Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from Wiktionary:RFM)
Jump to: navigation, search
Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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.

Requests for verification
add new English request | add new non-English request | history | archives

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

{{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfi}} -

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

This page is designed to discuss moves (renaming pages) mergers and splits. Its aim is to take the burden away from the beer parlour and requests for deletion where these issues were previously listed. Please note that uncontroversial page moves to correct typos, missing characters etc. should not be listed here, but moved directly using the move function.

  • Appropriate: Renaming categories, templates, Wiktionary pages, appendices, rhymes and occasionally entries. Merging or splitting temp categories, templates, Wiktionary pages, appendices, rhymes.
  • Out of scope: Merging entries which are alternative forms or spellings or synonyms such as color/colour or traveled/travelled. Unlike Wikipedia, we don't redirect in these sort of situations. Each spelling gets its own page, often employing the templates {{alternative spelling of}} or {{alternative form of}}.
  • Tagging pages: To tag a page, you can use the general template {{rfm}}, as well as one of the more specific templates {{move}}, {{merge}} and {{split}}.

Contents

Unresolved requests from before January 2014[edit]

Template:deftempboiler into Template:form of[edit]

There doesn't seem to be a crucial difference between these two templates, and they are both used for the same things. So I think merging them would be better, while adding the missing functionality of one to the other. See WT:GP#Singulative help for prior discussion. —CodeCat 11:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Any merge must be effected carefully so that transcluded instances are not affected. (Or at least so that transcluded instances of {{deftempboiler}} aren't affected. Preferably also {{form of}}, but it's been edited in a way that affects transcluded instances without those pages ever thereafter being checked for still-accuracy, so further bad edits wouldn't be the end of the world.) If that's done, I support.​—msh210lic (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Arabic numerals[edit]

This name is misleading. Based on how our categories are named, you would expect this to contain terms in the Arabic language, but it doesn't. It should probably be named something like Category:Hindu-Arabic numerals, or something else than 'numerals'. —CodeCat 11:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, Hindu-Arabic isn't ideal, but it's a whole lot better. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I noticed we also have Category:Roman numerals. These categories have no indication of language, presumably because they are translingual. But I'm not sure if Category:Translingual Hindi-Arabic numerals sounds any better. —CodeCat 15:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If it's translingual, would it include ,,,,,,,,, or ١,٢,٣,٤,٥,٦,٧,٨,٩,٠? Chuck Entz (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I support, it’s a more correct name. — Ungoliant (Falai) 16:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Human[edit]

This should be renamed Category:Humans. Compare Category:People, Category:Social sciences, Category:Given names. - -sche (discuss) 05:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Or Category:Humanity. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Support Humanity (lol) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Wait, what's the different between this and Category:People? Is there one? Should there be one? - -sche (discuss) 07:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, cats like 'Emotions', 'Age', and 'Thinking' seem better placed in 'Humanity' than in 'People' IMO. So I think we oughn't to delete it, just rename it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Ossetian[edit]

Template:os

The Digor and Iron dialects of Ossetian seem quite different, and already many (most?) of our entries distinguish which is meant. It seems to me that there is a fair chance that the two are separate enough to deserve being called different languages here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I've seen them referred to as separate languages before, but there's still some debate over that. Doesn't matter to me. But would there still be plain Ossetian language entries or would all be sorted into the new languages? There are some that aren't labelled as either Iron or Digor.Word dewd544 (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Iron is by far the more common dialect, and the literary Ossetian language is based on Iron. However, Digor is different enough that it could be considered a separate language. The main things against it here are the relatively small number of speakers and that it does not yet have a written standard, as far as I know. But there is now a Digor dictionary out there, and it’s probably just a matter of time before Digor develops a literary standard of its own. I think it’s unlikely that we will get enough Digor contributions to make a difference, but it is always possible that someone will start entering words from a Digor dictionary. The Digor language code is oss-dig. We could use os for Ossetian proper (and Iron), and oss-dig for Digor. —Stephen (Talk) 02:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
In that case, I support. — Ungoliant (Falai) 03:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
A standard language based on one widely-spoken dialect, and another lect sometimes considered a dialect and sometimes considered its own language? This reminds me of Tosk vs Gheg Albanian: some references say they're mutually unintelligible separate languages, speakers say their differences present no impediment to communication. Unfortunately, we lack speakers of the Ossestian lects, and the dictionary of Digor is said to waffle, the author calling it a language and the editor calling it a dialect. Stephen is probably right that it's just a matter of time before Digor develops its own standard (and merits separation as much as Luxembourgish and Limburgish do from each other and from German); OTOH, Wiktionary, like Wikipedia, is not a crystal ball. My preference would be to wait and not split them for now. If we do split them, I agree with using {{os}} for Iron (compare {{lt}} and {{sgs}}), and we should devise an exceptional code for Digor that fits our usual naming scheme (ira-odg or ira-dig), rather than using Linguist List's ersatz "oss-dig". - -sche (discuss) 03:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:English terms with obsolete senses[edit]

As per the discussion in the Beer Parlor, I suggest that this category be reserved only for words that are not fully obsolete (i.e., that contain at least one current sense), and that all words that have only obsolete senses (i.e., fully obsolete words) be moved back to Category:English obsolete terms. (I think it would be better to, as CodeCat suggested, simply leave non-fully obsolete words uncategorized, which would imply eventually deleeting Category:English terms with obsolete senses, but I'm OK with leaving it there for partially obsolete words if others want that.) --Pereru (talk) 08:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

SupportCodeCat 02:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to support it, but not if there is no implementation scheduled. I would not be happy if this was our policy and two months from now most of the terms that were supposed to be in it were not. We need a dump run to identity the L2 sections that need the categorization. And maintaining it really should be part of an AF-type bot. I do hope that this is intended to be applied to all living languages. Are all obsolete tags not in English marked with lang= tags? DCDuring TALK 13:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I would also support requiring lang=en for these tags, because people constantly forget those tags and put entries in the English categories. In fact the whole "English as default" thing doesn't work too well... I've lost count of how many instances of {{term}} without a language I've had to fix... —CodeCat 13:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
How can implementation be scheduled? How are such actions decided? (I've just created a {{obsolete term}} for fully obsolete terms, and I plan to slowly add it to all Latvian words for which it is appropriate, so as to slowly fill Category:Latvian obsolete terms; but how about English and all the other languages?) --Pereru (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC) I've just transfered abstrude and a few other similar terms to Category:English obsolete terms by changing the tag from {{obsolete}} to {{obsolete term}}. Is that part of what should be happening? --Pereru (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Should {{obsolete}} be used for obsolete senses or obsolete terms? Using it for obsolete terms has one advantage: anyone can skim the list of obsolete terms and immediately spot a word they know is still in use. Trying to spot a completely-obsolete term among a list of terms with obsolete senses would be much harder. —CodeCat 02:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, people are more likely to use the shorter, generic name {{obsolete}} where it doesn't belong than to use the longer, explicit name {{obsolete term}} where it doesn't belong, so I think using {{obsolete}} only for obsolete terms and not for senses would be counter-intuitive and a bad idea. My preference would be to use {{obsolete}} for senses... but perhaps we should insist upon two explicitly named templates, {{obsolete term}} and {{obsolete sense}} (both with the display text "obsolete"?). Using two explicitly dedicated templates would make separate categorisation of entirely obsolete terms and of terms with obsolete senses practical, too. Btw, the "obsolete terms" category could be a subcategory of the "terms with obsolete senses" category, like "proper nouns" are a subcategory of "nouns". And we could keep {{obsolete}} (because new users and visitors from other projects may call it directly or in creative ways, like {{context|UK|obsolete|_|outside of|_|dialects}}), but treat its Whatlinkshere as a standing, self-updating cleanup list. - -sche (discuss) 04:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree with -sche above; {{obsolete sense}} would make, well, sense. But now there's one thing bugging me: shouldn't fully obsolete terms have the "obsolete" tag somewhere in their inflection line? Or else we'd have to add an {{obsolete term}} tag to every single sense, or else we imply that one of the obsolete senses is actually current... --Pereru (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC) By the way, in principle everything applies mutatis mutandis to the other Period labels archaic and {{dated}}, right? --Pereru (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
So you are saying that obsoleteness of a term is not a context? I suppose that is true, but we don't have any system currently in place for indicating term-wide contexts. This has been a problem in the past too... for example {{cardinal}} or {{personal}} shouldn't really be usage labels either. —CodeCat 03:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
We indicate obsolescence on the sense line when only one of several senses is obsolete, so I think obsolescence should also be indicated on the sense line when all senses are obsolete: indicating obsolescence on each sense line in all cases adds clarity. Meanwhile, we indicate on the inflection/headline line when certain inflected forms are obsolete (or dialectal, etc; see [[learn]], [[work#verb]], etc): so indicating the obsolescence of senses on the inflection line, when the inflected forms are not any more obsolete (or {{dated}}!) than the word itself, would be confusing. I expect some people wouldn't notice the tag on the inflection line, and would thus think that no sense was obsolete (not what you want), or would notice the tag but think (logically) than it applied to the inflections and again that the senses were not obsolete (again, not what you want)... I think it's better to indicate the obsolescence of the senses on the sense line. (How many highly polysemous obsolete words are there, anyway?) - -sche (discuss) 05:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
We don't do this for any other register or dialect: We don't have separate categories for US-only terms and for those with US-only senses, nor separate categories for math-specific terms and for those with math-specific senses. Why should obsolete be different?​—msh210 (talk) 06:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
For one thing, it would give us a list of terms which a bot could use to identify terms that should probably not be used in definitions. The same would be true in varying degrees for {{archaic}}, {{dated}}, {{rare}}, and possibly others. DCDuring TALK 10:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Nautical[edit]

It is rather unusual for us to use a bare adjective as a category name. I can't really think of anything substantially better, but if someone has an idea, I'd be glad to hear it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Sailing is already taken as a subcat (though I don't know what the difference is supposed to be), so perhaps Category:Nautical terminology? —Angr 13:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe Category:Sailing has to do specifically with sailboats: you can set sail in a submarine, but the verb "surface" isn't a sailing term (unless you're doing a really bad job of it)... Chuck Entz (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
What about Category:Boating? That's what Wikipedia's Sailing category is a subcat of. —Angr 15:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I like your previous suggestion, Nautical terminology. If you take a look, a lot of it is sailors' slang. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
There is slang, and there is jargon. The sailing argot of the late 19th-early 20th century was also translingual; there is ample evidence the industry required proficiency in the technical language but did not require the ability to otherwise communicate with colleagues or officers. Much of nautical terminology refers to maritime and shipping law, e.g. Singapore was established as an entrepôt port (which term is completely lacking the tax-relevant character: it is a port/warehouse at which goods may be stored for transshipment without incurring taxes.) - Amgine/ t·e 19:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
No other categories, AFAICT, use "terminology" in their name, so I support Angr's suggestion of Category:Boating. - -sche (discuss) 00:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't love it, but I could go with Boating. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I say to leave the category "nautical" as it is. "Boating terms" is just a subset of "nautical terms." "Watercraft" would be the term for for both surface and submarine vessels (as well as seaplanes technically). However, I do think we need more subcategories within "category:nautical" since "nautical" is a very vague and comprehensive term that can also be applied to (nautical) meteorological terms (e.g. hurricanes and waterspouts) as well as to swimming and diving terms, nautical myths and legends (e.g. krakens, mermaids, and Atlantis), and a very large number of names for ocean animals, particularly those used in the fishing industry. Nicole Sharp (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Perhaps the category can be changed actually to having a supercategory of "category:sea" and then subdivide that into categories of (saltwater) terms for watercraft, water navigation, seaports, sea animals, sea plants, sea myths and legends, seaborne activities, etc. Nicole Sharp (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:US State Capitals[edit]

This category-rename request was listed on RFC all the way back in 2009, before this page existed (IIRC). I've moved it here in the hope that we can finally address it.

This topical category that is a subcategory of Category:Capital cities needs a rename, but there are several logical possibilities, so I wanted to get some input.

Category:US state capitals
The simplest rename, but still somewhat clunky and not well suited to be paralleled for similar topical categories covering other countries. Plus I'd prefer to avoid using US in category names.
Category:American state capitals
Better suited to paralleling, say for example in Category:Canadian provincial capitals, but unlike Category:American English, I don't think the ambiguity of American can be justified on the grounds of euphony.
Category:State capitals of the United States
Form that I'd happen to prefer. However...
Category:State capitals in the United States
... is the form used on Wikipedia, but the equivalent categories for other countries are a mixture of in and of so I don't see a compelling reason to blindly follow Wikipedia here.

In short unless consensus calls for another choice, I'll see about moving these over to Category:State capitals of the United States in about a week or so. — Carolina wren discussió 03:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I prefer an option not listed: Category:Capital cities of US states. --EncycloPetey 01:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should go with Carolina Wren's Option 1 and move this to Category:US state capitals. - -sche (discuss) 02:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see why we need this category. Isn't Category:Cities enough? --WikiTiki89 02:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Hm, this category is the one outlier in Category:Capital cities; we never actually had the Category:Canadian provincial capitals which Carolina wren mentioned. OTOH, extreme overcategorization of placenames does seem to be the fashion of the day; see the categories which were recently created, one for each of the various Divisions of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. I don't actually have a strong opinion on whether it stays or goes... just that if it stays, everything after "US" should be lowercase. - -sche (discuss) 06:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I would go as far as to say that we don't even need Category:Capital cities. If people want a list of capital cities, they can go to Wikipedia. --WikiTiki89 13:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Years after Carolina Wren first brought this up, I've moved the page to Category:State capitals of the United States of America (using the full country name to fit with other categories where it is used, particularly Category:Cities in the United States of America). - -sche (discuss) 04:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Category names containing "US"[edit]

I believe that the punctuated U.S. is the more formal usage, and has the advantage of not being mistaken for an all-caps instance of the word, "us". I therefore propose to move all categories containing "US" (e.g. Category:US State Capitals, Category:fr:US States, and Category:Southern US English) to titles containing "U.S.". By my count, this covers about 50 categories in total. If approved, I will be glad to do all of the renaming and recategorization. bd2412 T 21:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I actually think we'd be better off renaming them to categories containing the unabbreviated "United States". --WikiTiki89 21:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I would absolutely agree with that, as it eliminates all possible ambiguity. For states, we would have to change it to "States of the United States" to avoid the alliteration of "United States States". bd2412 T 22:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
We wouldn't have to, but I agree it would make it less awkward. Anyway, I see no problem with "States of the United States". --WikiTiki89 22:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. At least part of the time, people have to type these category names by hand, and even a couple of extra characters every time can be a nuisance (I'm surprised you aren't going all the way and suggesting "the United States of America").
I fail to see how the "US" in category names could ever be mistaken for a pronoun- do you really think people are going to look at Category:US States and mistake it for a colloquial version of "we states"?
It looks very much to me like a solution in search of a problem, with no real benefit, unless you can call forcing people to do more typing a benefit. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Our category names, being part of the visible public product, should at least look formal and professional. bd2412 T 04:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Support renaming to "United States". Note that we do currently have Category:Languages of the United States of America (rather than Category:Languages of the United States); I don't know if it should be renamed for consistency. - -sche (discuss) 18:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
For an English-speaking audience, "of America" is indeed probably superfluous. bd2412 T 21:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Is there any further comment/opinion on this? bd2412 T 00:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Attributive US and noun United States. So US state capitals (caps sic) and Languages of the United StatesMichael Z. 2014-03-16 04:11 z
Is that just an opinion on whether United States should be spelled out, or is it also addressed to the question of whether we should use a punctuated U.S.? bd2412 T 18:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Both. These are also the forms recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style. Michael Z. 2014-03-17 21:56 z
I see no reason to abbreviate. --WikiTiki89 21:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Meänkieli (fit) and Kven (fkv) into Finnish (fi)[edit]

Finnish dialects

I think that linguists consider these to be dialects of Finnish, so that would make these pluricentric standards of a single language. I don't know if keeping them separate would hold any value? —CodeCat 14:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's ping our active Finnish speakers to see if they have input: User:Hekaheka and User:Makaokalani. 23:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC) (updated - -sche (discuss) 06:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC))
The impression I get from the example at w:Meänkieli is that the differences are very minor, no more than there might be between Croatian and Serbian. I notice systematic loss of -d- and Finnish -ts- corresponds to -tt- in Meänkieli. They definitely look mutually intelligible. Kven looks a little more different, but it might also just be the spelling; I don't know how hard it would be to the average Finnish speaker. —CodeCat 23:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I know maybe a dozen words of Finnish, so I can't judge for myself, but the impression I get from the Wikipedia articles is that there's an equal or greater range of variation between dialects in Finland as there is with these dialects- if these dialects were on the other side of the Finnish border, they would probably be considered just part of the normal dialectal variation (I'm sure there are some differences due to their isolation from the influence of standard Finnish, as well). They have special status because they're in Sweden and Norway surrounded by Swedish and Norwegian. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Finnish wasn't even a single language to begin with originally. There's several dialect groups that form a continuum, but it's not easy to draw clear lines. Savonian (eastern) dialects for example might well be closer to Karelian (considered a separate language) than they are to western Finnish. —CodeCat 00:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
My impression is the same as Chuck's, that these could be merged. By my (quick) count, we have 11 Meänkieli entries and 14 English entries with Meänkieli translations, and 19 Kven entries and 8 entries with Kven translations. - -sche (discuss) 02:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
For more information see w:Finnish dialects and also w:Peräpohjola dialects. The map to the right may also help. —CodeCat 03:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Blue indicates areas where Finnish is spoken by the majority, and green indictes minority. Meänkieli and Kven are considered Finnish on this map

I somehow missed this discussion when it was active, but better later than never. I have the following comments:

  • The map is outdated. There's practically no Finnish-speaking population left in the areas which were annexed by the Soviet Union during and after the WWII. The map on the right is more up-to-date.
  • There's some Ingrian population left in the St. Petersburg area, but their number and share of population (less than 0,5‰ in Leningrad oblast) is drastically reduced due to 1) inflow of Russians to St. Petersburg, 2) Stalin's terror in the 1930's and 3) emigration to Finland between 1990 and 2011.
  • I'm not sure of Kven-speakers, but the speakers of Meänkieli tend to be quite strong in their opinion that they are not Finnish-speakers. It is probably true that if the border were in another place, Meänkieli would be considered a Finnish dialect. But then again, it would hardly be the same language as it is today - it would have preserved less archaic features and there would be much less Swedish influence in it. If ISO regards it a language, how could we be wiser?
  • Meänkieli is an official minority language in Sweden, and is regarded as distinct from Finnish which also has a (separate) minority language status there.
  • "Finnish wasn't even a single language to begin with originally." -- Show me one that was!

