person plural "abolgáis"
3rd person plural "abulgan"

So... you're arguing for a keep, right? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

User_Gesælig Æsc: I am sorry Renard Migrant I don't really know what you mean by "keep" in that context.
But if you mean that the verbal paradigm I placed as my definite nomination is the one that definitely should be kept for usage then I would have to agree.

I've just heard back from the RAE, and they said that the Diccionario de la lengua española's latest edition, which was published in 2014 and isn't available online yet, recognizes that abolir is no longer defective:
abolir. (Del lat. abolēre. ♦ U. m. las formas cuya desinencia empieza por -i). tr. Derogar, dejar sin vigencia una ley, precepto, costumbre, etc.
As for the correct conjugation of the forms that may diphthongize or otherwise, they also gave me a selection from Nueva gramática de la lengua española, and it says:
Su conjugación es regular, no sujeta, por tanto, a diptongación (yo abolo, no *yo abuelo).
Therefore, the template is entirely unnecessary and should be deleted. Esszet (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The regular conjugation is in cases such as this no more than just an uncreative default resort, not always an optimum one, the RAE's wish to Latinise Spanish rejecting patrimonial qualities in the alleged interest of global comprehension of the Castilian tongue is ludicrous.
Verbs, specially a verb that has so recently become no longer defective ought not be subject to a default conjugation when there are other far more elegant conjugational paradigms this verb can follow, which if I may say so are only rejected for being patrimonial.
Besides like I mentioned above "abolo" sounds more like "I make ball-like" than it ever does "I abolish"
This conjugation template makes perfect analogy with "tener" and "salir" and does not deviate from the conjugational patterns Spanish verbs follow.
At the very least, this verbal paradigm is an alternative.
As most Castilian speakers know the RAE is wildly assuming and rejective of whatever deviates from making Castilian more like Latin.
If it were for the RAE, all languages of the Iberian peninsula would be classified as dialects of Castilian under the name of Spanish, that's why as you may have noticed I switched from saying Spanish to Castilian.
If ever proof should be called upon, one ought but to look at the patrimonial irregular conjugation patterns other tongues have followed in the Iberian peninsula for the same verb. It is only natural and dignifying that Castilian should embrace it's equivalent, many verbs have completely dual conjugations and I never knew a person who having Castilian as their mother tongue couldn't understand a completely irregular conjugation even were it ever unheard by them.

Gesælig Æsc (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no "real" consensus on this verb's paradigm, most people don't know this verb is no longer defective. I am merely hypothesising all possible conjugational paradigms and trying to argue about how this one is best among all possibilities. For reasons of unambiguity and euphony. Anyone trying to conjugate the verb will choose any of the five possibilities. I my self have only heard people leaning towards the FIRST one; on the other side the RAE has decided that the verb should be assigned a regular paradigm represented in the FOURTH one. I my self lean towards the SECOND and THIRD with a euphonic weakening of the tonic vowel "o" in the likes of the verb "podrir" (to rot).

Gesælig Æsc (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

In as much of what I have been made aware:

PEOPLE tend to make ABOLIR analogous to verbs such like "poder" (to be able to), "soler" (to do usually) and "doler" (to pain).

The RAE says ABOLIR ought to be made analogous to "comer" (to eat), "beber" (to drink) and "romper" (to break).

I personally lean towards making ABOLIR analogous to "poner" (to put down), "tener" (to have) and "valer" (to be worth)

Well, since the RAE is the official authority on the Spanish language, it would be best to make their preferred conjugation the ‘official’ one (at least here) and include a footnote that says that other conjugations of ‘abolir’ (especially abuelo, abueles, etc.) are common in colloquial speech. We're not supposed to try to change languages, only index them. If you'd like to discuss this further, the discussion should probably be moved to the tea room; otherwise, for the reasons outlined above, I say delete. Esszet (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
  • Keep for now. If this really should be deleted, let someone nominate this anew, and let's hope the discussion will not be dominated by multi-page typographical salad. As for "RAE is the official authority", what do we care: we are a descriptivist dictionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Keep, this is an unreadable 'discussion' by the way. Keep mostly per Esszet, who is the only person but wants to delete but makes a watertight argument for keeping also. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


Nothin special with it. --Dixtosa (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and deprecate; it is now used in too many pages. We need to make the page histories legible. Whoever created this and deployed so widely should have thought twice. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
    Comment; true, the template is being used in 3,800+ pages at this moment. However, a substantial number of those is just verbs with conjugation tables that use {{de-conj}} (used in 3,500+ pages). In the conjugation table, there is a cell named "auxiliary" that links to exactly two words: haben and/or sein, using {{l/de}}. I am going to change it to {{l|de}}, which will reflect in the verbs pages and will not make their page histories unreadable for this reason, since the historical versions will just keep using the {{de-conj}} template. If there are performance issues as suggested below, feel free to revert. If there are not any performance issues, I'd vote delete. --Daniel 08:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
    Related to my message above, {{de-form-adj}} is also using {{l/de}} in 230+ pages. I am going to edit the template now to remove {{l/de}}. --Daniel 16:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    Inflection tables should really use {{l-self}} instead of {{l}} so that forms that are identical to the lemma show up in bold without a link rather than in blue with a link to the same page you're already on. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I was wrong, there is a specialty - performance. {{l}} calls (1) a module and does some lookup (2) in order to map a language code to a language name, none of which is done byl/xx. Not sure if the overhead is that problematic though. --Dixtosa (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Performance was the entire reason for the existence of all of the l/ templates: at the time, the {{l}} template was causing serious perfomance problems in larger pages. Now that it's been switched over to Lua, that's not as much of an issue, but there are still a few huge index pages where I've swapped out l for l/ templates to fix module errors from overrunning the allowed module-execution time. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I imagine it could be removed from the main namespace and used only in appendices. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Note that these specific templates do not have all the capabilities of {{l}}. For example, they lack gloss parameter.
Also, for only few pages that are {{l}}-intensive we can use {{User:ZxxZxxZ/l-list}}--Dixtosa (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Somewhat hilariously, a lot of these templates call {{l}} directly (see {{l/ty}} for a specific example). So they now do the very thing they were created to avoid. Even worse, because they call l but don't allow all its parameters, so they're literally worse than useless. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


This should go the way of {{ca-adj-mf}} and {{fr-adj-mf}} and get merged into {{nrf-adj}} with a mf parameter. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

May 2015[edit]

Template:short form of[edit]

Why keep a template that has a longer name and does the same thing? --Dixtosa (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Because it's just a redirect. Redirects can't really be treated the same as templates. It's used in 26 pages, and even if it weren't, since it's not a misleading redirect I see no reason to delete it. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Would you also see no reason to delete Template:contractional form of, Template:shorter form of, Template:short variant of etc. when I create them?
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it. This makes things easier. This is my zen of code.--Dixtosa (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Alright, not misleading and not created purely to piss people off. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
If you orphan a redirect and remove all references in help pages, categories, etc., there will be nothing to confuse people. If you delete it, on the other hand, anyplace in the edit histories where the template was used will have an ugly redlink instead of content. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Restore {{infl}} then--Dixtosa (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
And {{proto}}, {{count page}}, {{term/t}}... —CodeCat 16:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Appendix:Afrikaans and Dutch Swadesh lists[edit]

This is a table with Swadesh lists of Afrikaans, Dutch and German. We already have:

Is it useful to have a separate table comparing these languages together? (slippery slope argument: When will we stop? Could Appendix:French and Italian Swadesh lists be created? Or Afrikaans, Dutch and German together is especially useful/interesting, keeping it apart from other combinations?) --Daniel 14:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

We do also have Appendix:Swadesh lists for Germanic languages and, for that matter, Appendix:Swadesh lists for Romance languages. I'm not sure how useful Swadesh lists for multiple languages are, since no one uses them for glottochronology anymore. They're not really helpful for language comparison purposes, so why bother having more than one language in a list? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Delete per Daniel Carrero. Doesn't even have the right name, it should be Appendix:Dutch, Afrikaans and German Swadesh lists. Before you know it, someone's added on Low German, Danish, Luxembourgish, etc. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If no one uses Swadesh lists for multiple languages, perhaps all the cross-language lists should be deleted too? Or should they be kept? The ones listed at Template:Swadesh lists are: Afro-AsiaticAlgonquianAltaicAraucanianAustro-AsiaticAustralianAustronesianBalticBaltic-FinnicBantuCelticDené–YeniseianDravidianFormosanFrisianGermanicHmong-MienHokanIberianIndo-AryanIndo-IranianIndo-Iranian (extended)ItalianMayanMuskogeanNiger–CongoOto-MangueanPaleosiberianPenutianRomanceSino-TibetanSlavicSiouanTai–KadaiTibeto-BurmanTupi–GuaraniTurkicUralicUto-Aztecan --Daniel 08:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record:
  • Delete the Dutch/Afrikaans/German appendix, for the reasons I stated above and also per Renard Migrant.
  • Keep the whole bunch of family Swadesh lists, I'm not nominating those for deletion, I was just asking. They seem useful enough. I don't see any harm in them aside from maybe comparetively more work to keep both versions consistent with additions/corrections/whatever. --Daniel 11:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't understand that bit of Angr's comments. I see no harm in keeping them for language families which are well enough defined that we know which languages should and shouldn't be in there. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Keep, but remove German. Believe this list could be a good addition to [1]; a Germanic languages list would likely be too cluttered to allow an easy use of it. Morgengave (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015[edit]


This was listed for speedy deletion but I did not want to speedy delete it. The reason given was, "Unnecessary and inaccurate. This paradigm is based off of the traditional Telugu grammars that tried to fit the noun system into the Sanskrit case system; it doesn't reflect how nouns/postpositions actually work in Telugu. It's unnecessary because, apart from a few irregularities, all Telugu case suffixes/postpositions are invariable and are attached after a noun in its oblique form, which at most only has two allomorphs. Thus providing the oblique form(s) for each noun and then including an appendix that explained the postpositions would be more than enough to cover Telugu noun inflection."

I don't speak Telugu at all, so I can't comment on this. @AxaiosRex @Stephen G. BrownInternoob 18:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi! So do you need clarification or elaboration on this? Or, what could I do to convince you that this is actually a good idea? I'm using A Grammar of Modern Telugu written by Krishnamurti and Glynn and published in 1985, so it's reasonably modern and, from what I see, includes good, descriptive linguistic analysis that feels good to me as a heritage/native speaker. –AxaiosRex (అక్షయ్⁠రాజ్) 22:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I think you can make an arrangement like that (listing oblique forms and a central appendix) work for advanced students, but I don’t think that most Americans, Brits, Canadians, and Australians who want to study Telugu would be able to use your appendix system at a beginning or intermediate level. But do it however you like. I’m not going to get into an argument about it. —Stephen (Talk) 23:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I get you. I just think this is a lot more concise and less redundant. Also, if you wanted to include a declension table, I feel you would quickly rush into issues with just which postpositions you wanted to include on it, considering there are so many suffixes and adverbs and other words that could fill that morphological category. I suppose you could just include those ones that are purely postpositions (and thus don't have their own oblique forms and can't take their own postpositions), but that would make it seem like those are the only ones that exist. However, there is also the issue of phonological interactions between the oblique and the postposition, which could complicate things enough that a declension table would be necessary, though for the written standard that isn't as much of an issue, I believe. @Stephen G. BrownAxaiosRex (అక్షయ్⁠రాజ్) 00:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Re: what could I do to convince you that this is actually a good idea? I basically just want it to fail an RFD. I was not comfortable speedy deleting this template because 1 it was made by a trusted user, and 2 I don't know anything about Telugu. —Internoob 01:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Also note that it's orphaned, and IMO perfectly appropriate for speedying. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
    • It's not orphaned anymore. It's used on 19 entries. I have no opinion on whether it should be kept or not, but if not it needs to be orphaned. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:l/..., Template:link/...[edit]

Proposal: Delete {{l/pt}}, {{l/en}} and the others like those, or delete as many as possible if for some reason some of those should be kept. Full list is collapsed above this message. I did not take the trouble to tag all of those {{rfdo}}, only German and Latin are tagged.

Rationale: Use | rather than /, that is, {{l|pt}} rather than {{l/pt}}. This assumes it does the same thing and that we don't need anymore {{l/pt}} or {{l/en}} or others to consume less resources on the server like we apparently needed pre-Lua or in case they do something that {{l}} can't or some other reason.

Current RFDO discussions:

Older discussion:

It's worth noting that in the current RFDO discussions some of these templates seem to be treated like obvious crap to be deleted by some people. Quoting Renard Migrant (talkcontribs) from the l/de discussion: "Somewhat hilariously, a lot of these templates call {{l}} directly (see {{l/ty}} for a specific example). So they now do the very thing they were created to avoid. Even worse, because they call l but don't allow all its parameters, so they're literally worse than useless." --Daniel 01:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete any of these that do not provide any features beyond those available in {{l}}. Keep any, such as {{l/he}}, that do provide special features. --WikiTiki89 16:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
For those of us that don't edit Hebrew entries much, what are the special features of {{l/he}}? --Daniel 16:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
{{l/he|חייל|dwv=חַיָּל}} produces חייל \ חַיָּל. It is more convenient than redundantly typing {{l|he|חייל|חייל \ חַיָּל}}. --WikiTiki89 17:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I think that any that are kept should be renamed. Something like {{he-l}}. —CodeCat 16:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Why? --WikiTiki89 17:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with CodeCat (talkcontribs). Because AFAIK this should start with he- like other Hebrew templates. Note we already have {{ja-l}} and {{ko-l}} with special behavior, namely showing multiple scripts in order and also the Korean one has an auto-transliteration module implemented. "l/" implies subpage of {{l}} so I'd argue we should only start a template name with that if its actually part of the system of {{l}}. --Daniel 11:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
But it is part of the system of {{l}}. It is implemented with the same module and supports all of the parameters that {{l}} supports. --WikiTiki89 15:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
That's OK. I have an idea: can't we nuke {{l/he}} with the others and make {{l}} support dmv= as an additional parameter? --Daniel 13:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
dwv= makes sense only for Hebrew. DWV = "defective with vowels". It's silly to add language-specific features to a general template. --WikiTiki89 12:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking maybe we should really add language-specific features to a general template, but that's OK, maybe having the actual language-specific template is really better. --Daniel 23:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that it's possible to orphan all these templates at the moment because they are many and while some people are converting from the format of "l/de" to "l|de" others still keep adding new instances in the format of "l/de". (Pending actual diffs, I can get those later.) I was thinking of creating a vote for the whole project of deleting all l/... templates, or at least a BP poll or something to let other people know what is going on and agree upon this. --Daniel 23:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep all templates that were ever relatively widely used. Deprecate them instead. Keep revision histories legible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:User SUL[edit]

Since now everyone has a global account, this box adds nothing of value. (Not that it added much before.) Keφr 15:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 15:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
It has two good links and also says which wikiproject the user is most active in.--Dixtosa (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
One of the links is already at the bottom of Special:Contributions. As for the "most active project", you can just go to m:Special:CentralAuth and see for yourself. The user page links are also easily reachable from there. Keφr 15:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 07:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:User Wikipedia[edit]