--Hekaheka (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's take a look at our current 15 Meänkieli and 20 Kven lemmas:
  • Meänkieli:
    • Six words indistinguishable from Standard Finnish
    • Two words indistinguishable in shape from Standard Finnish but with dialect-specific meanings
    • Four words with some phonetic peculiarities specific to Northern dialects
    • Two words widespread across Finnish dialects
    • One word that might be specific to the variety, or might be one of the previous
  • Kven:
    • Seven words indistinguishable from Standard Finnish
    • Seven words widespread across Finnish dialects
    • Five words with some phonetic peculiarities specific to Northern dialects
    • One narrow-distribution loanword from Norwegian
So yes, Symbol support vote.svg Support. We could well treat these as Finnish dialects, though I think to account for any local neologisms and such, they would deserve categories of their own under Category:Regional Finnish. --Tropylium (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I've merged Kven into Finnish, relabelling the handful of Kven entries we had, except nelje and kahðeksen, yhðeksen and yhðeksentoista, which don't seem to be attested in any language. (kahdeksen and yhdeksen do seem to be attested as regional variants of the usual Finnish terms.) - -sche (discuss) 05:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Category:Japanese humble language[edit]

Category:Japanese humble terms

I noticed the nonexistent topical category Category:ja:Humble in Special:WantedCategories, and checked, as I often do, whether there was an existing category that already covered the subject. I found these two. The first one was created by User:Haplology, and has more information about Japanese culture, while the other one was created by User:Atitarev along with Category:Korean humble terms, and is more suited to a multi-language series of categories.

It seems to me that Category:Japanese humble terms fits our naming scheme better, so I propose we merge both into that one, and that we convert it and the Korean category to use {{lexiconcatboiler}}, which is designed for this kind of thing. That means creating a category called Category:Humble terms by language with a general description of humble language in its subtemplate. We can then add language-specific details to the Japanese and Korean categories.

I suspect that there aren't many languages that have such well-developed and institutionalized humble lexicons as these do, but I'm sure there are an awful lot of languages that have at least a few such terms- "your humble servant" comes to mind as an English example. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It's only to do with two languages - Korean and Japanese. Note: some people mix "honorific" with "polite" or "formal" but the exact concept currently exists only in Japanese and Korean, even if other languages have similar ideas, "honorific" and "humble" are opposite and used in out- and in-group references.
I have posted on User:Haplology's page some time ago, which is now archived. You can see here: [1]. Haplology admitted that the structure wasn't perfect and needs fixing.
The current setup:
In my opinion it should be:
Which matches Japanese more closely.
@Eirikr might add more to it. I didn't get around to fixing it but I will. It's not a big list. Korean can and should be structured the same way. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The suggested structure above (2) shows that honorific and humble terms are both part of the respectful formal language but honorific is used in reference to outgroup and humble - to ingroup. The concept and usage are critical in formal communication in Japanese and Korean languages. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
We could also put them directly under Category:Japanese formal terms, if that works. —CodeCat 01:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not the same, although if it's related. Category:Japanese honorifics should be a subcategory of Category:Japanese formal terms. "Formal" is opposed to "colloquial" but respectful language is a specific variety, which needs special training, including native Japanese students. E.g. おっしゃる (ossharu, honorific) shows respect to the 2nd/3rd person or outgroup and is never used in self-reference in the polite speech, whereas 申す (mōsu, humble) is used to self-reference or ingroup (even if one talks about own CEO!). Formal words are used regardless who/what they refer to in the formal language, like in any language. An interesting example might be that a person talking to an outsider about own general manager without polite "-san" (e.g. simply Yamada, not Yamada-san) and using humble terms. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Category:Wiktionary:Foo → Category:Wiktionary foo[edit]

I have just finished moving Category:Wiktionary:Language considerations to Category:Wiktionary language considerations in accordance with the discussion above. But that's not the only category that's using "Wiktionary:" as a pseudonamespace. I therefore propose all of the following moves:

If there is consensus to make these name changes, I also request someone with a bot to do it, because the move I did by hand wasn't particularly big, but it sure was tedious. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe some of these should have "Wiktionary" removed from the names. Not sure which though. —CodeCat 14:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Category:Help already exists and it isn't clear what the difference is between it and Category:Wiktionary:Help, so those two probably really should be merged. The same goes for Category:Pronunciation and Category:Wiktionary:Pronunciation: they both exist, but seem to have the same function. Category:Statistics is a topic category covering things like Category:en:Statistics and Category:de:Statistics, so it can't be merged with Category:Wiktionary:Statistics. Category:Translation seems like a good potential topic category too, even though it isn't one yet, so I'd rather keep that one free at least. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I've moved Category:Wiktionary:Help,and Daniel has moved Category:Wiktionary:Transliteration. - -sche (discuss) 18:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Category:Zootomy and Category:Phytotomy[edit]

I request that these categories be moved to Category:Animal anatomy and Category:Plant anatomy respectively. The fuller names are more easily understandable and far, far more common (per b.g.c ngrams) than the terms "zootomy" and "phytotomy". Even Wikipedia uses the more understandable names for their categories. All language-specific subcategories are of course nominated too. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

We now also have Category:Body. The anatomy categories are really meant for technical/medical jargon used in the field of anatomy, not for categorising simple parts of the body generally. I do support the rename, but this is something that should probably be looked at too. —CodeCat 19:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Is Category:Body also for animal bodies? Would we put horn and antler and tail there? Either way it's not really an appropriate place for leaf and stem and petal, which aren't technical jargon but ought to have a home somewhere in our rather chaotic category hierarchy. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Animal bodies share many terms with humans, but the terms for plant bodies are normally entirely separate, so maybe "Animal body" and "Plant body" categories should be created. The former would be a subcategory of "Body", while the latter would be a sister category. When I rearranged many of the categories, my aim was always to split things up in the way that the average human would do. So the categories specifically reflect an anthropocentric view of the world rather than a scientific one necessarily. —CodeCat 21:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I like the idea of having some topic categories for technical terms and other topic categories for everyday terms. When I'm deciding where to categorize a term, I often look at Wikipedia to see where they categorize something, and then try to find the closest corresponding category here. And they definitely categorize Horn (anatomy) and Antler and Tail in
Category:Animal anatomy (or a subcategory of it) and Leaf and Plant stem in
Category:Plant anatomy. (Petal is only in
Category:Plant morphology for some reason; I'm unsure what the difference is supposed to be.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that we have many topical categories that only exist because there is a label that categorises terms in them. For example, {{label|en|anatomy}} will add things to Category:en:Anatomy. As these labels are meant to be used to indicate technical jargon, we've now ended up with a whole category tree full of science terms, including this one. We have never been very consistent in how labels are used, which has caused a proliferation of entries using labels just to categorise, rather than to indicate jargon. It doesn't help either that there has never been any kind of conclusive discussion on what topical categories are meant to achieve in the context of a dictionary, nor how they are delimited from other kinds of categories. Until we answer those more fundamental questions, issues like this will never be solvable. —CodeCat 22:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:English temporal location adverbs to Category:English punctual adverbs[edit]

I think "punctual" is the more common way to describe these? —CodeCat 23:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

"Temporal adverb" is much, more common, though it may include a more diverse group of adverbs DCDuring TALK 00:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe that we are making a mistake to treat all of these in subcategories of parts of speech. We can be free of the tyranny of the word classes that users are familiar with for purposes of categories of this kind, though sadly not for headings. There are nominals that are not nouns, MWEs that are not phrases of any kind. Forcing a category structure to be hierarchical is convenient in a bureaucratic kind of way, but it does a great deal of violence to the reality of things. DCDuring TALK 00:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
There was Category:Latvian temporal adverbs, which I renamed to Category:Latvian time adverbs while also creating Category:English time adverbs. I did this because "temporal" seems like a higher-register word, which is like the distinction between "location" and "locative" - and we already had Category:English location adverbs as noted in the discussion below. So I figured that "time" was a better lexical counterpart to "location" than "temporal". Using "temporal location" is confusing as it gives the impression that these adverbs indicate a place, which they don't of course. But it also misses the point of the category. The defining characteristic is that these refer to punctual moments in time, analogous to adverbs which denote stationary position. They contrast with adverbs like "yearly" or "for a year" which denote frequency and duration respectively. These, of course, are also temporal location adverbs, but they don't belong in this category as they have their own categories (Category:English frequency adverbs and Category:English duration adverbs), so the suggested new name is an attempt to make this more explicit. —CodeCat 21:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Note that the other categories both use nouns attributively instead of adjectives, eg, not "frequent adverbs", but "frequency adverbs". The nouns are chosen because they have a different meaning than the adjectives. "Punctuality" obviously doesn't cut it. Can you think of any other one- or two-word nominal that would be better than "temporal location"? DCDuring TALK 14:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Ain't broke. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    • It is, see my reply above. —CodeCat 21:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
DCDuring is right that "temporal adverbs" is a lot more common than "punctual adverbs". The latter phrase gets only 50 non-redundant raw Google hits, and 47 Google Books hits; the former phrase gets at least 43 pages of Google Books hits (43x10 = 430 hits) before the hits stop actually containing the phrase. "Temporal location adverbs" is the least common of the bunch, getting only 6 Books hits, and it's a moronic / oxymoronic name, because it states that the adverbs refer to places, which they do not. So the question is whether it's sufficient to relabel these as "temporal adverbs", or necessary to give them the narrower label "punctual adverbs"? Are there enough of them that the narrow categorization is necessary? Is the narrow label one people will understand? - -sche (discuss) 22:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, as it is now, we have Category:English time adverbs, but it's a parent category to various other types of adverbs with an aspect of time. The adverbs in question here are just one type. So it wouldn't make so much sense to have "temporal adverbs" as a subcategory of "time adverbs". But it also wouldn't make much sense to have "frequency adverbs" as a subcategory of "temporal adverbs" if the latter is meant to indicate points in time specifically. —CodeCat 17:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Systematics[edit]

This poorly maintained category should be combined with Category:Taxonomy. The poor maintenance arises from the overlap conceptually as well as the poor choice of name for this category. In addition, for some undocumented and unfathomable reason Category:Taxonomy was made a subcategory of Category:Systematics. I think this is symptomatic of the unmaintainablity of the category. DCDuring TALK 19:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Support. —CodeCat 20:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we should merge the two. In the English categories, at least, the members seem to be correctly apportioned between the two, with a handful of exceptions. I do think they should be made sister categories, rather than one being under the other. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I would support that too. —CodeCat 20:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
What are the criteria that distinguish membership in the categories? Many dictionaries have them as synonyms in one or more of the variously defined senses and subsenses, two of which BTW systematics lacks. DCDuring TALK 13:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

Khanty words with /ɬ/[edit]

Requesting a move of a dozen Khanty words:

These have /ɬ/, which is however written ӆ and not ԓ (this is instead, I believe, /ɭ/). Quite a few current entries are sourced from a dictionary (Kononova 2002) which uses a rather ԓ-like but regardless clearly el-with-tail glyph. --Tropylium (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

(Listed here in case anyone wants to argue that ԓ for /ɬ/ is actually a competing dialectal standard that should have precedence. --Tropylium (talk))
I think you are mostly going to talk to yourself in this section. Move, if Tropylium says so. --Vahag (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I would say just go ahead and move them yourself. Unless there's a chance that other languages will have terms using the original spellings, the redirects that you leave will actually be useful for those who make the same mistake when searching. Given the similarity of the characters, I have a hunch scannos from online books might be a major source of these. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, w:Khanty language uses both letters (Ӆ ӆ and Ԓ ԓ). Are you certain that these particular words are spelled with Ӆ ӆ? —Stephen (Talk) 15:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Update: apparently the normative glyph is in fact ԯ (el with descender). However, this has not been widely available in fonts, so ӆ or ԓ have been used as workaround solutions in some materials. (Can anyone reading this actually see the first glyph?) --Tropylium (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Tropylium: Just FYI, the free font Quivira supports Ԯ, ԯ (Ԯ, ԯ). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Tropylium, do these still need to be moved? - -sche (discuss) 22:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
They do, though we never did settle here if we should move them to use ԯ or ӆ. Since the latter is attestable as well, and seems to render better, I would be okay with it (even if we might be setting ourselves up for replacing these again with alternate-spelling soft-redirects some years down the line). --Tropylium (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

it does exactly what it says on the tin[edit]

Move to: do exactly what it says on the tin.

The single citation doesn't actually fit the pattern, since it apparently uses a noun in place of the first "it". But more importantly, "do exactly what it says on the tin", "doing exactly what it says on the tin" and "did exactly what it said on the tin" are all citable (as is the grammatically inconsistent but still logical "did exactly what it says on the tin"). This should be a verb, not a phrase, and the 'it' needs to go. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be even briefer: what it says on the tin, with redirects from and usage examples of the most common extended variations? Just alternates with exactly and neither is essential in use. BTW, the expression is surprisingly recent, apparently with 99% of the Google Books usage being after 2000. And substituting 'can' for 'tin' does not lead to clear examples of idiomatic usage. DCDuring TALK 14:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
One can also find "more or less", "pretty much", etc as qualifiers and what it says on the tin as object of verbs like deliver and as part of a predicate with forms of be. In whatever form the phrase gained its initial popularity, what speakers find peripheral seems to have been discarded or substituted for in a significant portion of usage. Also, it can be found in the past tense: "Many funds proved unable to do what it said on the tin: they could not hedge effectively against volatile markets." (about 'hedge funds') DCDuring TALK 15:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
That would also be a good solution, although the noun is a bit more nebulous to define (as with way out of a paper bag - while I understand why the noun was split off, the definition is quite weird since people think of it as a construction, not a verb + noun phrase). The recentness is not a surprise - the Ronseal adverts that coined the phrase only started in the late 90s. Also unsurprising is the fact that it appears to be about twice as common in UK writing than US writing according to Google Ngrams, and even more UK dominant from a random sample from Google books. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
There two kinds of definitions: gloss and non-gloss.
  1. A gloss might be: "the performance or characteristics implied by a label or name, especially for something whose characteristics cannot be otherwise immediately determined, as an item for sale in concealing packaging"
  2. A non-gloss might be: "Used in expressions that indicate that something is what it appears to be or performs as promised."
Improvements and/or suggestions welcome. DCDuring TALK 20:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The words on the Ronseal tin that are legible in the YouTube are: "Ronseal Decking Stain". Doesn't it seem odd that there should be possible multiple interpretations other than that intended, eg, 1., that Ronseal stains ("soils") decks; 2., that Ronseal is a stain that decks ("knocks down") (say, the person applying it, as due to toxicity of fumes). DCDuring TALK 20:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It's often shortened to "as it says on the tin". Donnanz (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]

drôle[edit]

I can't decide whether to move un drôle de to well, un drôle de or to somehow define it as an adjective and move it back into the adjective section. However, it can't stay as it is. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Dance and Category:Dances[edit]

Can these two categories be merged? It can be a problem deciding which one to use, or whether to select both. Donnanz (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

For some reason we have a bias toward toward using plurals of countable nouns in Category names. Clearly there are words connected with dance that are not dances. DCDuring TALK 13:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
In this case having Category:Dances as a subcategory of Category:Dance seems fine to me. DCDuring TALK 15:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not happy with that, it just adds needless complexity. I will use just Category:Dance for Bokmål and Nynorsk. Donnanz (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Terms for actual dances should go in Category:Dances. —CodeCat 19:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I feel that in some languages where there are few entries (at present) that can go into either category it is better to list them all under one category (Dance). Or maybe there should be a more comprehensive category named "Dancing", replacing both "Dance" and "Dances". Donnanz (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is going to go back when there are more entries, and recategorise them all. So they should be put in the category where they should eventually be, right from the start. —CodeCat 13:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
It shouldn't be a problem to change the category if necessary. I'll do it my way - Frank Sinatra-style. Donnanz (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

Category:Probability, Category:Probability theory and Category:Statistics[edit]

The terminology of probability theory and statistics overlaps so much that there is little point in maintaining the two disciplines as separate topical categories.

I also cannot see the point of maintaining Category:Probability separately from Category:Probability theory — unless it is meant to contain terms used in informal discussions of probability (as opposed to mathematical formalisation thereof).

Also, Category:Linear algebra and Category:Vector algebra are one and the same. I would suggest deleting the latter, except I am too lazy to do a separate nomination for those.