Might as well add this to the nomination, even though I have almost no opinion on it. (What is the difference whether you use this or {{wikipedia}}?) Though note it is technically in violation of WT:UBV anyway, and as such speedy-deletable. Keφr 15:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete or redirect, per nom (use {{wikipedia}}). - -sche (discuss) 07:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
@-sche: Unfortunately, {{wikipedia}} just links to w:Foo if used on User:Foo; presumably we should edit the userpages of all editors currently using this template so that it links correctly. Similarly, we should remove the other ones from userpages (as they look like they're going to fail). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Or we could just fix {{wikipedia}} so that it does what it is expected to do. --WikiTiki89 23:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
My thinking was you'd just put {{wikipedia|User:Metaknowledge}} on your page. Wikitiki's idea is better. - -sche (discuss) 03:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:User unified login[edit]

Likewise. This is true of all users now. Keφr 18:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 07:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned (per discussion two subsections up) and deleted. - -sche (discuss) 18:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


No longer needed --Type56op9 (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

There are still two transclusions that the new template does not yet support. --WikiTiki89 15:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]


Links to sections other than languages are discouraged, because they don't work right with our entry structure. Entries can and often do have multiple sections with the same name, which makes it impossible to link to them by name. As soon as a new section with that name is added, it could break such links. All in all, you can't rely on any section link pointing to the right place. This is why we have {{senseid}}. —CodeCat 17:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

They work perfectly well with English and Translingual sections, with the most modest of caveats. The worst that happens when the section link is "broken" is that the user is not taken to the exact section appropriate, but rather one above it. It seems to me that section links are more disruptive to someone's exaggerated sense of order and control than to the user experience.
If more effort were devoted to otherwise facilitating links from, say, inflected forms to the appropriate section of the lemma, I could accept that this simple template offered more harm than good. But in the present situation, it seems simply that something that is simple, useful, and highly desirable for English and Translingual sections is being opposed with nothing comparably simple and effective on offer.
To anticipate the a response, the approach used in the section headings on this and similar pages is effective only because it is inserted automatically in the normal RfD, RfV, RfDO, RfM, RfC, and RfM processes. Inserting such links in other cases is at best difficult at present. Does anyone have any constructive ideas about making it easier to insert them en masse (but selectively), for example, for all English inflected forms of words with multiple etymologies or with multiple PoSes on long English entries with one Etymology section but lots of polysemy? DCDuring TALK 18:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:English terms spelled with ‐[edit]

I don't quite see the point in categorizing all hyphenated terms just because they contain (gasp) a hyphen. -- Liliana 11:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the point either, bearing in mind that some words can be spelt with or without a hyphen; e,g. well-deserved or well deserved. I would suggest deletion. Donnanz (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Probably the intent was to get around the limitations of the search engine. Even in Cirrus Search it is not obvious to me how one can simply construct a regular expression that would find only entries that had certain special characters (. ? + * | { } [ ] ( ) " \ # @ & < > ~) in the title. Of all of those we can be most sure that we have entries with "-" in the title. Can anyone proved a regular expression that would work? It the search were limited, even if only by the word "English", but better by incategory:"English lemmas", the reqex search need not bring the servers to their knees.
Unless and until such a regular expression is available and documented somewhere we are likely to be able to find when it is needed, Keep. DCDuring TALK 17:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Why was this depopulated? DCDuring TALK 17:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Good old fashioned pointlessness from Daniel Carrero who cared more about amusing himself than doing something that would be useful for other users. Kill. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: But this would have had a point had it been populated. Do you know how to use CirrusSearch to find entries that contain specific characters, including special characters without killing the servers? This kind of category can facilitate searches using regular expressions if no other category is available that reasonably limits the list of entries that the regular expressions are applied to. DCDuring TALK 18:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Category:Cantonese Yale / Template:yue-Yale[edit]

The category only features six pages and the template is only used on the same six pages; it looks like User:Bravo-Alpha~enwiktionary tried to spread Yale romanization but stopped early on. —suzukaze (tc) 23:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

September 2015[edit]

Index:Mandarin Pinyin/*[edit]

No one uses or needs this. In addition it is redundant because of pages like gēng#Mandarin, which are more likely to be seen by people and corrected. 03:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd say delete per nom. Incomplete due to being out of sync with mainspace entries, and if it were complete it would be a pointless duplicate. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: we are having indexes that get out of sync, for many languages. They can be updated by bots; some of them are. Getting out of date is per se not a reason for deletion. It is not a pointless duplicate; it is an aggreation of information on few pages that is otherwise strewn across many pages. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete: I don't see the need for these pages; looking up ga1/ga2/ga3/ga4 is not hard —suzukaze (tc) 20:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
It seems like User:Octahedron80 has updated them with new data in the meantime, using data that looks to be more trustworthy than the ones that were used to create the pinyin syllable entries. —suzukaze (tc) 06:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]


This is completely redundant to {{rfdef}}. Both templates have the same purpose and the same parameters. They only differ in what message is displayed. —CodeCat 13:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: According to [[template talk:defn]], we've kept this twice as "no consensus".​—msh210 (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep for the reasons covered in the earlier discussions.​—msh210 (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, my initial reaction is to say: delete per nom. But merging it into {{rfdef}} would flood the category that rfdef places entries into (rfdef seems to be deployed only on entries people specifically want defined, whereas defn was apparently deployed semi-automatically on a huge set of Chinese characters). - -sche (discuss) 00:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
They already categorise the same way. —CodeCat 00:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I think as they stand they're near-identical. During past rfd's they had different parameters and categorization so a redirect wouldn't work whereas it would now. I'd honestly just delete this. The Han characters already have Category:Han characters needing common meanings which rfdef supports, so fears of an inundation of Han characters are unfounded. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Category:Chinese entries needing definition is already flooded anyway. See also Wiktionary:Grease_pit/2015/December#.7B.7Brfdef.7D.7D_and_Han_characters. —suzukaze (tc) 07:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete or redirect per the above discussion. - -sche (discuss) 17:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete or redirect. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Deprecate but keep. Use AbuseFilter to deprecate it on the technical level by preventing saving pages that contain the template if possible or explain why it is not possible. Point: make page histories legible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

November 2015[edit]

Appendix:Glossary of idioms – A et al.[edit]

They are redundant to Category:Idioms by language, they present an editorial perspective (“Here are some editors' picks of popular and picturesque idioms in the English language”), and they are very Anglocentric (“albatross around one's neck — Global”). — Ungoliant (falai) 17:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, categorization is much better in terms of better quality of definition (likely to be seen by more editors), alphabetized, divided by language, easier to navigate. Any genuine-looking red links can go on WT:RE:en (and so on) a few red links isn't enough to save it. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


I’ve never seen one case where displaying “α forms” and “β forms” has improved an entry, or done anything other than confuse readers. Most uses can be removed; the few that contain useful information can be replaced with {{qualifier}}. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Template:qualifier Purplebackpack89 16:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
    I don't see how that can be done, since the templates do totally different things. --WikiTiki89 16:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
    We'd have to orphan after redirecting like Wikitiki89 says because they don't work in the same way. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, “α forms” and “β forms” make it seem that α and β have a pre-determined linguistic meaning, which they don't in this case; they are simply being used as the name of an arbitrary group. If we really want to group alternative forms like this, we can do so visually without naming the groups with Greek letters. So delete. --WikiTiki89 16:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh God yes delete. Doremítzwr had a reputation for creating things that he found pleasing but added no value to the project (or even harmed the project) but he felt as long as he was happy, stuff the project. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Absolutely useless – just gives an arbitrary name to something that's already described in a perfectly adequate way (and suggests an ordering that's inappropriate). Look at traveler's diarrhea – "UK", "US" and "mixed"(?) would suffice without Greek letters. Similiarly, scion, rix-dollar, poena, embryo etc could all lose the Greek letters without changing in any way. The only place the letters are actually referred to is finocchio... and really, that definition should be at finocchia, if it doesn't turn out to be totally spurious. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
(As an aside, when this gets deleted, the corresponding glossary entry should also go) Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

This has a bunch of transclusions so cannot yet be deleted. I went to edit the template in light of the above discussion, removing the Greek letters, as a temporary measure until the entries could be edits. But then I realized: that's all that's really necessary. The template adds value to entries (see e.g. [[halfpenny#Alternative forms]], though I haven't checked how many entries it adds value to): it's only the arbitrary Greek letters that don't. I think we should keep the newly edited template. Pinging the other discussants here, since it's been a while since there's been any activity in this section.