Asking Msh210 to weigh in, just in case. Keφr 19:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, w:vector algebra, q.v., and linear algebra are identical. Probability theory is a far cry, to my mind, from statistics. In particular, their uses are different: lots and lots of people use statistics, and the words that are relevant to statistics, without knowing or caring anything about probability theory. Perhaps one topcat for statistics and applied probability and another for probability theory? But they'll share quite a few words. Perhaps instead one for statistics and one for probability? They, too, will share quite a few words. So I don't know the best course of action. Maybe we should keep the three categories we have now, but rename "Probability" to "Applied probability". If we do decide to have separate topcats for applied probability and for probability theory, then perhaps merge the latter into category:Measure theory?​—msh210 (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I have speedy-merged "Vector algebra" into "Linear algebra". Only three entries were affected: [[գրադիենտ]], [[ristitulo]] and [[vektoritulo]]. Keφr 18:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
As for "lots of people use words relevant to statistics without caring about probability theory" — can you clarify that with an example? Keφr 18:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Practical statisticians, like w:Gonçalo Abecasis and w:Nate Silver, probably know little (and care little) about σ-algebras and probability measures.​—msh210 (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I think these particular two terms would actually fit better in Category:en:Measure theory than in Category:en:Probability theory anyway (yes, even the latter). They are not "purely probabilistic" terms — in fact, I doubt any such terms exist, otherwise I would not propose this merger. Keφr 22:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe they would fit better there. As I said above, "If we do decide to have separate topcats for applied probability and for probability theory, then perhaps merge the latter into category:Measure theory".​—msh210 (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
In that case, the question to ask is what terms are characteristic to "applied probability" as opposed to "pure" probability and statistics. Right now Category:en:Probability contains terms like mgf, stochastic matrix and evens — of which only the latter seems rather non-statistical. On the other hand, it would be awkward to find probability distribution in a category whose name does not mention probability. Keφr 15:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
@Kephir I think you are wrong about no purely probabilistic terms existing. But, even if you are correct, that doesn't in and of itself mean that Category:Probability should be deleted. Msh and I have posited that statistics-only terms exist. Statistics-only terms shouldn't be in the same combination of categories as statistics-and-probability terms; probability could continue to exist as a subcategory of statistics even if no probability-only terms were found to exist. Purplebackpack89 00:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
In defense of the quote "lots of people use words relevant to statistics without caring about probability theory", there are lots of statistics that can be discerned without using probability. Rates, and to a certain extent averages, concern probability, but statistics is also enumerations and changes, which can be calculated without using probability. Purplebackpack89 23:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015[edit]

Template:ast-noun-mf[edit]

April 2012[edit]

Into {{ast-noun}} by adding optional parameters, such as {{fr-noun}}, {{es-noun}}, {{it-noun}} (etc etc etc) have. Bit of a no-brainer, have only really listed it because I don't have time to do it until at least tomorrow. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

February 2015[edit]

Into {{ast-noun}} by adding optional parameters, such as {{fr-noun}}, {{es-noun}}, {{it-noun}} (etc etc etc) have. Bit of a no-brainer. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah no brainer, do it. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:ast-adj-mf[edit]

February 2015[edit]

Into {{ast-adj}} by adding optional parameters, such as {{fr-noun}}, {{es-noun}}, {{it-noun}} (etc etc etc) have. Bit of a no-brainer. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah no brainer, do it. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]

Template:ast-adj-mf and Template:ast-adj should be merged into Template:ast-adj, IMHO. --Zo3rWer (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Support. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

March 2015[edit]

Merge Category:Finnish semelfactive verbs into Category:Finnish momentane verbs[edit]

Finnish grammar does not contrast momentanes and semelfactives. For some reason most verbs are currently categorized in the latter, while the boilerplate at Category:Finnish verbs only links the former. --Tropylium (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015[edit]

Category:WC[edit]

This just sounds too silly, at least from a North American perspective, and is really not something I would ever think to type in if looking for the category. Is there anyone to whom Category:en:Toilet would not be equally or more intuitive than Category:en:WC? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I've complained about this one before, back when it was a template: I would hazard a guess that there are very few in the US that even know what WC refers to. It's also odd to see it categorized under Category:Rooms, especially since it's the only subcategory under it. That means that Category:Feces is a sub-sub-sub-category of Category:Buildings and structures- counterintuitive, to say the least. The other subcategory of Category:WC, Category:Toiletry is another oddity, since it has nothing to do with water closets, and contains Category:Cosmetics
The problem is that all of the common English terms are euphemisms, and most have had considerable evolution in meaning, so there's nothing really clear and obvious worldwide. Strictly speaking, a water closet is the plumbing fixture, but has apparently come to mean the room that houses it. This is also true of toilet, and, I believe, loo, as well (our entry is ambiguous about that). At least water closet isn't ambiguous- toilet also refers to grooming, washing one's face, etc. Another US term, bathroom can refer to a room containing a bath, and lavatory can refer to a sink. Terms such as restroom, and ladies' room/men's room are vague enough that anyone who doesn't already know what they refer to will have no clue from the name. We need to figure out which term is most recognizable in all parts of the world.
As I mentioned above, we really need to rethink this part of the category tree: feces have little to do with buildings, and cosmetics have nothing to do with feces. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
What he said, basically. The whole structure needs redoing. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

June 2015[edit]

Category:Perching birds[edit]

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2015/June#Category:Perching_birds.

This used to be at Category:Passerines, but was moved a few months ago - I would like to suggest it be moved back. Passerines is the more commonly used term (Google Ngram), particularly in the bird community. I doubt perching birds is in particularly common use; the common term is probably songbirds, which is technically inaccurate as it is usually taken to mean only the oscines. Keith the Koala (talk) 11:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I've moved this to the proper venue for such requests. I'll comment on substance shortly. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for redefining the meaning of "shortly"... I renamed the category in the first place in an effort to make it more accessible to general users: I remembered seeing the Passeriformes referred to in various encyclopedias and bird books over the years as the "Perching Birds", and I also wondered if anyone would be confused by the fact that "-ines" names for animals are usually reserved for subfamilies (which end in -inae). Given that most users of this dictionary are probably not "in the bird community" and probably have never heard of terms such as passerines or oscines before coming here, I'm not sure how important it is to reflect usage in this case. That said, there are probably only a handful of languages with enough bird names to even need an intermediate category like this, so it's not really that big a deal. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
"Passerines" is uncommon, but it's not some obscure technical term - turn on Springwatch and you can hear Chris Packham talking about passerines until your wings fall off. "Perching birds" is really no better - nobody actually says "perching birds" except to try and explain what "passerines" means, on top of which it's not SoP (lots of other birds perch) so people might think they understand it when they don't. tbh, I'd be happiest with just lumping all birds in Category:Birds, I think it's easy to overcategorize these things. Keith the Koala (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
"Passerines" remind me of the often-used fungus group, the LBMs (little brown mushrooms).
If we continue to develop vernacular names and taxonomic names in parallel (to the extent that they are parallel), we can have the luxury of different classifications in different languages, not to mention the structure that emerges from Derived terms and the semantic relations headings. The relationships among taxonomic names are likely to diverge increasingly from those among vernacular names.
Among bird names, though, there is a major effort to have vernacular language names that correspond to taxonomic names and relationships. (Similarly with mammals.) The IOC birdname website has English bird family names (sometimes in form like "Kites, hawks, and eagles" or "Pheasants and allies") that seem designed to be in one-to-one correspondence with taxonomic family names. There are frequent correspondences at genus and species level as well. I'm not sure about higher levels.
Birds (Aves) are a class (or a clade) that we have fairly well covered AFAICT. It affords us one of the best opportunities to have good vernacular categorization and naming. I don't see why we don't have categories that correspond to multiple levels of groups of birds, though I would prefer that "bird" be left to at least one of the definition, image, and Hypernyms in the entry to communicate.
Both 'Passerines' and 'Perching birds' seem like high levels of categorization that don't well correspond to words in vernacular language usage. The IOC doesn't help much with terms like 'Oscines' and 'Suboscines'. A vernacular type-based name like 'Sparrow-like birds' would be communicative, but has little else to recommend it. DCDuring TALK 23:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The birding equivalent is LBJs (little brown jobs). Chuck Entz (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]

Category:Telugu years[edit]

May 2012[edit]

Looking at these entries, Year isn't a part of speech, they are as the editor puts it, 'names of years'. Any chance of putting in the entries what years these refer to? 365 days years, or another norm? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I was wondering if they were like Chinese years (year of the dragon etc). But does anyone know? 21:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]

User:Mglovesfun tagged this on 17 May 2012‎. I suppose he meant that it should be moved to Category:te:Jovian years. There are sixty Telugu years, based on the Jovian cycle that repeats every 60 years. Originally used in Sanskrit, see w:Samvatsara. —Stephen (Talk) 06:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]

West African Pidgin English varieties[edit]

Ethnologue has assigned codes to some but not all of the varieties of West African Pidgin English, and we in turn have incorporated some (e.g. pcm) but not all (e.g. not gpe) of those codes. As WP notes, the "contemporary English-based pidgin and creole languages are so similar that they are sometimes grouped together under the name 'West African Pidgin English'" (a name which also denotes their predecessor which developed in the 1700s). WP's examples are illustrative, particularly in that its Ghanaian and Nigerian Pidgin English examples are identical. I propose to merge at least the following three varieties into wes, renaming it "West African Pidgin English":

  1. Ghanaian Pidgin English (gpe)
  2. Nigerian Pidgin English (pcm)
  3. Cameroonian Pidgin English (wes)

We could also discuss whether or not to merge Sierra Leone Krio (kri, which WP notes its often mistaken for English slang due to its similarity to English, but which has a somewhat distinct alphabet), Pichinglis / Fernando Po Creole (fpe), and Liberian Kreyol / Liberian Pidgin English (lir). - -sche (discuss) 21:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The question is a very complex one. Firstly (but of least importance), scholars are divided on which lects have creolised and which have not, but it is generally agreed upon that at least some of the language you mentioned are not pidgins, which would make the name "West African Pidgin English" somewhat of a misnomer (the more neutral name "Wes-Kos" have been suggested as an alternative, but even linguists haven't fully adopted it). Secondly, all these lects are remarkably similar on a lexical level, but that's unsurprising; after all, they resulted from separate but very similar language contact events, and then probably modified each other (one scholar posits that Krio and Cameroonian Pidgin English relexified each other to some degree after pidginisation). The similarities are also obscured by the fact that there is nothing close to an agreed orthography for most of these, and pronunciation does differ a bit across West Africa. Linguistically, I'd probably merge them all, but practically that may not be the best decision. I know we have entries in pcm, but probably next to nothing for the rest, and if somebody wants to add them, given how each lect is very neatly assigned to a certain West African country, at least it won't be confusing for them to do so. Conclusion: the literature is schizophrenic, the lects mutually intelligible, and the existing situation remarkably unproblematic. Therefore I abstain. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Appendix:Glossary of collective nouns by subject[edit]

Appendix:English collective nouns[edit]

Appendix:Glossary of collective nouns by collective term[edit]

(Appendix:English collective nouns is edit protected, so I can't place the template there, but I guess that would be the more sensible target location)

Redundant to each other. Both pages have serious clean-up issues, of course (has anyone ever actually called a group of cheetahs a "coalition", or is that a joke at the expense of perhaps the British coalition government? (Apparently it's in use!) Will anyone ever have need of a collective noun for Jezebels?). Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Most of these fancy collective nouns floating around the Internet are artificial words that amateur philologists pull out of their asses in order to look “cool”. Most of them have never been used and will probably never be used. If you think the ones listed at the page are bad, look at the edit histories. For this reason it is important that the validity of collectives added to these appendices (and to the mainspace) isn’t taken for granted.
On topic: Appendix:English collective nouns looks redundant to Category:English collective nouns, so I favour deleting it. But I think Appendix:Glossary of collective nouns by subject is useful to keep around due to its presentation advantages over a category page. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

(Added Appendix:Glossary of collective nouns by collective term - the sorting issues that led to these appendices being split would be better resolved with a sortable table). Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikisaurus:pros and cons[edit]

This is a newly created Wikisaurus entry which was populated almost entirely with SOP phrases, but there's a potential for something having to do with pairing of opposites- if we don't already have it. Any suggestions? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that would work better as an appendix rather than a Wikisaurus. Then we'd have entries like ups and downs, hot and cold, yes and no, etc. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

September 2015[edit]

Category:English verbs with two objects[edit]

Discussion moved from WT:FEED.

What about calling it 'English ditransitive verbs'? As far as I can tell they are exactly the same - one object is dative and the other accusative. —This comment was unsigned.

On the one hand, the current name is probably clearer to the average person, although even better would be "which take" instead of "with". On the other hand, the format the anon proposes would fit how Category:English transitive verbs and Category:English intransitive verbs are named. - -sche (discuss) 03:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I oppose the use of ditransitive, bitransitive, and ambitransitive in any content visible to ordinary users in any entry except as headwords, ie, in ditransitive, bitransitive, and ambitransitive. DCDuring TALK 13:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with DCDuring. Would be better as Category:English verbs which take two objects. Also, it should have a lot more than four entries. e.g. book, get, cook, keep, bring, make, pour, save, find, lend, make, offer, owe, pay, promise, read, show, sing, teach, fix, leave... —Pengo (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Translations of adjective sense of autumn[edit]

These need to be moved / merged with those at autumnal. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:The Gambia to Category:Gambia[edit]

I know that the country generally takes the definite article in speech, but somehow it feels different when used as a category or title, when just "Gambia" sounds more appropriate. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Μετάknowledge: Would you prefer Category:Gambia, the? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: I hope that was a joke. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
@Μετάknowledge: I'm afraid not. :-S Category:Gambia, the would appear (correctly) under 'G' in the category for these categories, rather than under 'T'. I wanted to propose an alternative that you would be happy with, rather than just posting a vote in opposition. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Why should we have Category:The Gambia when we don't have Category:The United Kingdom, Category:The Netherlands, Category:The United States of America? Chuck Entz (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: Those three are not analogous, in my opinion. Category:The Gambia is more like Category:The Hague. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Nobody ever says "Hague", while people do say "Gambia". So that comparison doesn't work either. —CodeCat 21:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Support Category:Gambia. —CodeCat 14:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Support Category:Gambia. "In the Gambia" is only slightly more common than "in Gambia" (and the latter is, in any case, very common). "In the Ukraine" has historically (until the 1990s) been far more common than "in Ukraine", but we correctly have Category:Ukraine without the article. - -sche (discuss) 04:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
@-sche: What should we do about Category:The Hague? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Do we have enough content to justify creating it? We don't have very many city categories; we have a London category with a respectable 94 entries, but not a Paris, Seattle, Chicago or Beijing category. - -sche (discuss) 19:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
@-sche: Well, it's pretty clear where this vote is going, so it doesn't really matter. But I'd like to know what you would do if we had a Category:The Hague. There's every chance that it'd come up. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
It's hard to get a sense of how commonly the place is referred to without the article, but it's well under 1/6th of the time, since "in Hague" vs "in the Hague" gets a 1/6th ratio in Google's Ngrams Viewer and most of the hits of "Hague" are of it as an author's last name or a reference to the Hague Convention ("in Hague Convention states"). So, I would retain the article as part of the name there. - -sche (discuss) 02:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
@-sche: As Category:The Hague, Category:Hague, the, or something else? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
"The Hague". - -sche (discuss) 01:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
@-sche: Thanks for the clarification. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose; I prefer Category:The Gambia. The The is an integral part of its name, more so than the the of the Netherlands or the Bahamas. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I've always called it "Gambia", so I guess you're mistaken. —CodeCat 14:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
For years I called the capital of Indonesia "Jaktara"; that doesn't mean someone who says "The capital of Indonesia is called Jakarta in English" is mistaken. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
"In the Gambia" is just slightly more common than "in Gambia", and likewise for "to [the] Gambia". In contrast, "in the Netherlands" is roughly 20 times more common than "in Netherlands", and likewise for "to". Compare (the) Ukraine. - -sche (discuss) 01:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The numbers are, currently:

 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 07:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Support Category:Gambia. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Category:Gambia per -sche, especially since in Gambia, in the Gambia at Google Ngram Viewer gives similar rates and I seem to prefer to drop "the" when the rates allow it. I also would not oppose deleting the category since it has too high granularity, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
    Done moving the category with redirect.--Jusjih (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    I have fixed all the entries and subcats, and deleted the redirect. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]

Category:Capital cities > Category:Country capitals[edit]

Assuming that Category:Capital cities is for capitals of countries, such as Paris, Rome, etc., then the name Category:Country capitals would be more specific.

We have Category:US State Capitals for some "capital cities" that are capitals of states, not countries; and today I created Category:State capitals of Brazil as a similar category, so I would appreciate if the "Capital cities" category used a clearer name. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Capital cities should be kept as a container category, at least. And you're going to have to create a lot more subcategories if you want capital cities to be empty. Purplebackpack89 05:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:en:Exonyms -> Category:English exonyms[edit]

Per Wiktionary:Votes/2011-04/Lexical categories, move:

Rationale: This makes these categories nominally consistent with all other categories that describe the words ("Category:English blablabla") rather than their meanings ("Category:en:blablabla"), such as all categories listed in Category:English terms by etymology.

In fact, I believe Category:English exonyms should be a subcategory of Category:English terms by etymology.

It's interesting to note that Category:English terms by etymology was once called Category:en:Etymology before it was moved multiple times. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Being an exonym is not a matter of how a word was created. In fact, terms often don't start off as exonyms, but become exonyms as the languages diverge and evolve. So it's not appropriate to put it under etymology. —CodeCat 00:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose: Exonyms should remain as a category and English exonyms should be a subcategory of it. Purplebackpack89 20:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I nominated specifically "Category:en:Exonyms -> Category:English exonyms", you mentioned "English exonyms should be [] ", so I don't see how this would work as an oppose vote to my nomination. I don't suppose you wanted the category to remain named "Category:en:Exonyms", right?
In any event, the format that other umbrella categories use according to Wiktionary:Votes/2011-04/Lexical categories is "Category:Exonyms by language" -> "Category:English exonyms". Like "Category:Nouns by language" -> "Category:English nouns". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I missed the "en" in there. Retracting my vote. Purplebackpack89 00:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
No problem, thank you. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
This should not be controversial, but it's wise to check. DCDuring TALK 23:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Music genres -> Category:Musical genres[edit]

I am requesting that this page be moved to Category:Musical genres. Nobody refers to the contents of this category as "music genres", the common term is musical genres. Purplebackpack89 20:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. The claim made in the nomination is blatantly false. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV How often have you heard a Native English speaker use the phrase "music genres"? Cuz I'm a Native English speaker; I hear "musical genres" and "genres of music" often, but almost never "music genres" Purplebackpack89 20:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Very, very often. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep. The rationale given makes no sense, as Ungoliant mentions. —CodeCat 20:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The rationale is that the phraseology "musical genres" is more common than "music genres". How the hell is that not a sensible reason for a rename? Purplebackpack89 21:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
It would make sense if it were obviously true. —CodeCat 21:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I guess it's true, CodeCat Purplebackpack89 21:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't look like it's obviously true, nor did it appear so when you first made your claim, nor is your claim that nobody refers to it as "music genres" accurate, as we can see now from the data. —CodeCat 22:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Why does "obvious" have to be the threshold? If it's 60-40 or 70-30 in favor of musical, the title should be musical. And the data say's it's musical by better than 2-1. It doesn't have to be 99-1, though in my circles it's damn near that. Purplebackpack89 22:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this threshold is big enough to consider renaming. "Music genre" is clearly widespread enough as well, and easily understood. We don't always have to use the exact most common phrasing. And "obvious" is a threshold because how else would we make a decision based on your claims? You never gave any evidence, so all we could go by was that your claim was not obviously true. Obvious would be if someone said that "a bird in the hand" is a lot more common than "a mouse in the hand". —CodeCat 23:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, like you've never renamed anything primarily because the name change was "obvious" to you. Right... Purplebackpack89 00:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I find a 2:1 difference recently and a larger difference earlier at Google N-grams, favoring musical genre(s). It seems more natural to me though I often think of senses of musical other than what is intended when I hear this. DCDuring TALK 23:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support moving per DCDuring: GNV prefers Musical genres in 2:1 ratio in 2008 and in 3:1 in 2000 ((music genre*3),musical genre at Google Ngram Viewer). The GNV picture until 1940[2] is even more striking. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

November 2015[edit]

Continuation of #Category:en:Names into Category:English names[edit]

Reviving the earlier discussion, I'm still bothered by the fact that we have two different categories for names. But the previous discussion also made it clear that it's not as easy as just merging them.

CodeCat 00:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, what I am going to say is somewhat off-topic and maybe I'm minority on that, but I would not mind using the naming system "Category:English xxxx" for all topical categories: Category:en:Chess -> English terms related to chess. (or any better name along those lines) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
"Category:en:Transliteration of personal names" could be renamed to "Category:English names transliterated from other languages", I suppose. What's the matter with the demonyms category? It contains demonyms, as expected. Would it be better titled "English demonyms", on the model of "English phrases"? - -sche (discuss) 06:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
"Category:en:Transliteration of personal names" would be better named "English transliterations of (foreigners') personal names". Notice the existence of e.g.Category:Latvian transliterations of English names.‎ Names of non-English speakers are not English names. I agree with CodeCat that place names belong to topic categories.--Makaokalani (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Wiktionary:About English to Wiktionary:English editing guidelines, or similar[edit]

And likewise for other languages. "About English" doesn't really reflect the purpose of these pages, they are really a collections of rules and guidelines specific to a single language. So I propose to rename them to something more descriptive. The name "editing guidelines" is up for debate, I'm mainly concerned about changing the name, not about what the name should be in the end. Other possibilities I could suggest include "English entry guidelines", "Editing English entries". —CodeCat 19:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably a good idea, despite longstanding practice. I guess "entry guidelines" is the best out of the possibilities you suggested, but I don't love the sound of any of them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah English entry guidelines sounds good to me. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Renaming lua[edit]

This language is currently called "Tshiluba", which is a really awful choice. First of all, tshi- is that good ol' language prefix that we often try not to have in language names (which I think is ci- in modern orthography), and there are in fact two Luba languages (the other is lu "Luba-Katanga"). To avoid confusion, we rightfully give neither the name Luba, but this is not much better, and we should rename it to "Luba-Kasai", as Wikipedia does. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

On the one hand, we do try to avoid prefixes. On the other hand, "Luba-Kasai" seems to more often be a placename and an ethnonym than a language name, and "Tshiluba" seems to be about twice as common. - -sche (discuss) 21:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The issue is that, AFAICT, "Tshiluba" is more commonly used because it refers to both Luba languages! This is not so much about prefixes so much as the issue of the name being exceedingly ambiguous in its referent. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

December 2015[edit]

Wiktionary:Blocking policy -> Wiktionary:Blocking[edit]

Suggestion: move Wiktionary:Blocking policy -> Wiktionary:Blocking.

Reason: "policy" is redundant. We could have Wiktionary:Entry layout policy as well, and maybe Wiktionary:Policy for criteria for inclusion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Good point; furthermore the page contains some non-policy information. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
X mark.svgN Not done Ipadguy (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Reopened now that the above-mentioned vote is over. - -sche (discuss) 04:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 ::X mark.svgN Not done again. --Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:rfe and Template:rfelite[edit]

Both of these templates serve the same purpose, the only difference is in looks. So I think they should be merged. I have no particular preference for which we should keep, just that one of them should go. —CodeCat 23:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Provisional oppose, although I may change my mind; I'd like to see what @DCDuring, DTLHS think. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
They should either be merged (with one redirecting to the other), or kept. Since I generally don't like templates being needlessly consolidated, I'll say keep Purplebackpack89 23:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't really care. DTLHS (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Looks is a personal preference, so one of them should go. The "lite" one doesn't let an editor add reasoning (and I can only imagine reasoning awkwardly tacked onto the end of the notice), so I think that {{rfelite}} should be deleted. —suzukaze (tc) 23:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
@suzukaze-c Comments can always be added directly to the etymology section or as an unnamed parameter in any template that does not rely on such parameters for its functionality. DCDuring TALK 00:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any particular benefit to tidying by combining them. The templates differ by their look. That is not an insignificant consideration to whatever normal users may use our work, should there be any.
I think all of the big-display-box templates are hideous and potentially distracting to normal users. I'd bet that most contributions of etymologies are generated by contributors (not normal users) who find the entries by means other than noticing {{rfe}} (or {{rfelite}}). The same is probably true of {{rfi}} and {{rfc}}. I'd further bet that the main function these boxes serve is to steer a contributor to the particular part of the entry that needs work. A big box seems unnecessary for that function. In contrast, in the cases of {{rfd}} and {{rfv}}, arguably the distraction is intentional and constructive, as it serves as a warning to users that there may be something wrong with the definitions or that they might want to participate in the discussion about them.
I'd love to hear the thoughts of others, 1., on the effect of the differing displays on different types of normal users and, 2., on whether we still have the prospect of gaining such users in sufficient numbers to be of any concern to us. DCDuring TALK 00:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I think for clarity I'd merge {{etystub}} into {{rfelite}} rather than the other way around. But we should have both etystub and rfelite as they do the exact same job. {{rfe}} should really only be used when no etymology is present because it doesn't interact well with either text that's before it or after it. But it is more obviously visible, being in a box. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
{{etystub}} has a different message. It allows for the possibility that the etymology exists but is incomplete. Neither of the other two do that. Perhaps at least one of the two others should have a switch that changed the display to indicate the etymology, though present, is incomplete. The problem with not having such wording is that some new contributor could view {{rfe}} or {{rfelite}} as not having been removed when the etymology was added. Converting {{etystub}} to have a more modest appearance like that of {{rfelite}} would be an improvement. The big-box look it now has is enough to make me occasionally miss the presence of the stub etymology that is there. DCDuring TALK 22:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the nuance is much too small to be worth keeping. Just change it to 'absent or incomplete' and you're done. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]

Appendix:Word formation verb -en noun -ness[edit]

Bad title. Need the word English in there, and something more 'fluent'. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As creator of this apx, I totally agree. Just wish I could think of something !! :-/ -- ALGRIF talk 15:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Hows about Appendix:English adjectives with derived terms in -en and -ness? Also, I think the derivation "strong" => "strengthen" and "strongness" may not be accurate and, in any event, is the weakest exemplar. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Resurrected out of the archives; anyone have ideas for a better title? - -sche (discuss) 04:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Appendix:Swadesh lists for Austronesian languages etc[edit]

and Appendix:Swadesh for Malayo-Polynesian languages - Appendix:Cognate sets for Austronesian languages

These overlap a lot, and should be merged in some way. -- Prince Kassad 17:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Added another one I found. -- Prince Kassad 10:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Resurrected out of the archives. - -sche (discuss) 04:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

February 2016[edit]

Template:borrowing[edit]

Move to {{borrowed}} like {{derived}} and {{inherited}}. For consistency. Will change virtually nothing as everyone use {{bor}} anyway. It's just a neatness exercise. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Support, kind of. The template itself actually says "borrowing"... —CodeCat 17:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I think the template text should be changed to "Borrowed from" anyway. --WikiTiki89 17:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I would support that too, but many entries use the template as part of a larger sentence, and changing the text would break that. —CodeCat 17:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of that. Like CodeCat says, "a Medieval borrowing from" would become "a Medieval borrowed from". Renard Migrant (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
We could get rid of the text from the template altogether, and add it manually to the entries instead. Then it would work like {{der}} and {{inh}}, which don't include text either. There's also {{calque}}, which has a similar issue. —CodeCat 17:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll withdraw my support for this proposal per CodeCat, but I don't want the proposal removed. Abstain in other words. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Should we perhaps avoid templates that include too much predefined text, in the future? You have more freedom if you can specify the text yourself in the entry. —CodeCat 22:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I definitely agree with that. --WikiTiki89 19:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Most used Icelandic verbs[edit]

The naming of this should be adapted to the naming of the other "basic words" (so, Category:98 basic Icelandic verbs), which should also be standardized: currently, there is Category:1000 English basic words (with 997 words) and Category:1000 Japanese basic words (with 933 words), but the "basic" is on the other side of the language name in Category:1000 basic Italian words (with 8 words), Category:1000 basic Spanish words (with 417 words), etc. - -sche (discuss) 09:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Not moved; instead, the other categories were renamed after a different discussion. - -sche (discuss) 06:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

have it[edit]

2 definitions: "to have died" and "to be beyond repair"

These meanings only exist for have had it, which doesn't and should have these. The translations need to be moved and checked as well. DCDuring TALK 15:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

caught with one's hand in the cookie jar[edit]

Move to hand in the cookie jar (now a redirect to this), which is included in many more expressions than this one, eg have one's hand in the cookie jar, to catch someone with their hand in the cookie jar. I would be happy to add redirects and for all possessive determiners and for the various verb forms of catch and have and usage examples for a selection of these and perhaps others, such as put and keep. DCDuring TALK 21:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

As it is now a search for "catch with his hand in the cookie jar" does not find this entry. DCDuring TALK 21:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

in lieu[edit]

I didn't find any use at COCA of this except in in lieu of (1,045) and (Canada, legal) pay in lieu (2). There was one use of in lieu thereof. The other seven instances included the name of a band, an incomplete spoken utterance, and similar.

I suspect that the translations belong at in lieu of or perhaps at fr.wikt. DCDuring TALK 04:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Move to in lieu of per nom. - -sche (discuss) 05:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
There are hits at Google Books for in lieu appointment]. Note that not all of them actually contain the phrase: some have "... in lieu. Appointment...". The same is true of in lieu payment], though it seems to be more common with a hyphen. It may not be that common, but in lieu does seem to be used as a legal/accounting term without any form of "of". Chuck Entz (talk) 06:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I see. That would merit a reworking of the entry for in lieu, which looks to be limited to legal contexts. It seems that in lieu is often an abbreviation of in lieu of (something obvious from the context). In its prepositive attributive use "substitute" seems like a synonym or definition. DCDuring TALK 15:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
There's also a day off in lieu [3] although I've no idea whether this would be better treated by a separate entry or an additional sense ("substitute") at in lieu. --Droigheann (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
To me it seems that the uses that are not in lieu of are derived from use of in lieu of in a legal context including labor law. They all seems to have become completely conventionalized in meaning – therefore dictionary-worthy – though sometimes the meaning might turn out to be restricted to a specific context. I think this might work presented as a non-gloss definition with each of the most typical applications illustrated with a usage example and possible with a subsense. DCDuring TALK 17:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

March 2016[edit]

Linear A[edit]

Strangely enough we have a language code for Linear A [lab], even though Linear A is a writing system and not a language. I have no idea why it was encoded or why we have it. -- Liliana 15:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It's very odd. The script code for Linear A is "Lina"; the language code for Minoan is "omn"; but there's also a language code "lab" for a language called "Linear A". I have no idea what ISO and SIL were thinking, but I'm in favor of deleting "lab" from our modules. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll bet their thinking is that the language written in the script may be an unknown language, which would be consistent with w:Linear A. There do seem to be a large number of hypotheses about Linear A, nearly on the same order as the total number of recorded instances of the script. DCDuring TALK 18:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I see. Reading Minoan language more carefully, I see that it's written in both Cretan hieroglyphs and Linear A, but since neither writing system has been deciphered, it isn't known whether it's the same language in two writing systems or two different languages. So maybe "omn" means Minoan in Cretan hieroglyphs and "lab" means Minoan in Linear A, and they may or may not refer to the same language. Given that the language is unknown and undeciphered, I wonder why we have one Minoan lemma: kuro. How do we know this word was pronounced "kuro" and that it means "total"? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
It's in the wrong script anyway (it was added before Unicode covered Linear A), but afaik Linear A can be read simply by using the known values for Linear B syllables, which are visually similar. This word is always found at the end of lists, followed by a number, so the meaning was easy to figure out. -- Liliana 10:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

April 2016[edit]

past[edit]

"Adverb" Passing by, especially without stopping or being delayed.

  1. Ignore them, we'll play past them.
    Please don't drive past the fruit stand, I want to stop there.

This seems to me to be a preposition sense, possibly identical to one already under that L2. DCDuring TALK 11:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@DCDuring, I agree. It should be moved to the Preposition header. — Eru·tuon 15:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

June 2016[edit]

Category:Finnish passive verbs[edit]

Nonsensical: these are not verbs "usually used in the passive" (I would suppose they are used in the passive more rarely — verb forms like kaaduttiin 'there was falling down' aren't needed too often) but rather a collection of intransitive verbs with some kind of reflexive or middle semantics. Probably should be merged with Category:Finnish intransitive verbs. --Tropylium (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Categories for requests and needs[edit]

"entries needing reference" categorization[edit]

This is a little strange, because all of these are redlinks at the moment, but templates have been modified to generate cats using this naming scheme, and I would like them all to go away. While it might seem nice to unify things, having diverse templates using the same cats means you have to generalize away all the useful information and you end up with mumbling and hand-waving.

I'm sorry, but "English entries needing reference" makes no literal sense, and it's impossible to tell from the cat name what's supposed to go in it- you might as well call it "English entries needing something or other". Please change it to something that makes sense before we create a lot of really lame categories that will have to be deleted. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Entries are placed in those categories by {{rfv-etymology}} and {{rfv-pronunciation}}. Both templates specifically ask for a source, so the name seemed appropriate. Before I changed them, these templates just categorised in the generic "needing etymology" and "needing pronunciation" categories, which was not really any more helpful. —CodeCat 10:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
But your solution just substituted one problem for another, by eliminating any reference to etymologies or pronunciation: providing references for an etymology is quite different from providing references for a pronunciation. Also, treating reference as uncountable makes the category names look like typos- does anyone use reference that way? Can one ask, "how much reference do you need?"
A few possible alternatives (the equivalents for pronunciation are left as an exercise for the reader...):
  1. [] etymologies needing to be referenced
  2. [] etymologies needing references
  3. [] etymologies needing referencing
  4. [] etymologies needing to be sourced
  5. [] entries with etymologies needing to be referenced
  6. [] entries with etymologies needing references
  7. [] entries with etymologies needing referencing
  8. [] entries with etymologies needing to be sourced
  9. [] entries with unreferenced etymologies
Chuck Entz (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer "entries needing etymology reference" or "entries needing etymology source". The name doesn't treat it as uncountable; it just leaves out the article as a shorthand. A plural doesn't seem appropriate as it would imply that more than one reference is needed. —CodeCat 10:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Chuck about the missing article. It seems non-native or needlessly telegraphic to drop it. What do we hope to accomplish by dropping it as no human keystrokes are involved? Are we suddenly concerned with server resources, download times? As to the implications of the plural, there is no more implication than there would be using the singular. DCDuring TALK 13:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I wholeheartedly agree with Chuck. We need more specificity of categories not less.
Whether the prefix to these types of requests should be "rfv" is another question that should be addressed while we have fewer than a hundred of these. Are we fairly sure this prefix will turn out to be adequate? DCDuring TALK 01:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The template names go back 7 or 8 years, and I seem to remember discussions as to whether it was a good idea to link etymologies, which take citations in the Wikipedia sense, with rfvs, which take citations in the Wiktionary sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The only alternative I know of that has some installed base is {{fact}} (45 transclusions here, and lots of pedians who have the habit), which would need to be followed by "pron" or "ety" (or "usage" etc?), but that might quickly get us part ways back to where we are now with a template likely to be overused and with an undifferentiated category. I suppose that if we made {{fact}} generate a screen that required the users to say what type of problem concerned them or could detect the previous heading in an AF-type bot run, we could make that work. Some new prefix, like "ref", could work. DCDuring TALK 02:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I would add that the subject nouns are plural, so one could just as easily say that using a singular object would imply that one reference or source would do for all the entries in the categories- but that would be silly, too. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I've created the "needing reference" categories as they were originally named. This does not mean I'm enforcing that particular state of affairs (in case someone gets the wrong idea - you know who you are), it's only so that they aren't left in a redlinked state for ages, filling up Special:WantedCategories. They will presumably be deleted again once there's an agreement on what to name them. I do want to note, though, that as far as omitting the article goes, we already have "entries needing inflection", "entries needing definition", "entries needing etymology", "entries needing pronunciation", "entries needing audio pronunciation", "entries needing quotation" and "terms needing transliteration". I think that whatever name is chosen should fit with the existing names, or else all these should also be renamed to maintain consistency in the naming. —CodeCat 20:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Translation requests (X) to X translation requests[edit]

formerly Category:Translation requests (X) to Category:X translation requests / Category:Translations to be checked (X) to Category:X translations to be checked

Unintuitive names that don't match the rest of the category structure or other maintenance categories, hence require totally different code to parse and can't use {{auto cat}}. DTLHS (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Support. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Support. I hope it makes a difference to new contributors. DCDuring TALK 02:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Other categories[edit]

@DTLHS, Metaknowledge, DCDuring:

Suggestion: Make all the request categories in all languages use the same naming system, per the same reasons given for the categories above. {{attention|en}}

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it me, or does "attention requests" sound a bit odd? Might there be a better noun to use for that one? Equinox 20:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Category:English review requests? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@DTLHS, Metaknowledge, DCDuring, Daniel Carrero, Equinox: Might not Category:English requests for … be better nomenclature? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
That's probably the best suggestion! —CodeCat 13:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe that's a good idea. I believe this would be the full list, please check if it's ok:
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I think "Requests for etymologies" ought to be singular "etymology", same for "pronunciation", "transliteration", maybe also "translation". —CodeCat 14:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
For the record, the full names of these 4 categories would be:
And do you think these other 4 categories don't look as good in the singular and should be plural:
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I support getting rid of "needing" and going to "English requests for"; I also support the singular, and thus, "etymology" instead of "etymologies", "image" instead of "images" and the like. Since so many categories are involved, this should be done via a vote, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe this discussion could serve the purpose of reviewing what exactly are the category names we want (as we are discussing right now), for a vote to be created later.
For the record, I believe it's been 5 years since we had votes for changing the names of many categories at once. Some of the passing votes were: Wiktionary:Votes/2011-04/Derivations categories, Wiktionary:Votes/2011-04/Lexical categories and Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-05/Add en: to English topical categories, part 2. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
These are good votes, providing relatively strong evidence of consensus. The current "needing" category names are a result of the use of this very RFM process without strong evidence of consensus, as far as I remember. The good thing about this RFM is that it was announced via Beer parlour, but still, the vote pages create the strongest evidence of consensus in part since there are never too many votes running concurrently, which is not true of RFM. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I support getting rid of "needing". (though I'm still thinking whether the singular or plural looks better IMO) As discussed in the 2015 vote "Language-specific rfi categories", @Dan Polansky said, and I quote: "The category tracks where an image was requested, not where it is needed."
For the record, the RFM discussion that introduced "needing" is: Category talk:English entries needing definition#RFM discussion: August–September 2014. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Suggested names for the parent categories:

Cross-language umbrella categories:

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

+a few categories:

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I created: Wiktionary:Votes/2016-07/Request categories. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

This discussion was superseded, now that Wiktionary:Votes/2017-03/Request categories 2 (the second request vote) passed. I suggest archiving this discussion at Category:English entry maintenance. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

July 2016[edit]

More languages without ISO codes, part 5[edit]