Note that if this template is deleted or kept as edited, then [[Appendix:Glossary#F]] needs to have the entry for "α/β/γ/… form(s)" removed. And if the template is kept as edited, then its documentation needs to be updated.​—msh210 (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@msh210: The same text could be put in a {{qualifier}}, could it not? The concept of separating alternative forms by features may add value, but this {{forms}} template itself does not, as far as I can tell. --WikiTiki89 18:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I suppose that's right.​—msh210 (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
What does the new template actually do? As far as I can tell, it just transcludes the text typed into it. I'd be happy to spend a few minutes subst'ing all the remaining uses (there's only 20-something). Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
It gives the third parameter and a adds a colon, right. Substing should not be mindless, though, because the surrounding text may refer to the (now-gone) Greek letters. (This is something I should've fixed when editing the template. That is, it's an issue related to changing the template, not to substing it.)​—msh210 (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so I guess there's some consensus here to subst: and then delete the new version. I'll start subst:ing.​—msh210 (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Certain talk pages[edit]

Most of thesethese. IMO it's spam made in good faith. —suzukaze (tc) 05:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

These relatively few pages seem pretty harmless really. However, it might be good for somebody to talk to the creator next time and point out that Wiktionary is far from "complete". The more extreme case of this was when somebody was disruptively adding Etymology requests to every ety-less entry. Equinox 16:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
This same IP has been adding "can it be added" requests to a great number of Chinese character talk pages for years: try this for the more common variant. As for talking to them, I believe @Atitarev has had discussions with them on other issues (they make lots of several types of requests relating to several languages) without much cooperation. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I am annoyed with these numerous questions with no answers in talk pages and the usage of {{attention}} but what can I do? Some people just pepper entries with requests, genuine and not, ignoring if we have any resources or interest to fill them. The situation would only be slightly better if those unanswered requests were in the Tea room or similar.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I think if we delete these, we have to delete all talk pages with information in them relevant to the entry they pertain to. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree. This is part of what talk pages are meant for. Keep.​—msh210 (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Keep. --WikiTiki89 18:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Many of these cases of multiple readings is because the initial data was imported from a shitty database, and
  1. many of the entries have been cleaned up since
  2. the ones that aren't are likely to be obscure dead characters no-one cares about
  3. when someone does get around to cleaning up the page for the character no-one cares about, the wrong reading will be removed in the process if the one who cleans up the page has the common sense to check other dictionaries
FWIW there are currently 1,128 items in Category:Mandarin terms needing attention. —suzukaze (tc) 07:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

These too[edit]

Asking "is this traditional, simplified, or both" is like asking "can <noun> have a plural form". Additionally, I am confident that 99% of those pages already mention a character's simplified/traditional equivalent, and if it doesn't have one it can be logically inferred from the lack of a simplified/traditional equivalent on the page that it is "both", which will be true in 99% of the cases. —suzukaze (tc) 07:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

TBH another reason I want these gone is that the formatting of pages like Talk:苦 really ticks me off. When I see that there's a talk page, I expect a thoughtful, meaningful question, not this trash. It's reminiscent of a child whining.suzukaze (tc) 07:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

December 2015[edit]

Appendix:Latin verbs (A to K)[edit]

Appendix:Latin verbs (L to Z)[edit]

So, what's the point? It's list of Latin verbs with definitions and some have etymologies and descendants. Isn't this was the main namespace is for? It seems to be a transwiki which is why there are so many bad internal links. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

To make matters worse, the formatting of the verbs from A to K differs from the formatting for the verbs L to Z. A to K shows: First PP, Second PP, Third PP, Fourth PP. L to Z shows: Present, Infinitive, Past perfect, Passive perfect participle. The L to Z in my opinion is the better formatting. With regards to deleting the two entries: 1. They can never be a complete record of all Latin verbs. 2. They are conjugated but not defined as to which version/era of Latin it's from, e.g. classical, christian, medieval, vulgar, etc. The verbs belong in a better environment. Colourlessgreenideas 12:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


An experiment that never went anywhere. It was only ever used on one entry, and I've switched that one over to the usual vertical template, {{ga-prep-infl}}. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed a couple of years ago. If a bot replaced all instances with {{cy-mut-auto}}, this and all its redirects could be deleted. See Template talk:cy-mut-o for an older, related discussion. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]

Module:First steps[edit]

Not used anywhere as far as I can tell. I can't figure out what it is supposed to do. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Fwiw there's some documentation at [[v:module talk:First steps]].​—msh210 (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah and I still can't figure out what it's supposed to do. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
It looks like it's supposed to be a documentation module along the lines of the one that generates WT:List of languages. I'm sure its creator envisioned something like the scene in w:2001: A Space Odyssey, where one minute, you have apes fighting over a carcass, then a monolith appears, and suddenly they're writing sophisticated WM-compliant code to the sounds of the Blue Danube Waltz.
The problem is that it needs documentation that explains things. If I don't know anything about the MW and _G libraries, an uncommented dump of their contents is of no help whatsoever. If I knew enough about them to understand those dumps, I presumably would be able to track down the original libraries and look through them without bothering with the module (and I would hope there's actual documentation somewhere, too). I see there's also a thicket of links on that other module's talk page, presumably so one can click on them one at a time and All Will Be Answered. As with the code dumps, some explanation is needed to provide context. As it is now, the module is nothing but a source of confusion. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete--Dixtosa (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Can User:Gangleri AKA User:I18n clarify why this is useful? --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky Please see w:en:module talk:First_steps#main01:_MW and click on show. It displays parts of the wiki specific setup.

Appendix:List of sequenced animal genomes[edit]

Doesn't seem like an appropriate dictionary page. DCD's gonna have some strong arguments for keeping, though --Stubborn Pen (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It has two funtions:
  1. yet another list of taxa that might appear in books and articles
  2. a target for links from the entries, which link also served to mark the taxa as modern model organisms.
About 35 taxon entries link to it. Fewer than 50 of the taxa in the Appendix have entries.
Yes check.svg Done The first function is served just about as well if it were a user page, especially now that we have Wiktionary:Redlink dumps Yes check.svg Done.
Yes check.svg Done The second function could be served better by linking to the corresponding WP appendix, which is actively maintained and seems to have 50% more entries.
IOW, I don't really care, but would like to have enough time to replace the links with WP links. DCDuring TALK 02:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


I've been wanting to get rid of this template for ages. It was probably very useful back in the early days, but seems like an outdated relic today --Stubborn Pen (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Support, too hard to update. Also {{hi-rank}} should be deleted. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 00:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Is there any reason to delete this? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Support, not very useful information to keep in the entries. If anything, could be made an appendix. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Also delete {{hi-rank}}, it is an unused template. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Abstain - I find it confusing and it would be difficult to make it clearer without it taking up more space in the articles. John Cross (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep the template, the Statistics header and the frequency data. I found that useful when I started here. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:French verbs with conjugation -er[edit]