{—Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC))

  • Moran language (sit-mor) Yes check.svg Done
  • Nakrehé language (sai-nak) — not entirely sure this is separate from Krenak
    The Encyclopedia of the World's Endangered Languages and The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide treat this as an alternative name of Krenak or a dialect. Not added at this time. - -sche (discuss) 22:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Nicola language (ath-nic) Yes check.svg Done
  • Pai-lang language (tbq-plg) Yes check.svg Done
  • Puiron language (sit-prn) Yes check.svg Done
  • Sinúfana language (sai-sin) Yes check.svg Done
    Also called Cenúfana, Zenúfana, Cinifaná, Sinufana, Sinú, Cenú, Zenú; dialect names Fincenú, Finzenú, Pancenú, and supposedly Sutagao. Added; see my comments below. - -sche (discuss) 05:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Sörsörian language (map-sor) — I can't actually find any material on this one
    All I can find is the claim that it had 3 speakers. Not added at this time. - -sche (discuss) 22:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Tawasa language (nai-taw) Yes check.svg Done
    The evidence for this language is quite sketchy — it's only known from one wordlist by someone who may not have spoken Tawasa at all — but it's extinct if it existed at all. I suppose it can be added and then its (the wordlist's) entries' etymologies and those of Timucua and Muskogean entries' etymologies can discuss each other. - -sche (discuss) 15:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
    Added. - -sche (discuss) 04:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Waitaká language (sai-wai) Yes check.svg Done
    (also called Goytacaz per Loukotka, Goyataca per Campbell, Guaitacá, Waitacá per others, and a host of other names)
  • Wulguru language (aus-wul) Yes check.svg Done
  • Yarumá language (sai-yar) — this name may cause confusion with Suyá suy, which also referred to by this name
    Yes check.svg Added. Glottolog syas it ias attested and definitively a different family than 'suy' - -sche (discuss) 22:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments:
I've split the discussion so that ones that are done can be archived. - -sche (discuss) 19:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I've added Pai-lang and Nicola. - -sche (discuss) 06:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I've added Moran. - -sche (discuss) 04:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Sinúfana[edit]

The variety of names this language has and their homography with the names of the people and the place they lived, has made it hard to search for information on this language. And some scholars say there is nothing to find: The Indigenous Languages of South America (edited by Lyle Campbell and Verónica Grondona) quotes "Adelaar and Muysken (2004: 624): [Sinu] 'cannot be classified for absence of data.' Loukotka (1968: 257) grouped Zenú (Senú) with the Chocó Stock, though nothing was known of the language." However, I've been poking around for quite a while now, and finally found a copy of A. Oyuela-Caycedo's full article in the Handbook of South American Archaeology (edited by Helaine Silverman, William Isbell), which I'd previously only been able to see a page of. On the page I'd seen, Oyuela-Caycedo says "the descendants of the Sinú have lost their language, making it impossible to classify them in terms of known linguistic families (Adelaar and Muysken 2004). However, taking toponyms into consideration the area seems to have been occupied by Chibchan speakers." On the next page, however, Oyuela-Caycedo goes on to discuss Spanish records and mentions that the "name or title" of the Finzenú chief was "Tota", with which clue I tracked down Jaime Alberto Castro Núñez's Historia de la medicina en Córdoba: notas preliminares (2002), mentioning a few other words and names: "A la llegada de los cappunia, como los indios llamaban en su lengua a los españoles, la cacica de Finzenú era Tota; el Zenúfana era Nutibara y el Panzenú era Yapé." "At the arrival of the cappunia, as the Indians called in their language the Spanish, the chief of Finzenu was Tota, that [of] Zenúfana was Nutibara and that [of] Panzenú was Yapé." (Other mentioned names are Anunaybe and Quinuchu.) The ambiguity over whether Tota was a proper name or title appears to be original; I find what seems to be a copy of Sebastián de Benalcázar's writings, saying "[...] Tota, nombre que no sabemos si era el de su cargo o propio de la última reina de este riquísimo pueblo". - -sche (discuss) 05:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Taishanese and Teochew[edit]

@-sche I think Taishanese dialect of Cantonese and Teochew dialect of Min Nan both need language codes. They are covered by Chinese pronunciation modules but theire transliterations is very different from Cantonese and Min Nan accordingly. E.g. in 鉛筆铅笔 (qiānbǐ) "yon3 bit2" is not standard Jyutping and "ing5 big4" is Teochew Peng'im, not POJ. @Kc kennylau, Wyang, Suzukaze-c, Justinrleung. Perhaps these subdialects needs nesting in translations and numbered tone marks (also Gan, Jin, Xiang) also need superscripts, just like Cantonese Jyutping. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
typo fix→@Kc kennylau, Wyang, Suzukaze-c, Justinrleungsuzukaze (tc) 12:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, suzukaze! --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 12:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
They seem to have language codes already (yue-tai for Taishanese and nan-teo for Teochew); at least they work in the etymology templates. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 00:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@Justinrleung Thanks but if I try add a translation using 'yue-tai' I get the error:
Lua error in Module:languages/templates at line 28: The language code 'yue-tai' is not valid.: Lua error in Module:parameters at line 110: The parameter "<strong class" is not used by this template. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, those are etymology-only codes. They would standardly need different codes if we are to treat them as full languages, though. The point is that you guys need to decide what status you want these lects to have. @Atitarev, Justinrleung, suzukaze-c, WyangΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
If there's a need to enter them into translations tables (on account of their different transliteration and, according to Wikipedia, sometimes different vocabulary), they could be given full codes, which as Meta notes would be named a little differently (using the system described in WT:LANG): zhx-tai and zhx-teo. I await Wyang's input. As an aside, we should consider taking a Chinese approach to Arabic, i.e. not have separate headers for each dialect, but retain the option of listing each dialect's pronunciation and maybe having each dialect in translations tables. - -sche (discuss) 16:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kc kennylau, Wyang, Suzukaze-c, Justinrleung, -sche, Metaknowledge Thanks all. Will further nesting open a Pandora's box of nesting subdialects if we do it like this? (pls note new rows for Taishanese and Teochew):

* Chinese:
*: Cantonese: {{t|yue|鉛筆|sc=Hani}}, {{t|yue|铅笔|tr=jyun4 bat1|sc=Hani}}
*:: Taishanese: {{t|zhx-tai|鉛筆|sc=Hani}}, {{t|zhx-tai|铅笔|tr=yon3 bit2|sc=Hani}}
*: Gan: {{t|gan|鉛筆}}, {{t|gan|铅笔|tr=nyyon4 'bit6}}
*: Hakka: {{t|hak|鉛筆}}, {{t|hak|铅笔|tr=yèn-pit}}
*: Jin: {{t|cjy|鉛筆}}, {{t|cjy|铅笔|tr=qie1 bieh4}}
*: Mandarin: {{t+|cmn|鉛筆|sc=Hani}}, {{t+|cmn|铅笔|tr=qiānbǐ|sc=Hani}}
*: Min Dong: {{t|cdo|鉛筆}}, {{t|cdo|铅笔|tr=iòng-bék}}
*: Min Nan: {{t+|nan|鉛筆}}, {{t|nan|铅笔|tr=iân-pit}}
*:: Teochew: {{t|zhx-teo|鉛筆|sc=Hani}}, {{t|zhx-teo|铅笔|tr=ing5 big4|sc=Hani}}
*: Wu: {{t|wuu|鉛筆}}, {{t|wuu|铅笔|tr=khe piq}}
*: Xiang: {{t|hsn|鉛筆}}, {{t|hsn|铅笔|tr=yan2 bi6}}

There's some work for translation adder as well. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

In this case I would really prefer:

* Chinese: {{zh-l|鉛筆}}

where {{zh-l}} extracts and displays the simplified form from the entry, as well as extracts all the readings of the word from the entry, and (if on a computer) displays the readings on hover-over or (if on a mobile device) something. Additional topolect-specific translations can be added as:

* Chinese: {{zh-l|鉛筆}}
*: Cantonese: {{zh-l|鉛鉛筆}}
*: Mandarin: {{zh-l|筆鉛鉛}}

Wyang (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

We'd need a full-blown {{zh-t}} that can serve the function of linking to zh.wikt if an entry exists, and you'd also need to run a bot to update those every now and then (or convince Ruakh to do it). This would imply some changes to the translation adder as well, and possibly other gadgets and bits of code lying around. In short, that's a big jump from what Anatoli proposed. It does sound like a good idea, though, if you want to put the requisite work into it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Balkan Gagauz Turkish[edit]

I see no evidence that this exists as a separate language, and move that it be merged with tr. The literature which references it seems to describe the dialect of Turkish which may be spoken by Gagauz people in the Balkan Peninsula. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia, citing Ethnologue, insists that Balkan Gagauz Turkish, Gagauz, and Turkish are all separate, and a few sources do seem to take that view, e.g. Cem Keskin, Subject agreement-dependency of accusative case in Turkish, or, Jump-starting grammatical machinery (2009) speaks of "Balkan Gagauz Turkish, Gagauz, Turkish, Iraqi Turkmen, North and South Azerbaijani, Salchuq, Aynallu, Qashqay, Khorasan Turkic, Turkmen, Oghuz Uzbek, Afshar, and possibly Crimean Tatar". Other references speak of Balkan Gagauz Turkish as a variety of Gagauz, e.g. James Minahan's Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations says "The Gagauz speak a Turkic language [...] also called Balkan Gagauz or Balkan Turkic, [which] is spoken in two major dialects, Central and Southern, with the former the basis of the literary language. Other dialects [include] Maritime Gagauz" (which comports with w:Gagauz's list of its dialects). Matthias Brenzinger's Language Diversity Endangered also treats Balkan Gagauz "or slightly misleading, Balkan Turkic" in his entry on Gagauz, but says it that the Balkan "varieties might deserve the status of outlying languages but very little information is available about them." (A few generalist references seem to subsume all gag into tr.) I would leave them all separate, pending more conclusive evidence that they should be merged. - -sche (discuss) 23:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I think there's some confusion about what exactly we're talking about, and whether it's Gagauz or Turkish. Just because they use the term "Balkan Gagauz Turkish" doesn't mean that they're referring to the language with ISO 639-3 code bgx. When I look at who's citing the references listed for bgx at Glottolog, Manević (the reference for its classification) is cited in papers clearly talking about the dialects of tr. These are the only actual words attributed to this lect that I can find. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
@Tropylium, on the subject of Turkic languages spoken in Europe, do you know anything about this one, and about its differences or similarity to Gagauz and standard Turkish? - -sche (discuss) 01:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not previously familiar with this dispute, but here are a few handbooks on the topic:
  • Menges in The Turkic Languages and Peoples has the following slightly complicated quote (p. 11): "The Turkic languages spoken farthest west are the Balkanic dialects of Osman and Gagauz in Bosnia, Bulgaria and Macedonia. These seem to form two groups, one of possibly pre-Osman origin, and a later Osman one. To the former belong the Gaǯaly in Deli-Orman (Eastern Bulgaria), who, according to V. A. Moškov, are descended from the Päčänäg, Uz, and Torci (?), the Surguč, numbering about 7000 people in the district (vilājät) of Edirnä, who call themselves Gagauz. In Moškov's opinion, they, too, go back to the Päčänägs (?) and the Macedonian Gagauz; they number ca. 4000 people in southeastern Macedonia." — It seems clear that some group(s) corresponding to "Balkan Gagauz" is being identified here, but I am not even sure how to parse the sentence structure; e.g. are "Uz" and "Torci" some of the pre-Osman Turkic groups, or some of the alleged ancestors of the Gaǯaly? ("Osman" is, of course, Turkish.)
  • Hendrik Boeschoten in a classificatory chapter in Routledge's The Turkic Languages mentions that "a few speakers [of Gagauz] in northern Bulgaria, Romania and Greece, adhere to the Orthodox faith, and have their own history." This again seems to refer to "Balkan Gagauz", but with no indication of being its own language.
So far I would gather from this that "Balkan Gagauz" is at most a sister language of "non-Balkan Gagauz", and perhaps indeed just a different dialect group (perhaps one whose features are not reflected in written standard Gagauz). But the Manević 1954 paper would be more informative on this topic, if anyone wants to hunt it down. --Tropylium (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Even more languages without ISO codes, part 3[edit]

This next batch is of languages from lists other than Ethnologue and LinguistList. As before, I've tried to vet them all beforehand, but I will have doubtlessly made some mistakes. NB if you want to find more: I've avoided dealing with most of the Loloish languages, because all the literature seems to be in Chinese. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Australian languages[edit]

Tasmanian[edit]

@-sche, back when I suggested these Australian languages, I included the codes for the Tasmanian languages that Bowern (2012) teased out of various wordlists. At the time, I was ignorant of the fact that there is an ISO code, xtz, for a language called "Tasmanian", and we have a few words in it. There was no single Tasmanian language, so I think this code should be retired and the words sorted into their respective languages by Bowern's scheme. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Alungul, Angkula[edit]

Alungul and Angkula are very similar (but, OTOH, so are other related languages), with Barry Alpher mentioning the following words: Alungul oth:o, Angkula otho "liver" (but e.g. Ikarranggal otho is also similar); Alungul mbolvm, Angkula ombolvm "mosquito" (but also e.g. Ogunyjan ombolvm); Alungul orormv, Angkula otil "nape" (the latter "likely a loan from Uw-Olkola odel", and other languages use different words); Alungul obmo(gng), Angkula obmu "nose" (but also e.g. Athima ubmu); Alungul atïl, Angkula atï "see" (Ikarranggal ara); Alungul amadhv, Angkula amadh "shin" (Athima amadhv); Alungul anggul, Angkula angkul "tooth" (Athima angkul, Ogunyjan enggul). Many words were even recorded from the same informant, with one scholar writing "West recorded considerable material in Ogh Alungul and Ogh Anggula from the now deceased Mr Jack Burton, but subsequently l was able to record and transcribe not only a few fragments more of these but a quantity of another dialect." It is difficult to say if they should be treated as one language, and what it would be called. They have separate codes for now. They could always be merged later. - -sche (discuss) 18:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Other needed codes[edit]

Here are other languages we might need codes for: - -sche (discuss) 05:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Indanga (Kɔlɔmɔnyi, Kɔlɛ, Kasaï Oriental) (bnt-ind?)
    It lacks a Wikipedia article but is documented by Jacobs, Texte et lexique indanga (2002). fr.Wikt already has a word from it. OTOH, fr.WP considers it a regional variant of Tetela. And fr.Wikt does have a tendency to treat dialects as language, also splitting e.g. Alsatian German from Alemannic German, Hoanya from Papora, etc. - -sche (discuss) 05:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
    Well, it's definitely part of the dialect continuum known in Guthrie as C.70, which has 8 ISO codes that cover it rather poorly (this is a typical situation with Bantu languages, which really need their own overhaul at some point). I see that its word for "water" is bash in that reference, rather different than Tetela proper ashi. We have to draw lines somewhere, and I can't figure out where Indanga would be merged, so I suppose a new code is in order. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ma(') Pnaan (poz-map?), also known by the exonyms Punan Malinau and Punan Segah, a language of Borneo / East Kalimantan, summarized by Antonia Soriente here and elsewhere. Compare the other things listed at Punan language.
  • Hitchiti (nai-hit). 'Water' is 'oki' or 'oke' (Thomas Noxon Toomey, Analysis of a Text in the Apalachi Language, 1917, in notes).
    - -sche (discuss) 04:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Other comments[edit]

I also added a code for Yangkaal, which Ethnologue had conflated into nny for some reason. - -sche (discuss) 03:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Bunurong[edit]

This Pama-Nyungan lect seems to have been given an exceptional code with no discussion, for its use at one transwikied entry, ngargee. It's by no means clear that we should be giving it a separate code rather than treating it as a dialect of Woiwurrung wyi; Wikipedia claims they are 90% mutually intelligible, but doesn't cite that claim directly. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I noticed this a while ago, but left it alone because I could not at the time find a reference (i.e. outside WP) that confirmed that they were mutually intelligible, probably because the huge variety of spellings made searching for information difficult. However, I can now find references that suggest we should be merging more than just these two. Leigh Boucher and ‎Lynette Russell's Settler Colonial Governance in Nineteenth-Century Victoria (2015, ISBN 1925022358), page 8, speaks of "the Woiwurrung (Wurundjeri), Boonwurrung, Wathaurung, Taungurong and Dja Dja Wurrung [being] mutually intelligible languages that share up to 80 per cent of their terminology." A paper by Barry Blake and Julie Reid on Sound Change in Kulin, in the La Trobe Working Papers in Linguistics, v 6-8 (1993), speaks of a single Kulin language, with "material available on three dialects: Boonwurrung (B), Woiwurrung (W) and Thagungwurrung (T)" (emphasis mine). Dja Dja Wurrung = dja, and Taungurong / Thagungwurrung = dgw, and Wathaurung = wth, all of which we currently treat as separate. Kulin suggests that at least the four eastern ones, if not also Wathaurung, could be merged. - -sche (discuss) 06:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I've merged Bunurong; the others still need to be merged. - -sche (discuss) 16:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Dungan is technically Mandarin, or a dialect of Mandarin[edit]

Hi, I'm not sure whether this is the right venue for this discussion, but I would like to bring up Dungan, which is spoken in Central Asia. According to Wikipedia, Ethnologue, and Glottolog, this is a Chinese language, specifically Mandarin. There are only 20 entries in Wiktionary that are for Dungan, and all of them are Mandarin words, with some from the Gansu and Shaanxi dialects. The difference, however, is that, Dungan is written in Cyrillic. In Wiktionary, all Chinese dialects are merged into one single Chinese entry, and pronunciations are listed. Shouldn't we do that, or at least partially, for Dungan? Please feel free to comment. Thanks. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Re venue: this is indeed a venue where discussions of merging/splitting language codes and categories and entries take place. I tend to put my "biggest" proposals (ones that needed votes in the past, or that concern major or controversial languages that I suspect will need votes) in the WT:BP, but here is OK.
Wiktionary:About Chinese#The_Chinese_lects and Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-04/Unified_Chinese intentionally left lects that don't use Hanzi separate from Unified Chinese, but I don't know if that was because Chinese editors felt they should never be merged, or just felt that merging them would be difficult and best attempted after everything else had been merged. It would obviously be possible to merge Dungan and other such lects if Chinese editors wanted to; we have plenty of other languages which use multiple scripts (e.g. Afrikaans). However, the various Chinese lects which are distinctive to the point of potentially being not-mutually-intelligible when spoken were able to be unified here because they share a written form in which they are theoretically mutually intelligible. If Dungan is potentially not intelligible with lects from other areas (lects that differ from Mandarin enough that speakers don't understand it without study) in either speech or writing, then what would be the basis for unifying them? - -sche (discuss) 15:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, Shaanxi and Gansu Mandarin is mutually intelligible with Dungan. Furthermore, a large majority of Dungan vocabulary is from Chinese, which therefore, has Chinese equivalent entries written in Chinese characters. There are Russian and Turkic vocabulary. My suggestion is to leave Dungan loanwords from Russian and Turkic as written in Cyrillic, and merge the Dungan Chinese words with Chinese entries, and perhaps leaving the Cyrillic entry of those words like how Chinese pinyin and Japanese romaji are left. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, I speak Mandarin, and I tried listening to Dungan videos in Youtube. They're actually understandable for the most part. As in I can write down what they're saying in Chinese, except for some words though (presumably Russian and Turkic loanwords). --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I am not opposed to this, but it would require that Dungan orthography be incorporated into the relevant Chinese templates, so @Wyang's aid and support will be critical. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I support this. Cyrillic Dungan forms can be added to {{zh-pron}}, under Mandarin. Wyang (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • The main caveats are that Cyrillic is apparently the standard script for Dungan, unlike with Pinyin or Romaji, and there may be some vocabulary that only exists in Cyrillic. I suppose the writing systems for Hokkien might be analogous, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This doesn't feel right to me. I think it would be like folding Maltese into Arabic, or merging Hindi and Urdu. I foresee a lot of complaints from anons if entries like дянхуа and شِيَوْ عَر دٍ have a ==Chinese== heading, and I would find it disconcerting myself, too. And what would the definition then say? {{lb|zh|Dungan}} {{form of|Cyrillic script|電話|lang=zh}}? I think readers would find that more confusing than helpful. And then what about the Russian and Turkic loanwords that don't exist in China? They would have to have full definitions without a link to a Hanzi entry, and that would probably baffle readers even more, despite the {{lb|zh|Dungan}} tag. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    Hindi and Urdu should be merged — they are separate for political reasons. Remember, we allow for Afrikaans entries in Arabic script, Old French entries in Hebrew script, and other odd happenstances of historical script usage. We can continue to use the Dungan header for words only existing in Cyrillic form, just like I believe we do for Min Nan. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Undecided for now. There are pros and cons. Cyrillic and Arabic spellings could potentially be added to each Mandarin standard pinyin syllable (non-standard could also be considered if confirmed). Multisyllabic only for confirmed ones.
Mandarin pinyin (with tone marks and monosyllabic tone numbered syllables), Min Nan POJ, zhuyin characters have not been "unified" under the Chinese umbrella for various reasons. Some are described above.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be more convenient for editors if Dungan were part of unified Chinese, since it would be easier to edit. It would just feel like too repetitive if I made a new Dungan entry that technically already has an equivalent Chinese entry. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Should I bring this somewhere else to a vote whether Dungan should be merged into the unified Chinese? --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Marrithiyel[edit]

Maridan [zmd], Maridjabin [zmj], Marimanindji [zmm], Maringarr [zmt], Marithiel [mfr], Mariyedi [zmy], Marti Ke [zmg]: should these be merged? References speak of a singular Marrithiyel language. - -sche (discuss) 21:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

make eyes at[edit]

Should be moved to make eyes, as it does occur without the at:

Keith the Koala (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Move per nom. DCDuring TALK 19:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
A move sounds good. Keeping "make eyes at" as a redirect is probably wise. Equinox 20:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, move. I wonder if make mouths at should be moved. Keep "make eyes at" as a redirect, as Equinox says. - -sche (discuss) 20:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Both moved. - -sche (discuss) 23:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

August 2016[edit]

Template:ux to Template:usex[edit]

Now that the older {{usex}} has been orphaned for a while, I think its name should again be the primary name for this template. It's much clearer than {{ux}}. {{ux}} would remain as a redirect of course. —CodeCat 15:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Support. --WikiTiki89 20:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Me too. DCDuring TALK 21:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
OK with me. Benwing2 (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
With me, that's now six in favour and none against. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A vote decided that ux should be the name used in the wiki markup, not usex. Usex is not particularly clear either; use-example would be. The template has a documentation that should help clarity; the name itself as used in the wiki text was decided to be short. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Furthermore, the old code of template usex should be kept to make revision histories legible. The practice of the recklessness toward legibility of revision histories has to stop. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    I mean, if all this is about is having a legible primary name, why not rename to {{use-example}}? Why make the page histories that use {{usex}} less legible? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    For reference, the vote is Wiktionary:Votes/2015-11/term → m; context → label; usex → ux. Votes are high-profile exercises in collecting evidence for consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Nowhere in that vote is there any implication that people prefer the name "ux". In fact, the vote appears set up specifically for three templates which have three equivalent templates differing only in their parameters. Therefore, it's very reasonable to conclude most people voted for the parameter change, not the name. This RFM discussion, which shows a clear consensus in favour of treating the two names equivalently and preferring {{usex}}, is additional evidence for that viewpoint. —CodeCat 17:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    The above claim that the vote is not about the name ux is ridiculous. If you want usex to become the dominant name in the wiki text, please set up a vote. The linked vote gives authorization to bots to automatically replace {{usex}} with {{ux}}. This low-profile RFM cannot be used to replace a vote since RFMs are so much more low-profile than votes. Furthermore, I originally understood this RFM to want to proceed on an analogy to {{label}} vs. {{lb}}, where {{lb}} is the predominant markup used in the wiki text even though the primary name is {{label}}; and therefore, I do not see the above supports are being for {{usex}} being the primary name to be seen in the actual wikitext. Either way, a high-profile vote cannot be overriden by a low-profile RFM with unclear change proposal. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    That it's unclear to you is not anyone else's problem. The people who voted understood it well enough to vote in favour of it. —CodeCat 17:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    In any case, RFM cannot override a fairly recent high-profile vote.
    On a further note, currently running Wiktionary:Votes/2016-07/borrowing, borrowed, loan, loanword → bor is only about the name and not about the template arguments, yet shows a large majority 9:5 support the short name. I submit to the reader that the recent votes showed support for very short names, including {{m}}. I don't believe editors at large want to see {{mention}} directly in the mainspace. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    CodeCat, there's no evidence that your reasoning applies to all people who voted at "usex → ux". You are acting like you can read their minds. You may want to create a new vote. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    Dan Polansky, please check Wiktionary:Votes/2016-07/borrowing, borrowed, loan, loanword → bor again. The vote is about template name and arguments. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    I created Wiktionary:Votes/2016-08/Making usex the primary name in the wiki markup. I don't know what else to do. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    I think this was a good idea. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Support move. - -sche (discuss) 16:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
@- -sche: How do you address my points and concerns? What is the benefit of {{usex}} over {{use-example}} or {{usage-example}}? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
We regularly refer to usage examples as "usexes" (singular: "a usex") in discussions, so that name is clear, whereas "ux" is not. "Usage-example" is too long to use in entries, although we do sometimes use full words for template names, and so making "usage-example" the full name and using "usex" and "ux" as redirects in entries would be OK, but "usex" is also OK and evidently has more support, and fits with other templates and modules that don't use full words (e.g. the "translit" templates and modules which, aside from any other debate they are subject to, are named with the short form "translit" and not "transliteration"). Legibility of revision histories is not a goal of mine; meeting it would be too much of a hindrance to progress, constricting our ability to improve template and module code. - -sche (discuss) 17:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: I'd support redirecting {{ux}} to {{usage example}}, while keeping {{ux}} in all entries.
This idea (using an abbreviation in the entries, the abbreviation being a redirect to a template with a long name) would be in line with {{der}} -> {{derived}}, {{m}} -> {{mention}}, etc.
By the way, before someone suggests editing all entries by bot to make them use {{usex}}, this 1-week, half-dozen people RFM discussion should not overrule a 1-month, 19-people vote (by "19 people", I mean only in the "usex → ux" part).
I'd rather use {{eg}} (a new, unvoted redirect) when creating new examples, but I wouldn't change all entries to accomodate that, except by creating a new vote. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Since there's still a large majority in favour of the move, I will make it yet again. —CodeCat 18:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@-sche, Angr, Wikitiki89, DCDuring, Benwing2, I'm so meta even this acronym I've tried repeatedly to make this change, but it keeps getting reverted by Dan. We have over 2/3 in support in this RFM, so is Dan going against consensus? —CodeCat 23:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said, low-profile RFM should not override a vote that we already had in which ux seemingly, but not according to CodeCat, was chosen. Wiktionary:Votes/2016-08/Making usex the primary name in the wiki markup is going to clarify the thing I believe. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
And you, a single person, decide that? Against 7 that disagree? —CodeCat 23:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand the question. I think it is a matter of general principle that low-profile RFM does not override a recent vote. It is the matter of bringing the thing to the proper radar screen, the proposal being phrased in clear terms. That has happened in Wiktionary:Votes/2016-08/Making usex the primary name in the wiki markup, the vote is running, and the vote is going to show consensus in this matter via a proper channel. --Dan Polansky (talk)
A bare majority (3-2) with only six voting is no endorsement, certainly neither consensus nor a high level of participation. I don't see that it was accurately closed, as there was no consensus. Such a bare majority would have been sufficient had the matter been decided where it belonged, but as the wrong venue was chosen, our stricter standard of 2/3 applied.
There are been more participants in this RFM. The matter never merited a policy vote to begin with. The vote was analogous to a special law, often a hallmark of a representation system manipulated by professional parliamentarians in real politics. DCDuring TALK 00:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
The vote is still ongoing. Scheduled end date: September 28. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
OK, there appears to be a lot of confusion here. CodeCat is proposing that the page named {{ux}} be a redirect to {{usex}} but that we keep using {{ux}} in actual markup, as the previous vote agreed to. This is similar to the situation that we have with {{m}} and {{mention}}, and {{l}} and {{link}}, where (e.g.) {{m}} is a redirect to {{mention}} but {{m}} is the form used in most markup. IMO this situation is rather confusing, but it's consistent with what's been done before. On the other hand, Dan's vote (if I'm not mistaken) seems to be proposing that we bot-rename {{ux}} to {{usex}} in all 26,000+ pages using it, which would go against the recently-established vote to rename things the other way. I'm not sure whether this difference was intentional on Dan's part or due to confusion, but it should be rectified some how or other. Benwing2 (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I was one of those confused. I would think we would want to robo-convert all instances of {{ux}} to {{usex}} so that contributors saw {{usex}} in the edit window. I would think this would reduce the need to find the templates documentation and reduce the number of folks who abandoned their attempt to contribute. If {{usex}} is to be the default template after operation of the bot, then it should be the name of a real template, not a redirect to the real template.
The general principle of having slightly longer, somewhat more explanatory names, using standard abbreviations where possible, would apply to all such cases. But it is hard to find a name that explains why and for what we use {{l}} and {{m}}, so we could leave them as is. —This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talkcontribs).
This isn't a dispute over the spelling of the template- it's a dispute over the content of {{usex}}. CodeCat wants to replace it with the content of {{ux}}, but Dan wants to keep the old version of {{usex}} for backwards compatibility. Perhaps we could add code so that the new version could detect parameters consistent with the old version and make them work, while putting them in a cleanup category. That way we can keep the old-version edits under control in current entries, but those in edit histories won't be effected.
Such a strategy is easier to do in this case because the two are mutually exclusive and can't be confused: either the language code is the first parameter or it's |lang=, and the translation is either the third parameter or |t=. There are a few entries where {{usex}} was recently added. When CodeCat made her change, they showed up in Cat:E, so I changed the parameters. Then Dan undid the change, and they ended up in Cat:E again. I don't mind changing them back one more time (I prefer the new version), but let's leave it at that. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
(outdent) As for "CodeCat is proposing that the page named {{ux}} be a redirect to {{usex}} but that we keep using {{ux}} in actual markup", that's what I thought until it seemed that it was CodeCat themselves who claimed otherwise, and then claimed "That it's unclear to you is not anyone else's problem". Frankly, this RFM appears ambiguous and too likely to mislead and confuse the participants, and it should be scrapped because of the lack of clarity of what it really proposes that we do. The vote Wiktionary:Votes/2016-08/Making usex the primary name in the wiki markup does not have that clarity or unambiguity problem. --Dan Polansky (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
If CodeCat thought that mainspace was still to carry {{ux}}, and this is only about where the code should be located, why not go for {{usage-example}} since that is not going to be in the wiki code in the mainspace? I can't see how this discussion is anything but confusing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
FYI, Wiktionary:Votes/2016-08/Making usex the primary name in the wiki markup now has 10 participants. --Dan Polansky (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Since the vote is over and didn't address the actual matter of this RFM (it addressed only the wiki markup of entries, not the templates themselves), can someone please perform the move? {{usex}} is now a redirect to {{ux}}, but this RFM's consensus calls for {{ux}} to be moved to {{usex}} and become a redirect instead. —CodeCat 18:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Some more missing North American languages[edit]

Here are a few more North American languages for which we could add codes:

  • Akokisa (nai-ako). WP says it is attested certainly in two words in Spanish records (Yegsa "Spaniard[s]", which Swanton suggests is similar to Atakapa yik "trade" + ica[k] "people"; and the female name Quiselpoo), and possibly in more words in a wordlist by Jean Béranger in 1721 (if the wordlist is not some other language).
  • Algonquian–Basque pidgin (crp-abp). Wikipedia has a sample. The Atlas of Languages of Intercultural Communication, citing Bakker, says it was spoken from at least 1580 (and perhaps as early as 1530s) through 1635, and "only a few phrases and less than 30 words attributable to Basque were written down" (though apparently more words, attributable to other sources, were also recorded).
  • Guachichil (Cuauchichil, Quauhchichitl, Chichimeca) (nai-gch or, if Guachí is added as sai-gch, perhaps nai-gcl to prevent the two similarly-named lects from being mixed up by only typoing the initial n vs s), apparently sparsely attested.
  • Concho (nai-cnc). The Handbook of North American Indians, volume 10, says "three words of Concho [...] were recorded in 1581 [and] look like they may be [...] Uto-Aztecan".
  • Jumano (Humano, Jumana, Xumana, Chouman, Zumana, Zuma, Suma, and Yuma) (nai-jmn). The Handbook says "It has been established that the Jumano and Suma spoke the same language. Three words have been recorded" of it.

- -sche (discuss) 04:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Support all except possibly Akokisa. I think it's a dialect of Atakapa, and that the wordlist is very likely not being linked correctly. That said, it's so few words, that there's no real reason not to accept it as a separate language, just to be conservative about it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Good point about Akokisa. (I am reminded that you had mentioned its dialectness earlier; sorry I forgot!) The wordlist, labelled only with a tribal name per WP, is possibly plain Atakapa, but Yegsa is supposedly recorded as specifically Akokisa; OTOH that doesn't rule out that Akokisa is a dialect. Indeed, M. Mithun's Languages of Native North America treats as dialects Akokisa, Eastern ("the most divergent, [...] known from a list of 287 entries") and Western ("the best documented. Gatschet recorded around 2000 words and sentences, as well as texts [...] Swanton recorded a few Western forms", all published in 1932 in a dictionary). I suppose the benefit to treating it as a dialect would be that we could context-label Yegsa and Quiselpoo as {{lb|aqp|Akokisa}} and then Béranger's forms as {{lb|aqp|possibly|Akokisa}} without needing to agonize over which header to put them under. - -sche (discuss) 15:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Some more missing South American languages, 2[edit]

Here are a few more South American languages for which we could add codes:

  • Coeruna / Koeruna (sai-coe), said to be attested.
  • Conambo language (sai-cnb) is sometimes considered a dialect of the Záparo language, but Loukotka has samples, which show differences: "head" is ku-anak in Zaparo, ku-anaka in Conambo, "eye" is nu-namits (Z) / ku-iyamixa (C), "fire" unamisok (Z) / umani (C), "woman" itumu (Z) / maxi (C). OTOH, telling it apart from what a number of references refer to as the Zaparo spoken in the Conambo river could be non-trivial, so perhaps treating it as a dialect would be easier...
Koihoma language should probably be put off until we can confirm it as a distinct lect; its alt names are all the names of other languages...
  • Peba / Peva (sai-peb), said by Erben to more properly by called Nijamvo, Nixamvo. Spoken in "the department of Loreto" in Peru. Attested in wordlists by Erben and Castelnau, which Loukotka provides, and which disagree with each other substantially: munyo (Erben) / money (Castelnau) "canoe, small boat"; nero (E) / yuna (C) "demon"; nebi (E) / nemey (C) "jaguar"; teki (E) / tomen-lay (C) "one", manaxo (E) / nomoira (C) "two"; etc. I would even consider that one might not be the same language as the other... what's with these languages that survive in disparate wordlists? lol.
possibly Saynáwa: fr.Wikt grants a code to this variety of Yaminawá language, described here (see also [4]).

- -sche (discuss) 21:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

September 2016[edit]

terms derived from Star Trek[edit]

Per "category talk:English terms derived from Star Trek," as far as I can tell the following categories are duplicates and should be merged. I have already added all of the terms listed in the categories marked as "derived from" to the shorter-named categories.