Redundant to Category:French first group verbs. I don't think there's any distinction to be made here, and French first group verbs is a much better title as it describes the conjugation pattern. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

These aren't quite the same thing. The above category doesn't include the subclasses like Category:French verbs with conjugation -cer. I personally don't like the name Category:French first group verbs as it isn't obvious which verbs are talked about unless you happen to know what "first group" means. (AFAIK, the first/second/third group division is taught to French students but not to American students, who instead learn about -er, -ir, -re and sometimes -oir verbs.) I think the categories should have names something like Category:French regular -er verbs, Category:French regular -ir verbs and Category:French irregular verbs, which is more descriptive and fits the way they are named in other languages (at least, Category:X irregular verbs exists in many languages). Benwing2 (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • That's odd (at best) as a word like commencer does end in -er. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    Commencer ends in -er, but some of its conjugations are slightly different (because they contain a ç) are different than the straight -er conjugations. Aller is an -er verb and its conjugations are way different. Vouloir is way different than regular -ir verbs, while faire doesn't have a great deal in common with regular -re verbs. Purplebackpack89 02:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect Category:French first group verbs to this (and make similar moves for -ir and -re verbs): "First group?" What the hell's that supposed to mean? I speak French. When I learned it in high school, we learned them as -er, -ir and -re verbs, not first group, second group and third group. Designating one "first", one "second" and one "third" is arbitrary and devoid of meaning. Purplebackpack89 22:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
    You can read Category:French first group verbs. I don't like that logic. It's a bit like renaming Category:English nouns to Category:English naming words because a lot of people don't know what a noun is. I mean, that's what they are called. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    I don't think this is the same thing at all. Most people are familiar with the term "noun", whereas most people aren't familiar with the 1st/2nd/3rd terminology, which is opaque as to what these verbs represent. "Regular -er verbs" is just as concise and says exactly what they are using more familiar terminology. "Regular -er verbs" will be understandable to all, whereas I wouldn't know what a "naming word" is off the top of my head. Benwing2 (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    Knowing what a noun is on a relatively low plane. Knowing which order of French verbs are which is on a much higher plane, particularly as this is an English dictionary and we can't really expect Joe User to know a great deal about French. Purplebackpack89 02:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, I think most people are familiar with the word noun, but not many understand what a noun is. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant My point was that a helluvalot more English speakers know what a noun is than what the three orders of French verbs are. Sorry if that wasn't clear earlier. Purplebackpack89 22:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Merge into Category:French regular -er verbs both Category:French verbs with conjugation -er and Category:French first group verbs. The latter two names don't sound very good, and "-er verbs" is in fact what they are generally called. --WikiTiki89 00:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
What does the third group become? Category:French regular -ir verbs is obvious enough, is the third group Category:French irregular verbs? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I think so. The way I was taught, there are regular -er verbs, regular -ir verbs, a small set of regular -re verbs (vendre, rendre, and maybe a dozen others in -dre, plus maybe vaincre), and all other verbs are irregular. The vendre/rendre/etc. verbs are a small group, and it may not be worth making a special group just for them. Benwing2 (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
BTW, the page on vendre actually says it belongs to the "regular -re verbs", which are claimed to include verbs in -andre, -endre, -ondre, -erdre and -ordre and the group is said to be "fairly large", so it might be more than a dozen. Benwing2 (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:fr-conj-re is useful though there may be more due to {{fr-conj-auto}}. 'Regular' becomes subjective at this point, which is sadly unavoidable. The problem with vaincre is the -que forms which makes it less regular. But does less regular mean irregular? I guess we'll have to go through these on a case-by-case basis, or just leave them uncategorized. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, at a certain point it become subjective what's regular and not. It doesn't matter much to me where it goes exactly. Benwing2 (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:archaic synonym of[edit]

This is a failed experiment; it was created years ago but (as I noted in 2014) apparently never saw use in more than a handful of entries. It is redundant to {{lb|foo|archaic}} {{synonym of}}, and was as of this year only used on a single page, ตรีนิศก. - -sche (discuss) 19:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It's too specific and not specific enough. Use {{label}} or {{form of|archaic synonym}}. Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:ja-Common Accent[edit]

Superseded by Template:ja-pron. —suzukaze (tc) 05:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Spelling variants in entry names, Wiktionary:Redirections[edit]

Outdated pages. I got everything I wanted from them and created a vote to have WT:EL#Entry name with that information, which passed in November/2015.

I marked them as {{inactive}}, which says: "This page is no longer active. It is being kept for historical interest. No discussion is needed to revive this page; simply remove the {{inactive}} tag and bring it up to date.", but is there any historical interest in keeping them? Sure, Wiktionary:Redirections indicates that in the past we used to have more redirects than now, but we could update User:Dixtosa/Wiktionary:History of the English Wiktionary with that information. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

'Outdated' isn't a deletion rationale per se as you can update pages, this being a wiki and all. The question is really are these pages superseded. Wiktionary:Redirections sounds like a good idea, although I'm surprised how long it is as our 'policy' is pretty simple. Unless it's superseded I'd be tempted to almost start again with that page and make it half the size. Not read the other page. Has that been superseded by anything? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


Unused template. --Ce mot-ci (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep, potentially useful. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept.--Jusjih (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


It was used once in Beer parlour, and I removed that use in diff since I disagree with it. It placed the Beer parlour page to a category like Category:Hashtag/MediawikiHoldsWiktionaryBack; I don't think this is appropriate. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Speedy deleted, per WT:DELETE, first reason. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as a nice and in a very relatable way to tag discussions. --Dixtosa (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
    I don't find it nice or relatable as it's not an actual hashtag. It's ugly and difficult to use. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I like the idea. It would be nice to have an easy way to find important old discussions without having to search the archives.
Instead of using categorisation, we could make the template generate an invisible link so that the tagged pages can be found via What Links Here. This should make it more palatable to the people who don’t like hashtags. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Keep, I like the idea. Also, the reason for speedy deletion as "complete rubbish" is completely invalid. "Complete rubbish" would have been if the contents had been completely unusable, such as a random string of characters. --WikiTiki89 16:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
While I'm unsure about the idea, I think the actual implementation is messy an irritating and it should be kept as it is. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Editable[edit]

What exactly is the point of having an editable version of a very badly outdated CFI? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I've never really objected to this. Perhaps something like Wiktionary:Sandbox/Criteria for inclusion would be a better title, rather than as a subpage of CFI. Or of course, users are free to make this sort of thing in their own user page as it's on topic. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't really object to deletion, but what I like about the page is that I can always point to the page as a counterargument to all these people who claim that CFI would be so much better if only it were editable without a vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
    Delete, literally no one edited it since January 2012, unless you count small maintenance stuff like adding language codes to templates and updating broken links. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Maybe it would be pertinent to examine the changes made to the pages before deleting them. —suzukaze (tc) 13:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Entry layout/Editable[edit]

I'm also nominating this page, for the same reasons as above. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary:About Japanese/Draft[edit]

Wiktionary:About Japanese/proposal[edit]

Same reason as Entry layout/Editable. —suzukaze (tc) 13:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


Created 10 years ago; currently wholly unused. —suzukaze (tc) 11:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Definitely delete. The format is primitive (no script support for Japanese!) and it's redundant to all out templates such as {{ja-l}}, {{ja-noun}} and so on. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete, obviously. - -sche (discuss) 23:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


Unused. —suzukaze (tc) 11:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


Not used, and not especially useful. In practice we delete these on sight or fix them if we know how, but I doubt this template has been used in quite a while. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes we used to have a couple of these per month that we're clearly tagged and got either fixed or deleted after a month. So the system worked. That said I have no objection to just outright deleting them as we do now. No strong feelings; I'm a bit biased because it was quite fun trying to find out what language it was written in and how to translate it into English, so I'll stop commenting here. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