  • categories that should be deleted:
    • "category:English terms derived from Star Trek"
    • "category:Esperanto terms derived from Star Trek"
    • "category:terms derived from Star Trek by language"
  • categories to keep (terms have already been added to the categories below from the categories above):
    • "category:en:Star Trek"
    • "category:eo:Star Trek"
    • "category:Star Trek"

Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

other universes[edit]

  • However, see also "category:English terms derived from fiction". I would suggest that all of these categories be renamed to just "category:[name of fictional universe]" / "category:[language code]:[name of fictional universe]." Then keep the top-level category of "category:English terms derived from fiction" for terms that either do not belong to a specific universe, or are from a fictional universe not notable enough to warrant its own category. Nicole Sharp (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
    • E.g.: "category:English terms derived from Harry Potter" to "category:en:Harry Potter". Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

doodah[edit]

Not sure if there should be separate entries (doodad) – Jberkel (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Judeo-Arabic lects[edit]

We currently have Judeo-Arabic, but also Judeo-Tunisian Arabic (ajt) and Judeo-Moroccan Arabic (aju). The Arabic lects they draw from are all considered separate L2s, which perhaps supports this arrangement, but I don't know how different they all actually are, and it seems worth having a discussion on this. @Wikitiki89Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm actually in favor of merging all of Arabic into one language. This would work similarly to how it works with Chinese. But in the past when I brought this up, there seemed to be too much opposition to the idea. As it is stands, the spoken Judeo-Arabic dialects deserve the same treatment as other spoken Arabic dialects. Judeo-Arabic (jrb) itself, however, can be merged with Arabic (ar), because it is essentially the same language as Classical Arabic expect for the fact that it is written in the Hebrew alphabet. But because of the difference in writing system, this merger would not really bring much benefit. --WikiTiki89 23:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Nkore-Kiga[edit]

As can be seen at w:Nkore-Kiga language, Kiga [cgg] should definitely be merged into Nyankore [nyn]. Unfortunately, this might require a rename to something that is both hyphenated and considerably less common that just plain "Nyankore" (though that is, strictly speaking, merely the name of the main dialect). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Itneg lects[edit]

See w:Itneg language. All the dialects have different codes, but we really should give them a single code and unify them. I came across this problem with the entry balaua, which means "spirit house" (but I can't tell in which specific dialect). It's also known as Tinggian (with various different spellings), and this may be a better name for it than Itneg. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:gml-noun[edit]

Template:gml-adjective[edit]

Bad names, they sound like headword-line templates. Should be {{gml-noun-decl}} and {{gml-adj-decl}}. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Names kept short, again, to save typing. I'd prefer we worry about names when this actually becomes an issue. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Support move, though the names should be like {{gml-decl-noun}} or {{gml-infl-noun}}. —CodeCat 12:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd like a reasoning. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
The reasoning is that for most other languages, "xxx-noun" and "xxx-adjective" are headword-line templates. These should be moved to {{gml-decl-noun}} and {{gml-decl-adj}}. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I understand the dissimilarity, I do not understand (that's to be taken literally) how from that comes a reason to similarise the names. I cannot see detriment in the dissimilarity, I cannot see benefit in the similarisation. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Because eventually we'll want to create actual headword-line templates for Middle Low German, and the names those templates should have are currently occupied. It's also confusing to editors working on multiple languages. There's no reason to let one language have its own template system not for any linguistic reason but on a whim. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not convinced, and I would say the reasons would have to be provided for why all has to be uniform, not why one must diverge. But just so there's no misunderstanding: I recognise the consensus and I won't stand against it just because it's bothering me personally. I'm sure you have arguments why it should be uniform, I can come up with some myself, even if they don't convince me. (Though until anyone but me actually lifts a finger on GML, it's all a bit moot.) Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:etycomp[edit]

This template should be deleted and a parameter should be added to Template:compound to show the language of the word. Also, a parameter to have the phrase “Compound of” before would be nice too (like Template:blend). —britannic124 (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Support {{affix}} already has this functionality using langN parameters and it's used on less than 50 entries so convert and delete. —Enosh (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Enoshd, would you be able to convert it? I’m not very experienced with editing templates. —britannic124 (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016[edit]

Merge Category:Chinese hanzi and Category:Chinese Han characters[edit]

What distinguishes these two? —suzukaze (tc) 03:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

If there is no meaningful difference between these, I propose keeping Category:Chinese Han characters as it is managed by {{poscatboiler}} and merging Category:Chinese hanzi into it. —suzukaze (tc) 04:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Wyang, Atitarev, is there a difference between Category:Chinese hanzi and Category:Chinese Han characters, or can Category:Chinese hanzi be merged into Category:Chinese Han characters as suzukaze proposes? - -sche (discuss) 00:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
They can be merged, IMO. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Move template:lang[edit]

to something more sensible like "template:text"? lang could be used to display the language name from a language code whenever "there is no other template (like {{derived}} or {{cog}}) that can be used instead". --Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Giorgi Eufshi: Or {{textlang}}? That'd make it very clear. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
It also has 'face' and 'sc' parameters. Maybe {{textlangfacesc}}? --Dixtosa (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@Dixtosa: (There's no need to be facetious; I responded, didn't I?) {{text}} is fine. What does the |face= parameter do? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I was just making a point. hope no feelings were hurt )) My implicit question was: why do you feel lang suffix is necessary? It's not like this is the only template that can work with languages. --Dixtosa (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@Dixtosa: I just figured that it made its use clearer, that it's a template that marks the language of the text it encloses. But I really don't mind what it's called. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Question: I have used {{lang}} on talk pages. Would a bot convert these instances to whatever template name is chosen as a replacement for {{lang}}? — Eru·tuon 17:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it should not be moved since its equivalent on Wikipedia has this name. —suzukaze (tc) 07:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion debate[edit]

We could also try orphaning it instead. I believe there are many uses that could be replaced with other templates. Try orphaning it and see how far we get. —CodeCat 14:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: I use this template frequently for the text of quotations, which helps screen readers know what language the text is in; also, it's needed for display purposes sometimes, like wrapping text in {{lang|de|sc=Latf|…}} to display German text in Fraktur. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
We have other templates for quotations, that are more suited to that specific task. —CodeCat 21:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat: I don't think I'm aware of them. Could you link to them, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 09:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
{{quote}} and various other templates beginning with "quote". —CodeCat 14:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
And to mention a word without linking to it, you can put it in the 3rd positional parameter of {{l}} or {{m}}, thus: {{m|de||dass}}. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
@Aɴɢʀ: Thanks; I was already aware of and do already use {{m}} and {{l}} like that.
@CodeCat: I frequently find those templates to be flawed; they can't handle the quotation of works with unusual internal structure (Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, with its hierarchically organised propositions, is a modern example). Unless there is something that can perform the function of {{lang}} without the problems of the quote- templates, I shall have to oppose this orphaning. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Can you give an example? —CodeCat 14:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat: Sorry, an example of what? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
An example of a case where no other existing template works. —CodeCat 14:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat: I confess to not being very experienced with those templates (the bad experiences I've had have been other editors trying to shoehorn existing, manually-written citations into them). Maybe one or another of those quote- templates could cope with the TLP; I wouldn't know. Could any of them cope with the modern translation of a scholion by one ancient author, commenting on the work of another ancient author, appearing in a volume of translated works of ancient authors (writing on a common theme), with the texts emended by different modern emendators, the volume as a whole edited by a modern editor, and that volume constituting one part of a series which itself has a different modern general editor? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with what either {{quote}} or {{lang}} does. I suggest you familiarize yourself with these templates before commenting further. DTLHS (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@DTLHS: My mistake. I thought CodeCat was only referring to {{quote-book}} and the like. I was not aware of the existence of {{quote}}. @CodeCat: My apologies; I misread what you wrote. {{quote}} is great; I'll use that instead of {{lang}} from now on. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

carry a torch for[edit]

Move to carry a torch, making sure that the definition is appropriate for usage both with and without for. A redirect from [[carry a torch for]] to carry a torch would be fine with me. At present the redirect goes the other way. DCDuring TALK 14:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Attestation of use without for is at Citations:carry a torch for. DCDuring TALK 15:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:English and other topical categories about languages[edit]

It would be nice to have a name that makes it more obvious that this is a topical category. How about Category:English linguistics, and for the larger languages subcategories like Category:English grammar, Category:English orthography, etc.? I’m open to suggestions, as some people don’t like including things relating to writing or standardised language under linguistics. Another issue is that the hub categories (without language codes) would follow the same format as non-topical categories, but I still think it’s clearer than just English.

And how about parent categories for language families, like Category:Germanic linguistics? — Ungoliant (falai) 20:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016[edit]

Paraguayan Guaraní [gug][edit]

I just noticed that we have this for some reason. Guaraní is a dialect continuum that is quite extensive, both in inter-dialect differences and in geography, and certain varieties have been heavily influenced by Spanish or Portuguese. That said, our Guaraní [gn] content is, as far as I can tell, pretty much entirely on Paraguayan Guaraní, which for some reason has a different code, [gug]. My attention was brought to this by User:Guillermo2149 changing L2 headers (I have not reverted his edits, but they do cause header-code mismatch). We could try splitting up the Guaraní dialects, but it would hard to choose cutoffs and would definitely confuse potential editors, of which we have had more since Duolingo released a Guaraní course. I think the best choice is to merge [gug] into [gn] and mark words extensively for which dialects or countries they are used in. @-scheΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support [gn] and [grn] are the codes of the macrolanguage, [gug] is the code for the specific dialect spoken in Paraguay, also, until now, I haven't found any [gn] lemma to be out of [gug]. --Guillermo2149 (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. — Ungoliant (falai) 11:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support merging gn and gug. - -sche (discuss) 14:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportAɴɢʀ (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Guillermo2149, Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, -sche, Angr: I see now that there are three more Guaraní dialect codes that we have: Mbyá Guaraní [gun], Chiripá [nhd], and Western Bolivian Guaraní [gnw]. I presume that we should merge these into [gn] as well, but the case is arguably less clear given that in our current state, all our [gn] lemmas are really [gug]. What do you all think? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
    I stick by my motto, "When in doubt, merge". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
    I think we should actually merge [gn] into [gug] and not viceversa. By the way, [gn] is the only one that should be merged, [gun] has similar and some equal words but the language is very different, and [nhd] is similar and very close to [gug] but it's slightly different and always confused with [gug] --Guillermo2149 (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Don't forget there's also [gui] and apparently also [tpj]. - -sche (discuss) 04:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Westrobothnian lemmas[edit]

See also: Wiktionary:Information_desk#Category:Westrobothnian_lemmas_-_Our_idiosyncrasy.3F

User:Korn posted this to rfv as a way of requesting verification of all the Westrobothnian entries. The justification was that the orthography doesn't seem to be one that has been actually used for the language. Given that the terms seem, for the most part, to be real and added in good faith, I would like to see if we can figure out a way to move them to the appropriate spellings rather than deleting them as unattested. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Chuck described the situation correctly as I see it. It's about spelling, not terms. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

caught between the devil and the deep blue sea[edit]

to: between the devil and the deep blue sea, with "caught etc." either deleted or made a redirect.

The prepositional phrase between the devil and the deep blue sea ("PP") appears alone (eg, in titles) and collocates with forms of verbs catch, be, put, find (oneself), leave, choose, stand, sit, lie. Caught up, stuck, and trapped are from verbs that seem to collocate with the PP almost exclusively in the past participle form (or adjective). The PP occurs after certain deverbal nouns, like choice. Alternative prepositions are less common: eg, in between, as.

And, finally, caught between the devil and the deep blue sea at OneLook Dictionary Search shows none of the indexed references there have the term caught + PP, whereas between the devil and the deep blue sea at OneLook Dictionary Search shows that a few unabridged dictionaries, an idiom dictionary, and a nautical dictionary have the PP. DCDuring TALK 15:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@DCDuring: Move to between the devil and the deep blue sea, retaining caught between the devil and the deep blue sea as a hard redirect thereto. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016[edit]

Splitting Monguor into Mangghuer and Mongghul[edit]

This was already discussed at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2016/December#Splitting_Monguor, but seeing as it's been a few days I've decided to use the circumstance of this being the preferred place for such requests to bump the topic. Crom daba (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Support. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Crom daba, what would happen to words in older literature such as de Smedt / Mostaert 1933 or Todaeva 1973 which are not clearly marked as being either Minhe or Huzhu? Now they can be added under Monguor. Someone can later label them as Mangghuer or Mongghul using {{lb|mjg|}}. After splitting, a lot of useful stuff from older sources will hang in the air. --Vahag (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Most sources are identifiable as either Mangghuer or Mongghul, we could specify which resource contains what in the about page. A bigger problem for me is how do we even enter data from the old sources? Do we put in Todaeva's Cyrillic and Mostaert's pre-IPA phonetic symbols or do we transcribe it into Pinyin? I wasn't around long enough to see what the precedent here is. Crom daba (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
If you can specify which resource contains what in the about page, then I support the split. Otherwise, I would like to have three codes, like we do with ku (Kurdish macrolanguage), kmr (Northern Kurdish variety), ckb (Central Kurdish variety).
As for entering words from older sources, you can normalize them into Pinyin, as long as the rules of normalization are clearly defined. Look at what I have done with Udi at WT:AUDI. --Vahag (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
After some research, it appears that correspondence of Pinyin spellings (as written by Dpal-ldan-bkra-shis et al) and older attestations is non-trivial, so I will put off transcribing anything which isn't already in Pinyin, at least until I see an example of it supporting the full range of dialectal and historical Monguor variation. Crom daba (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

be there for[edit]

Move to be there? Spice Girls: "say you'll be there". The accessory for isn't always present; we wouldn't have an entry for be there when (I need you). Equinox 04:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Move per nom. DCDuring TALK 12:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Move. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

keep a close watch on[edit]

As with be there for above: you can keep a close watch. The on preposition is accessory. I could also keep a close watch beside the prisoner. Equinox 05:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Move per nom. DCDuring TALK 12:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Move. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Moving Finno-Ugric families to Uralic families[edit]

We don't recognize Finno-Ugric as a valid family; just Uralic. Hence urj is a valid code, but fiu isn't. Nevertheless, we're using fiu- as the prefix for four branches: fiu-fin for Finnic, fiu-mdv for Mordvinic, fiu-prm for Permic, and fiu-ugr for Ugric. I propose we use urj- for these instead, thus moving as follows:

  • fiu-finurj-fin
  • fiu-mdvurj-mdv
  • fiu-prmurj-prm
  • fiu-ugrurj-ugr

At the same time, we should move the codes for the corresponding protolanguages:

  • fiu-fin-prourj-fin-pro
  • fiu-mdv-prourj-mdv-pro
  • fiu-prm-prourj-prm-pro
  • fiu-ugr-prourj-ugr-pro

as well as the code for the etymology-only lect Proto-Finno-Permic:

  • fiu-fpr-prourj-fpr-pro

I suppose we can keep fiu-pro as an etymology-only variant of urj-pro if it's important. What do others think? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

That seems like a lot of disruption for a small theoretical benefit: we've always used codes like aus, cau, nai and sai that we don't recognize as families for making exception codes, so it's not a huge violation of our naming logic. In this case, though, it looks to me like we don't recognize fiu more because it's too much like urj, not because it's invalid, per se (though I don't know a lot on the subject). We do have gmw-fri rather than gem-fri, for instance. Of course, I'd rather follow those who actually work in this area- especially @Tropylium. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I have no opinion on moving around family codes either way (it doesn't seem they actually come up much, whatever they are), but if we start moving around the proto-language codes, I would like to suggest simple two-part codes. Proto-Samic and Proto-Samoyedic are already smi-pro and syd-pro, so is there any reason we couldn't make do with e.g. fin-pro, fpr-pro, ugr-pro etc.?
Also, as long as we're on this topic, at some point we are going to need the following:
  • Proto-Mansi: (ugr-/urj-?)mns-pro
  • Proto-Khanty: (ugr-/urj-?)kca-pro
  • Proto-Selkup: (ugr-/urj-?)sel-pro
No rush though, since so far we do not even have separate codes for their subdivisions. The only distinction that comes up in practice is distinguishing Northern Khanty from Eastern Khanty (Mansi and Selkup only have one main variety that is not extinct or nearly extinct). --Tropylium (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
There is, actually, a reason: our exception codes are designed to avoid conflict with the ISO 639 codes, so they start with an existing ISO 639 code or a code in the qaa-qtz range set aside by ISO 639 for private use. fin is one of the codes for the Finnish language. fpr and ugr are apparently unassigned- for now. As for the three proto-language codes, those don't need a family prefix because they already start with an ISO 639 code. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
The only codes in the qaa-qtz range we actually use are qfa as a prefix for otherwise unclassified families and qot for Sahaptin (a macrolanguage that wasn't given an ISO code of its own), right? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Right. And I didn't notice that we used qot although it is not an ISO code; it seems we followed Linguist List in using it. For consistency, I suggest changing it to fit our usual scheme, so nai-spt or similar (nai-shp is already in use as the family code). - -sche (discuss) 05:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Support, for consistency. fiu is different from nai, because fiu is [a supposedly genetic grouping which is] agreed to be encompassed by a higher-level genetic family which also has an ISO code (urj), and that code can be used if we drop fiu. nai and sai are placeholders rather than genetic groupings, and they're useful ones, because If we dropped them we'd had to recode everything as qfa- (and might conceivably run out of recognizable/mnemonic codes at that point). - -sche (discuss) 05:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Support per -sche, both the main issue being suggested here, as well as recoding Sahaptin. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I've recoded Sahaptin and all the Finno-Ugric lects except fiu-fin / fiu-fin-pro which requires moving a lot of categories, which I will get to later. - -sche (discuss) 17:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Now there are lots of module errors in Cat:E as a result of these language code changes. It might be easiest to fix them by bot. @DTLHS, what do you think? — Eru·tuon 22:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. DTLHS (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@Erutuon I've done a bunch of them- I think the reconstructions should be fixed by hand. DTLHS (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@DTLHS: Three incorrect language codes remain, I think: fiu-ugr, fiu-fpr-pro, urj-fin-pro. I couldn't figure out what fiu-fpr-pro should be; it seems to refer to Proto-Finno-Permic, but I searched various language data modules and didn't find a match. Is there someone who can look through and fix the remaining module errors that relate to incorrect language codes? @Tropylium, @Angr, @-sche? — Eru·tuon 04:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Proto-Finno-Permic is an etymology-only language (and a kind of a legacy concept) that we encode as a variety of Proto-Uralic, if that helps. --Tropylium (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
The categories were easy to deal with: you just change the {{derivcatboiler}} to {{auto cat}} and the template plugs in the correct language code, if it exists. That also makes it a quick way to check whether there is a correct language code. by the time I finished that, there were only a dozen or so entries left in CAT:E due to everyone else's efforts, so I finished off the remainder by hand. It would have been easier if there hadn't been hundreds of other module errors cluttering up CAT:E- yet another reason for you to be more careful. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I apologise for not catching and fixing those uses at the time I renamed the codes. I searched all pages on the site for each of the old codes, and some pages turned up [including pages where the codes were used inside some templates, and I fixed those pages], so I forgot to also do an "insource:" search to catch other uses inside templates like {{m}}. We so rarely change language codes compared to changing language names. - -sche (discuss) 23:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

be glad to see the back of[edit]

to: see the back of

There are numerous alternative wordings to this, especially the be glad to portion of it, which could be, for example, I'll have no regrets when I.