As above; no longer used nor useful, and not likely to be used again. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

No strong feelings, as per notenglish. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)



Hasn't been used for quite a while, as far as I know. Not unuseful per se, but there isn't much point to it either. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete, by the way it passed RFDO because only two people commented some years ago. It is pointless. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd make the same argument I'd make then; copyright violations are always deleted. When there's an entry to go back to, we go back to that. Since a red link is better than a blue link to an empty page, there is no scenario where this template should be used. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete per my comments on Talk:noded. - -sche (discuss) 23:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 23:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


Not used, and I can't imagine it ever would be. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete, for the same reasons as the two templates above. - -sche (discuss) 03:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. Cf Talk:noded and the talk pages of the templates mentioned there. - -sche (discuss) 23:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


While a vote has passed to replace this with {{m}}, this hasn't been nominated at any point for deletion, though you'd've had thought it had failed a deletion request the way people are talking about it. I think it's pretty darn important that we debate this before we delete it.

So I'll start. I have no preference. I personally use {{m}} but with the advent of module it would be perfectly possibly to have them run off the same module with the same parameters except {{{lang}}} and {{{1}}}, so them becoming out of synch is not inevitable. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Abstain. I also personally use {{m}} but I feel no urgency to delete {{term}}. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Too soon. Can I be the only user who takes time to adjust from one template to another? I've typed cx etc. so many times that it's hard to stop. Equinox 17:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
No, you are not the only user who has muscle memory that interferes with adopting changes in common templates. That is one reason why such changes should have really compelling advantages, not just tidiness. If voting were in proportion to (the log of) the number of times the voter had used the template in the last three months, many templates would not be deleted. DCDuring TALK 18:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
For statistical (?) purposes, I'd like to say: I believe that I was able to adjust immediately from {{term}} to {{m}}, {{context}} to {{lb}}, {{usex}} to {{ux}}. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete after a grace period, during which use of {{term}} is still bot-converted to {{m}}, and any use without lang triggers an error. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    • This is only possible if we convert uses that are still lacking a language (there's still ten thousand) to another template that accepts this. Otherwise we'll get heaps of module errors. —CodeCat 18:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
      • There was an informal vote about this somewhere, right? I fully support moving them over to another template for the interim. Also, I guess I shouldn't be surprised there are ~10,000 instances without a language specified. —JohnC5 19:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: Purplebackpack89 20:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep this before short hugely widespread template and deprecate it; use AbuseFilter to deprecate it on the technical level by preventing saving pages that contain the template if possible or explain why it is not possible. Point: make page histories legible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - Rather than breaking millions of historical revisions with no justification. We can create an editfilter which prevents future usage if that is a concern. - TheDaveRoss 17:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Column templates[edit]



Template:Col-end, Template:col-end[edit]

Template:Col-begin, Template:col-begin[edit]

Template:Col-5, Template:col-5[edit]

Template:Col-4, Template:col-4[edit]


Unused templates, superseded by {{top5}}, {{mid5}}, etc. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I think you mistakenly put {{col-top}} and {{col-bottom}} in this RFD. They are newer, auto-balancing templates, not superceded by anything. And they certainly are not "unused". --WikiTiki89 17:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete all, except for -top and -bottom which seem to still be in use. —suzukaze (tc) 20:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
This has got very confusing. The apparently erroneous nomination of col-top and col-bottom has confused the issue. I'd detag them but I don't think I should, Kc kennylau should do it unless he/she think that they weren't tagged in error. Renard Migrant (talk)
Delete all except -top and -bottom. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
@Kc kennylau: Can you please withdraw the nomination for {{col-top}} and {{col-bottom}}? --WikiTiki89 16:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Partially kept T:col-top and T:col-bottom. Still waiting for @Purplebackpack89 to explain his/her vote. --kc_kennylau (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
This would hardly be the first one-word vote ever cast. Anyway, I believe that they are useful templates. It doesn't bother me in the slightest that there are multiple templates that do similar things. Purplebackpack89 02:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
So you wouldn't object if these were all replaced with something more up-to-date, you'd only object to their deletion? Renard Migrant (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant I do not object to the creation of additional column templates. Purplebackpack89 18:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Deprecate but keep. Use AbuseFilter to deprecate it on the technical level by preventing saving pages that contain the template if possible or explain why it is not possible. Point: make page histories legible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete all except for -top and -bottom, not used. Enosh (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Template:nominative singular of, Template:accusative plural of, Template:vocative singular of, etc.[edit]

These templates are currently used to some extent but they are minimal wrappers around {{inflection of}}. The latter is used more commonly and is more flexible. I'm thinking the case-specific templates should be bot-replaced by the appropriate invocation of {{inflection of}}, then orphaned and eventually deleted: e.g.

Benwing2 (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I think if people want to use these they should be allowed to. Not everyone will understand how to use {{inflection of}}, so people might just start just not using a template at all, and just writing it out. As you say bot replacements are very easy, so instead of deleting these, discourage their use (on documentation subpages) and replace them by bot. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Deprecate, possibly using abuse filter, but keep to make page histories legible. From what I remember, this was placed by CodeCat to many pageswithout discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


Apparently this template edited the header of pages like |, but that is the job of MediaWiki:Common.js now. It was replaced by a simple {{DEFAULTSORT}}, as of diff. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this should be reversed. We should rely on JavaScript as little as possible. If it doesn't have to be in JS, it shouldn't be. —CodeCat 18:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I tentatively agree. Javascript is a whole nother can of worms to learn and the MediaWiki extensions don't appear to be well-documented, unlike for Lua. Benwing2 (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, the duplication in the title map and reverse title map is bogus; one should be derived from the other. Benwing2 (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
It does seem to exist purely for the sake of documentation (you need to go back in its history to msh210's edits to see it), as DEFAULTSORT is a magic word, not a template (like PAGENAME) and magic words don't have documentation subpages. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

February 2016[edit]

Template:empty line[edit]

Doesn't look like it is used, also doesn't look like it works if it is used. @DCDuring @Wyang may have thoughts? - TheDaveRoss 17:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

My "contribution" was limited to inserting the template for transcluding the missing documentation. I am unable to determine what it does by inspecting the code. DCDuring TALK 20:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
It does do something. —suzukaze (tc) 08:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
What's it supposed to do, and why? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
It's transcludedused in other subst'ed templates. It seems to me that the only questions can be about the utility of those other templates, which are designed to be used to create new entries in zh, ko, ne, etc. DCDuring TALK 19:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I still think "What's it supposed to do, and why?" are valid questions. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Aryamanarora, Wyang may have the answers you seek. DCDuring TALK 22:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
As User:suzukaze-c said above, it is substituted when some autocreation templates are substituted to generate a new line. Why? Because they were written before Lua and writing modules is time-consuming hard yakka. Wyang (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Why not just use the enter key? Renard Migrant (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't work as expected. Wyang (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Now we're getting to the issue. Why not, or, what does it actually do? Renard Migrant (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Is it the <includeonly> issue? Just do a null edit if documentation is transcluded in other pages. Also see WT:Grease pit/2016/February if you have no idea what I'm talking about. (I'm not exactly sure why I was pinged; I have no idea how to use this template)Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 22:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
By mistake, I think. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I was pinged because I'd edited the page to include {{documentation}}, {Aryamanarora was pinged because he'd edited the template once. DCDuring TALK 00:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

lol people are arguing about an empty line. Equinox 13:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I am happy to withdraw the nomination, I just happened upon this and didn't see any usage. The parser error it was causing has been remedied so there is no reason to delete. - TheDaveRoss 13:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


This template is unused and t-needed should be used instead if someone wants a translation for a specific language. Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Redirect {{treq}} to {{t-needed}}, and eventually move {{t-needed}} to {{treq}} because 4 keystrokes are fewer than 8. DCDuring TALK 20:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
It won't work as they don't work the same way. {{treq}} doesn't take a language, and {{t-needed}} requires one. If you're only proposing this for the name change then please, just propose the name change on its own. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Though @DCDuring if your aim is to break Wiktionary pages, I say you're doing the right thing. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I just want the end result to be fewer keystrokes. {{t-req}} would be a name consistent with our current naming practices. Now, if we could just get some contributors who will fulfill some of those requests.... DCDuring TALK 17:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Well we can't redirect while it's still being used as they're not compatible, so we delete first and rename later. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete. —CodeCat 20:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Deprecate but keep. Use AbuseFilter to deprecate it on the technical level by preventing saving pages that contain the template if possible or explain why it is not possible. Point: make page histories legible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Hindi lexical roots[edit]

A user wants to propose (forcefully) a new category for lexical roots. I thought we could discuss it here. Surely if nothing else 'lexical' is redundant. What other sort of root could it be, a botanical root? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Redundant indeed. At the very least, rename to Category:Hindi roots to parallel Category:Sanskrit roots, Category:Hebrew roots, etc. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
A little context: the user came across the entries for -राज ‎(-rāj) and राज- ‎(rāj-), which are obviously not affixes. Their solution was to invent a POS of "lexical root" to put them in. The solution that I and User:Aryamanarora chose was to nominate both the prefix and suffix for deletion as nothing more than राज ‎(rāj) used in compounds. I give User:MWMKdu credit for recognizing the problem, even though I think their solution is wrong, with the potential for causing problems elsewhere- such as justifying entries for black- and -bird (as in blackbird) or bird- and -house (as in birdhouse). That said, There may very well be bound morphemes not found independently that have fallen through the cracks in our POS system- but I don't think राज ‎(rāj) is one of them. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed - the whole thing with "roots" can get very ambiguous at times, and we do not want to go there. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 02:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
We don't have an entry for -ceive, but if we did, what would we call it? We call -philia a suffix and phil- a prefix, but that doesn't really capture the fact that they're really the same thing just at opposite ends of the word. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


"This user is either a robot, an animal, or a feral child who speaks no languages. Assistance is required." Some kind of joke? Equinox 15:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course. In defence of Kephir it may not have said that when he created it as it invokes a module and modules can be edited. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't mean anything to me. Is there any reason for the dictionary project to keep this kind of smug bullshittery? Equinox 22:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Kephir was the only editor of module:Babel which generates the message.
It looks to me that this was a test of an error message in Module:Babel to be generated when function make_tower was called without the proper parameters (or something like that). It might conceivably have some value in checking whether the code of the module has been messed with, but that is beyond my paygrade. DCDuring TALK 23:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I think the "feral child" nonsense is just a default message used when no languages are given to the template: see [2]. The template seems to be fully functional. —suzukaze (tc) 23:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Error messages should not be "joky". This only amuses the programmer, never the user, and it drives me mad when Microsoft Office uses chatty slang to tell me that my work was lost. Can we please make this more neutral and professional? Equinox 00:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The need is not to change the template, but to edit the module, which requires no special expertise: even a feral child could do it. But what should the message say? DCDuring TALK 00:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can see, it's linked to, but not used, so deleting it would cause very minor damage. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't tell me you're another tidiness freak. DCDuring TALK 19:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
If its only purpose is for Kephir to link to it in a single discussion, it shouldn't be in the template namespace. Userfy as User:Kephir/Babel/x (or any other suitable title). Renard Migrant (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Good idea. DCDuring TALK 23:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Renard: If its only purpose is for Kephir to link to it in a single discussion, it shouldn't be in the template namespace. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
    @Equinox: I replaced the objectionable text in diff; if you have a better idea, please go ahead. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016[edit]


It's just Template:w but with italics. To me this is pretty obviously Daniel running away with his template-o-philia, and creating shit we don't need (who could possibly need this?!) out of the sheer binary bit-dick-thrusting pleasure of creating stupid shit. We need to stamp on this crap and kill it. If you want italics, we already have a perfectly good way to do italics, which I showed in the beginning of this sentence. We do not need two versions of every template, a plain version and an italic version. Hopefully I don't need to show why this is stupid, but let's just suppose that we want to show some text either in italics, bold, underline, or italics AND bold, or italics AND underline, or all three, or etc.... this is not why we have templates. It's just gratuitous code-fuckery. We need to stop this. Who is with me? Equinox 23:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the template should remain deleted. I disagree with the assholish parts, but I'm going to assume that you've just been drinking again. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
LOL, you are completely right and I apologise for being a dick. Sometimes the beer wants to talk. I still agree with nominating this for deletion but I did it in a very stupid way. Equinox 03:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
No problem. Also, I don't mind about the template remaining deleted. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with this deletion; reminds me of Wonderfool's {{wikipédia}} which was just {{wikipedia|lang=fr}} (and yes some other languages use the spelling wikipédia). Renard Migrant (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:English words prefixed with præ-[edit]

This is just an archaic form of pre-, so it doesn’t need its own category. Alternative forms should not have etymologies, and I don’t know any exceptions to that rule. --Romanophile (contributions) 13:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

There might be some terms that are attested first with præ- then later with pre- (as in the original formation of the word) I have no real objection to this category but not real objection to deleting it either. Etymologies for alternative forms are generally needless reduplication but they're not banned; Old French isnel and ignel come to mind as the ig forms are under the influence of Latin and the non ig forms aren't. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
It's almost enough to make one miss Mr. Digraph himself: User:Doremitzwr. DCDuring TALK 15:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:langrev and subtemplates[edit]

A leftover from the pre-Lua days. I'm surprised that this is even still around. —CodeCat 19:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

This has unfortunately, predictably fallen out of date, but it is still a crucial component of Conrad's very widely used translation-adding aid. (As a test, I just tried to add a translation into "Foraba" (listed as an alt name of ppo and nothing else in the module) and Conrad's script couldn't handle it, but when I created Template:langrev/Foraba, it could.) Either that tool should be switched to use Module:languages (pulling canonical names and unique non-canonical names), or we should have a bot periodically update Template:langrev with fresh data from the modules. Keep unless the former happens. - -sche (discuss) 20:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete. --Dixtosa (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Obviously delete as soon as it's possible to do so (but not while still being used, also obviously). Renard Migrant (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Deprecate but keep. Point: make page histories legible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
    The only way to really keep page histories 100% legible is to not change anything, ever. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
    These were mostly subst: templates and not use other than with subst: in the main namespace. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
    The only way of keeping my bathroom 100% clean is not use it => I'll stop cleaning my bathroom right now. Is that what you mean? --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    I think that's what you mean, actually. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    Are there old versions of pages that call this template? I thought it was used subst'ed, or by other templates (the workings of which have been changed, so that their functioning in old versions of pages is no longer affected by this template) and scripts like the one that assists in adding translations. - -sche (discuss) 06:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


Has been replaced in all cases with {{fr-conj-auto}}. I see no reason why we'd ever go back to the non-Lua versions. Pretty much all the {{fr-conj}} templates should go in time when the modules are complete, unless there's a reason not to. This one is however orphaned already as fr-conj-auto handles all cases where it is used. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

{{fr-conj-cer}} and {{fr-conj-ger}} seem to be also orphaned. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete. --Romanophile (contributions) 13:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
{{fr-conj-ir}}. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC) (apologies for not signing at first)
Delete. —JohnC5 03:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Eventually, {{fr-conj-auto}} should be moved to {{fr-conj}}. --WikiTiki89 19:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I concur. —JohnC5 03:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Deprecate but keep. Use AbuseFilter to deprecate it on the technical level by preventing saving pages that contain the template if possible or explain why it is not possible. Point: make page histories legible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
    I don't think we should worry too much about old page histories being legible. Delete, even though I made loads of those templates back years ago. --AK and PK (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
    Bear in mind Dan Polansky is the only user who prefers deprecating to deleting, and the reason is we'd have to do a lot of harm to Wiktionary in order to do that. That's why he's the only one. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
    I remember User:TheDaveRoss also preferred deprecation, but I may be wrong. Anyway, where is the stregth of the argument? Of course we would not do any harm to Wiktionary by deprecating templates by technical means. No harm has been explained. Let Renard explain the harm in clear terms. Let Renard explain why deprecation via AbuseFilter would not work. One great feature of wikis are the revision histories: let's keep them legible so that looking into them isn't painful. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    It is true, I prefer non-breaking changes to breaking changes when possible. It is true that it is hard to manage deprecation. - TheDaveRoss 11:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    The problem is you have to leave the templates as-is, i.e. do nothing. You can't even change them to outside the main namespace only. I wholly reject Dan Polansky's proposal as intrinsically bad for Wiktionary as it means keeping everything ever for no real value. Page histories are actually readable as long as you know what the red links mean, and anyone who doesn't is unlikely to be looking at page histories. There's a reason he's the only person on any wiki ever to make this argument. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    You want to remove the template from the mainspace as obsolete and make sure via technical means it does not return. That is not exactly "do nothing". That's not "keeping everything ever"; that is keeping most of the templates that were more broadly used. The reader may find the argument with "the only person" as conspicuous as I do, a logical fallacy. Of course, we decide by consensus and if I'm the only person, the template will be deleted, but "there's a reason he's the only person" really is not a substantive argument but rather admission of lack of substantive arguments. And indeed, phrase like "keeping everything ever" that conspicuously fail to differentiate suggests good arguments are sorely missing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
    In #Template:term, nominated for deletion by Renard Migrant, I am, luckily so far, no the only person supporting keeping. Keeping {{term}} is much more urgent than the presently discussed conjugation template since the argument of {{term}} is the foreign-language term being referenced and hence after template deletion the actual content becomes invisible in the revision history as shown. I think Renard has to do a real rethinking of his position in view of legibility of revision histories, especially for templates like {{term}}. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
    Though I want to keep term, I'm one of the keepers. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


Current wt:TR contains 38 + 69 discussions but only 6 of them is tagged (rough estimation).

In the past the problem of broken links to tea room has been pointed out by many editors but never got solved. And to be honest it is unfair to ask editors to remove the template when the discussion is done.

Also, it takes up huge part of a page and is ugly too.

And most importantly, how often have we encountered an anon user taking part in a tea room discussion? --Dixtosa (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep. if it's too big make it smaller, that's not a deletion reason. Anons taking part in discussions, what does this have to do with this template? It works the same whether you're logged in or not. "[U]nfair to ask editors to remove the template" since we're now using monthly discussion pages, why not add a month= parameter and then we can see which entries have been tagged for a month, two months or more. I don't feel like anything you've said leads me to think this should be deleted. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Editors are aware of Tea room and have it in their watchlist if they are interested.
I don't feel like anything you've said leads me to think this should be deleted
How about the fact that 6 pages are tagged? Clearly the community has either forgotten it or has found it worthless. --Dixtosa (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I feel like you're saying misuse of a template is the fault of the template, not the editor. Therefore, {{m}} should also be deleted as it is sometimes misused? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Weak keep as a redirect at least (I see it is being replaced with another template). It matches the form of the other rf- templates. I am sympathetic to the point that "it is unfair to ask editors to remove the template when the discussion is done" and they often don't. - -sche (discuss) 17:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
If we keep this and t:tea room then I am going to make rft only subst:-able which will automatically add current month and year. this will be a new rft.
It matches the form of the other rf- templates. but request for tea room makes no sense, rite? --Dixtosa (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Why not? Sometimes you don't want a sense deleted and it's not bad enough for clean up, you just want to discuss it as it may contain errors, be misleading, etc. I note that {{rft-sense}} is not nominated for deletion. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I think that the use of in-page discussion-referral templates should be mandatory and that discussions without such a template should be terminated with prejudice. Three failures to do so should lead to a warning, five to removal of adminship, ten to a short block and a dozen to indefinite block. Instances of failure to enforce the policy (participation in a discussion that has no such template) should be punished on the same schedule. Same thing for links from the discussion to the entry. This would make my life much easier, which should be sufficient reason for us to have such a policy.
Keep. DCDuring TALK 10:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I would support DC's proposal if it wasn't an election year. Since it is an election year I think it is soft on crime and wonder what checkered past has lead him to be so lenient towards offenders. - TheDaveRoss 12:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Dixtosa re: "And most importantly, how often have we encountered an anon user taking part in a tea room discussion?"
Are you saying that there is no value to a user in reading such discussions without actively participating? Or are you saying that there is no value to us to having a user passively read them? I'm not sure which of the two I find more repulsive. DCDuring TALK 13:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is a difference between deleting a template and not using it. I don't use it because I don't think it's necessary, but that doesn't mean I think it should be deleted. --WikiTiki89 13:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Deprecate {{rft}}. I think this kind of overhead is somewhat justifiable in RFD and RFV discussions, but not really for Tea Room. Since in these, one of the end results is deletion. Even in RFD and RFV, the value of RF- templates in the mainspace is not absolutely obvious, but at least plausible. For someone to want to prevent bad deletions, it is much more effective to monitor WT:RFD or WT:RFV than watch a huge list of potential targets of bad deletion and hope to notice their RFD or RFV nomination via watchlist. However, I think this discussion is better suited for Beer parlour. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Appendix:Place names/Greater Manchester[edit]

This doesn't seem to be a good place for this. Especially as we have an entry for Greater Manchester. AK and PK (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Delete: redundant to mainspace entry. Equinox 12:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

April 2016[edit]

Appendix:Pronunciation of Hong Kong[edit]

Unremarkable; see 香港#Pronunciation, as well as 中華人民共和國#Pronunciation and 特別行政區#Pronunciation. —suzukaze (tc) 17:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete. It is not even linked to from Hong Kong. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
    I think it was an experiment and has obviously not caught on; we sometimes use auto-collapsed sections for large pronunciation sections. Let's do that. Per SemperBlotto, it's not even linked to. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    It looks like it was imported from Wikipedia. —suzukaze (tc) 17:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Vyadhikarana compounds by language[edit]

And its subcategories. Not only is the word vyadhikarana so obscure that I cannot even find a good definition anywhere, but it also seems to be a concept that applies only to Sanskrit and related languages, and not to English, German, or Hawaiian, the three languages we actually have this category for. --WikiTiki89 21:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

There would be more point to categorizing noun compounds whose head is the first element (eg, attorney-general, mother-in-law), ie a head-modifier structure. It might be useful to do case categories the normal modifier-head structure (home team (locative), boathouse (dative), railroad (genitive), etc.) With that kind of grounding one could conceivably find some sense in which vayadhikarana or other such Sanskrit-derived grammar terms might have applicability. dvandva is the only one that I know to have been assumed into English. DCDuring TALK 22:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
#Category:English vyadhikarana compounds is already nominated above with an apparent consensus to delete. I also don't know what it means especially if it's so rare it cannot be defined in English due to lack of English usage of the word. So yeah, delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)