As usual we lack a panoply of desirable redirects for the current version of the idiom. We should create many, especially for see his|her|their|my|your|our back(s). A usage example should include be glad to and possessive forms of nouns, eg, guest's back, Idi's back. DCDuring TALK 15:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017[edit]

aiginaz[edit]

*aiginaz...should the descendants listed here be moved to *aiganaz ? Leasnam (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

This is really a question about the shape of the strong past participle in general. -inaz shows up in Old Norse, while -anaz appears in Gothic and West Germanic. The Old Norse form has made some people reconstruct -inaz for Proto-Germanic as well, but I'm not sure if that's right. The ending never seems to trigger umlaut, even though you'd expect it to - Old Norse has no problem with umlaut in the singular forms of verbs, so there's no reason it would be levelled out here. —CodeCat 14:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Appendix:List of Arora surnames[edit]

Maini's comes under Khatri's not under Arora's. Please recheck & correct. —This unsigned comment was added by 116.50.85.25 (talk) at 14:20, 3 January 2017.

rubber-chicken dinner[edit]

to rubber chicken. Other dictionaries in OneLook have rubber chicken, not rubber-chicken dinner. There are abundant other collocations of rubber chicken both as a substantive and in attributive use. One common one is "rubber-chicken circuit". Examples of other nouns following rubber-chicken are lunch, banquet, affair, meal, fundraiser. Substantive use can be found in usages such as: Fortunately we'll spare everyone the rubber chicken and the speeches and simply acknowledge the guidance and vision of the world's best agent/coach/editor.

Rubber chicken is not identical to rubber (rubbery) + chicken either, though that is its origin. It specifically refers to the kind of organizational meals-with-speeches that crowd a politician's schedule, but also characterize conventions, off-site meetings, etc. DCDuring TALK 13:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Merger into Scandoromani[edit]

I propose that the Para-Romani lects Traveller Norwegian, Traveller Danish and Tavringer Swedish (rmg, rmd and rmu) be merged into Scandoromani. TN, TD and TS are almost identical, mostly differing in spelling (e.g. tjuro (Sweden) vs. kjuro (Norway) meaning 'knife', gräj vs. grei 'horse' etc.). WP treats them as variants of Scandoromani. My langcode proposal could be rom-sca, or maybe we could just use rmg, which already has a category. --176.23.1.95 20:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017[edit]

Chinese Pidgin English [cpi][edit]

This is not a separate language at all, it's just English with different grammar and some loanwords, but other than that it's completely intelligible with standard English. As such, it should be moved to Category:Chinese English. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not at all the impression I get from Chinese Pidgin English. It seems to be a distinct language to me, as much as any other English-based pidgin. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
We did delete Hawaiian Pidgin English in the past though (see Template talk:hwc). I don't see how this case is any different. -- Pedrianaplant (talk)
I know we did, but I didn't participate in that discussion (only 3 people did), and I disagree with it too, probably even more strongly than I disagree with merging cpi. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Basically, this is a terminological problem. There may have been a true pidgin in each of these cases, but it has not been recorded. What is called a pidgin in many descriptive works is instead a dialect of English that is very easy to understand, nothing like the real English-based pidgins and creoles that I have studied. If you look at the actual quotations used to support lemmas in Chinese Pidgin English, you find that it is Chinese English. Support merge, but leave [cpi] as an etymology-only code. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
  • At least some texts seem very distinct, to the point of unintelligibility; consider "Joss pidgin man chop chop begin" (Whedon's translator begins chopping things? or "god's businessman begins right away"?). On the other hand, other sentences given by Wikipedia are quite intelligible...and possibly not attestable under the stricter CFI to which English is subject. I'm not sure what to do. (Our short previous discussion also didn't reach a firm resolution.) - -sche (discuss) 17:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    I mean, I use joss and chop chop in English normally (having grown up in a fairly Chinese environment likely has something to do with that)... and I think that was chosen as an especially extreme example. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017[edit]

1-up[edit]

Nominated for merger into one-up by User:Ultimateria. I oppose this proposed merge, because I believe that the primary use of "one-up" is with respect to the concept of one-upmanship (which never uses the number "1"), while the primary means of referring to the video-game usage is with the number, not the letter. I see no advantage to merging if that leads to conflation of meanings, or leads to the lesser-used variation housing the meaning of a particular definition. bd2412 T 02:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

You're right, but I nominated it because I saw the same sense across two entries. The translations need to be merged, and one has to be established as the alt spelling. Have I been using this category wrong? Ultimateria (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:en:Place names to Category:en:Places[edit]

Our practice is to name topica/set categories based on the referent, not on the word. We have Category:en:Felids rather than Category:en:Names of felids or similar, and Category:en:Languages rather than Category:en:Language names. The words in this category do not refer to names, they are names that refer to places. —CodeCat 14:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  • The title is more precise than "Places". I think it may be handy for any places, like unincorporated communities, which don't fit into another category, such as Towns, Cities, Villages, Regions etc. I would suggest leaving it as it is. DonnanZ (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Move per nom, IMO. I don't see how something would be a placename without referring to a place; are there examples? Btw, the category currently includes everything from the very broad Northern Hemisphere to Northern Europe to North Britain to Midlothian on down to the very specific, like Peckham; is it meant to include all places or should some of these be moved to more specific categories? - -sche (discuss) 16:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
We already have a bunch of finer categories, including Category:en:Polities which seems to be for man-made divisions. —CodeCat 17:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Peckham has been moved to Category:en:London. Midlothian has two other more suitable categories, so "Place names" has been removed. It may be possible that new homes can be found for other "waifs and strays" in Category:en:Place names. DonnanZ (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Seems logical. Equinox 20:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose — leave it where it is or move it to Category:English toponyms. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Why? —CodeCat 23:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
@CodeCat: Because I see some merit in your arguments, find something ridiculous about the category name Category:en:Places, and believe Category:English toponyms to be a better name which is neither subject to your criticism nor primâ facie ridiculous. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
"Toponyms" suffers from the same problem as "place names": under our category naming scheme, it should not have the content this category has : but this category can serve as a category for words relating to placenames, like "hydronym", I think. - -sche (discuss) 21:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
In a section above, Makaokalani agrees this category should be renamed to fit the scheme. I'm going to create parallel categories, for now. - -sche (discuss) 21:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Appendix:Australian English terms pertaining to money and wealth[edit]

Too much granularity? A merge into Appendix:Australian English vocabulary might be appropriate. Perhaps simply a rename would suffice. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

April 2017[edit]

More unattested languages[edit]

The following languages have ISO codes, but those codes should be removed, as there is no linguistic material that can be added to Wiktionary. This list is taken from Wikipedia's list of unattested languages, but I have excluded languages which are not definitively extinct (and thus which may have material become available). If there was any reliable source I could find corroborating the WP article's claim of lack of attestation, it is given after the language. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Aguano language [aga]
    Unclear if it even existed per The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide (Campbell and Grondona).
  • Barbacoas language [bpb] (the Wikipedia article has a discussion of the conflation of this unattested language with Pasto, which needs a code; for clarity, I think this [bpb] should be retired and an exceptional code made explicitly for Pasto)
  • Dek language [dek]
  • Giyug language [giy]
    AIATSIS has the following to say: "According to Ian Green (2007 p.c.), this language probably died before the 1920's and neighbouring groups in the Daly claim it was the language of Peron Island which was linguistically and perhaps culturally distinctive from the nearby mainland societies. Black & Walsh (1989) say that this may or may not have been a dialect of Wadiginy N31."
  • Mawa language (Nigeria) [wma] (We call this "Mawa", if removed, [mcw] Mahwa (Mawa language (Chad) can be renamed to the evidently more common spelling "Mawa".)
  • Moksela language [vms]
    Charles Grimes says in Spices from the East: Papers in Languages of Eastern Indonesia: "This speech variety has been extinct since 1974, when the last speaker died. No clues other than the name of a stream east of Kayeli called Moksela, give any indication as to where it was spoken or what it was like. If it was spoken from the stream by that name eastward, then chances are likely that it was also a variety of the Kayeli language. People in the Kayeli area remember nothing more than the name of the language, who in the community spoke it [] " (I cannot view beyond this in the Google Books preview.)
    "...who in the community spoke it before they died, and that it was somehow different enough to have its own identity." is the rest of the sentence, I managed to coax Google into telling me. The name seemed familiar, as if it had been in one of the wordlists I've been looking at recently, but I just went back over them and searched through various other sources and indeed the only mentions of it I find all just say it's extinct and not recorded; how sad. Removed. - -sche (discuss) 08:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Nagarchal language [nbg]
    Appendix I in The Indo-Aryan Languages records this language as being a subdialect of Dhundari [dhd] and the 1901 Indian Census concurs; this is at odds with its description as an unattested Dravidian language, but the geographical specifications seem to match up.
  • Ngurmbur language [nrx]
    AIATSIS says: "Harvey (PMS 5822) treats Ngomburr as a dialect of Umbukarla N43, but in Harvey (ASEDA 802), it is listed as a separate language." Nicholas Evans confirms in The Non-Pama-Nyungan Languages of Northern Australia that it is unattested.
  • Tremembé language [tme]
  • Truká language [tka]
  • Wakoná language [waf]
  • Wasu language [was]
    Unclassified due to its absence of data per The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide (Campbell and Grondona).

  • In this vein, Makolkol [zmh] is claimed to be extinct (per Wurm 2003, after having 7 speakers in 1988) and apparently unattested (per Stebbins 2010). Harald Hammarström and Sebastian Nordhoff accept this conclusion in Melanesian Languages on the Edge of Asia, but it may be a cautionary tale instead, because an article in LoopPNG from 2016 says five Makolkol still live, and even provides words(!), saying it is related to Simbali: "mam, meaning father, and nan, meaning mother". A 2005 article in Anthropological Linguistics (volume 47, page 77) agrees on the relation to Simbali: " [] Makolkol (extinct), [] is locally understood to have been a 'mixed language' combining Simbali and Nakanai (an Austronesian language on the northern side of New Britain)." I suppose the code should be left alone for now, pending further data. (There were widely varying estimates of how many speakers it had earlier in the 20th century, and fanciful tales of who they were, "headhunters" or "giants" who "lived in trees" and who no white person had survived meeting at first.) - -sche (discuss) 08:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yenish[edit]

The Yenish "language" (which we call Yeniche) was given the ISO code yec, despite being clearly not a separate language from German. Instead, it is a jargon which Wikipedia compares to Cockney (which has never had a code) and Polari (which had a code that we deleted in a mostly off-topic discussion). The case of Gayle, which is similar, is still under deliberation at RFM as of now. Most tellingly, German Wiktionary considers this to be German, and once we delete the code, we should make a dialect label for it and add the contents of de:Kategorie:Jenisch to English Wiktionary. @-scheΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how that's most tellingly; I don't know about the German Wiktionary, but major language works frequently treat things as dialects of their language that outsiders consider separate languages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The (linked) English Wikipedia article even says "It is a jargon rather than an actual language; meaning, it consists of a significant number of unique specialized words, but does not have its own grammar or its own basic vocabulary." Despite the citation needed that follows, that sentence is about accurate, as such this should be deleted. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Braj language and Category:Haryanvi language[edit]

The language codes (bra and bgc) should be merged into Hindi and the categories should be deleted. I've moved all the entries into Hindi with appropriate dialect labels. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 15:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Why? They have ISO 693-3 codes, so they have an prima facie argument that they're separate languages, and entries should not be merged until there is agreement otherwise.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
That's not how this works. The ISO assigns codes without careful review, and makes all sorts of mistakes. We need to determine for ourselves what codes should actually exist. @-sche does the best work in that regard. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate Prosfilaes' point that it'd be helpful if Aryamanarora explained their case, though. :p And I don't disrespect the ISO; any group trying to give codes to all the world's thousands of languages is bound to make mistakes, including us! (Lately I've been thinking I was wrong to dismiss Mixed Great Andamanese as something that needs a code, and in the other direction, thinking about how to recalibrate our historically splittist handling of German lects...) Maybe some of our mergers seem as unhelpful to them as some of their splits (like Serbo-Croatian) seem to us. A dictionary attempting to define all the world's words does have some different considerations from a missionary organization trying to translate Bibles into something as close to every population's specific speech as possible.
Perusing dozens of recent reference works (and ones from as far back as the 1800s) that turn up with a simple Google Books search, I see "Braj Bhasha" is usually considered a dialect of "Hindi" (with a few dissenters). Modern writers may switch from Hindi-proper to having characters use Braj forms much the same way writers in English might have characters use AAVE or Cockney. And Aryamanarora is a native speaker of Hindi saying the same thing, that it is a dialect. I will remove its code.
(I had some concern, when first reading the Wikipedia article, that this might be a situation where the historical lect was more distinct than the modern lect of the same name, but many of the references are specifically saying the historical literature is a dialect of Hindi, with, again, a few dissenters who don't exactly say it's a separate language but just find it odd when people lump Braj, Hindi-proper and other Hindi dialects' literature all into one book of "Hindi literature".)
For Haryanvi the situation is similar. Some references say the spoken form is more distinct from Hindi than the written form, which we could handle in pronunciation sections. But before I merge that, it might be wise to discuss the other Hindi lects: what should be done about Bundeli, Kannauji ("a lexical similarity of 83–94% with Hindi" per Ethnologue suggests a merger), Awadhi? Bagheli, Powari? (Chhattisgarhi, Surgujia?) - -sche (discuss) 04:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Awadhi and Chhattisgarhi should hands down be kept separate. When it comes to Braj and Haryanvi, and the others, it falls into an old trend in Indian linguistics to not be too particular with languages that aren't Sanskrit. The Prakrits, for all their genuine differences, are called one set of dialects, and the Apabhramshas too, which I would call quite laughable. And the large amount of borrowing across the Indo-Aryan languages makes underlying languages difficult to determine. The Indian government has pushed a policy of merging the "Hindi lects" and doesn't want to give them separate recognition should that make Hindi's case as the national language weaker. Many arguments are made, including by @Aryamanarora, have stated that the "higher vocabulary" is identical, but often that is even the case in Bengali, Gujarati, Punjabi, and Marathi due to the strength of prevalence of Sanskrit borrowings. And mutual intelligibility, which is often stated as another factor, arises from individuals knowing the differences and correspondences between different languages (or dialects). I would make a strong argument, that if one had no knowledge whatsoever (which is impossible to come by these days) of Hindi, then a Kannauji speaker would be hard-pressed to understand Hindi proper, and vice-versa, even in their written forms. DerekWinters (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
There is no Hindi proper. There's Delhi Hindi, Hindustani, Persianized Hindi (some call it Urdu), Braj, Dakkhini, Old Hindi (still preserved in Hindu bhajans e.g. Om Jai Jagdish) an so on. I don't have any Indian nationalist aim or trying to "impose" Hindi, I just think Braj is not different enough from Hindi to be considered a language. R. S. McGregor has Braj and Awadhi forms in his "Hindi-English dictionary", and he is no Indian government mouthpiece. As for Prakrit, I think they are one language. See User:Aryamanarora/Prakrit (still incomplete), the differences in orthography are too regular to consider them (the 3 main dramatic Prakrits) as different languages, and I think the pronunciations would have been quite close when they were alive. Most of the English-language grammars treat them as a continuum of dialects.
Furthermore, I am not even that well-versed in Hindi. I've lived in the United States for 9 years in a town where Hindi is very very uncommon; my Hindi is rusty. I still can understand Braj and Awadhi to a degree. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 20:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Aryamanarora I'm not calling you a government lackey or anything, honestly. I was merely stating what the Indian government is doing. And Hindi proper refers to Standard Manak Hindi. DerekWinters (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@DerekWinters: We don't adhere to Manak Hindi though, we have entries like बस (bas), फ़र्ज़ (farz), आसमान (āsmān). These are all everyday words but they're borrowed from Persian and Arabic. Nobody actuallu speaks Manak Hindi, it's a purely written register that's only used in formal literature. Braj and Haryanvi are not Manak Hindi, but they are dialectical registers of Hindi, so there's no reason to count them as distinct languages. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 20:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

give a monkey's[edit]

I think not give a monkey's should redirect to give a monkey's, not the other way around. See the pattern of give a shit, and of all the synonyms provided there; admittedly, I did some of the redirections myself, but there is no reason to have two different formats. --Barytonesis (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

morphemes with same pronunciation but variable spelling[edit]

Russian has many of them. Examples from 520 section:

  • -и|j|- : letter и, sound j
  • -|j|-  : sound j (no letter)
  • -о|в1j|­-  : letter о, sound в1j

Current pages:

d1g (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

rake over the coals and rake someone over the coals[edit]

What's the difference? --Barytonesis (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

-a[edit]

Merge senses “(Northern England) Same as -er in Standard English.” and “(Black English and slang) Used to replace -er in nouns.” Doesn’t this represent the same phenomenon? — Ungoliant (falai) 21:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I would just delete both: spelling final -er as -a isn't specific to any morpheme- the sound it represents is from a general feature of the phonology. For instance mother/mutha has had that last syllable all the way back to Proto-Indo-European, and I can't imagine what the -er/-a would be attached to even if it didn't. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Move entries in CAT:Khitan lemmas to a Khitan script[edit]

The Khitan wrote using a Siniform script. Are these Chinese transcriptions of Khitan? —suzukaze (tc) 02:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about what's going on here. Are you RFV-ing every entry in this category? Or are you just looking for evidence that Khitan was written using this script? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 12:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The Khitans had their own script. These entries use the Chinese script. —suzukaze (tc) 17:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I understand that, but I don't understand what your goal is with this discussion. If you want to RFV every entry in the category, then I'd like to add {{rfv}} tags to alert anyone watching the entries. If you want to discuss what writing systems Khitan used, maybe with the goal of moving all of these entries to different titles, then I'm not sure RFV is the right place for the discussion. (Likewise with the Buyeo section below.) —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Moved to RFM. - -sche (discuss) 21:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

May[edit]

Split off Category:Named stars from Category:Stars[edit]

These categories are currently used for both types of star (white dwarf, neutron star, etc) and for individual named stars (Aldebaran, Sirius...). This split should sort that out. —CodeCat 23:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. The idea of splitting isn't necessarily bad, but that's an awful name. Maybe stuff like white dwarf should be in Category:Types of stars? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
We already have Category:Named roads and Category:Place names. Since the rename of the latter to Category:Places was rejected, I can assume that people want "name" in the name of categories containing names. —CodeCat 00:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how Category:Place names is relevant. The point is that if I have a star, and want to put it in a category, I'll never guess that Category:Named stars is where it belongs. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
And yet, people have clearly decided in the past that that same category is also a good place for white dwarf. Most of our set categories are for types of things. Category:Felids is not for names of individual felids, but for types of felids. Category:Headwear is for types of headwear, not specific pieces of headwear with a name. Category:Planets of the Solar System is for names of individual things, though, as is Category:Planets. We have a discrepancy in naming between adding a specifier for type (Category:Types of planets) and adding a specifier for name (Category:Named roads). —CodeCat 00:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
It has been suggested before, and still seems plausible (although I know there are drawbacks to it), that we would benefit from some kind of naming scheme like prefixing or suffixing "topic" and "list" to the categories, as in "Stars (topic)" or "topic:Stars". - -sche (discuss) 06:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Some spurious languages to merge or remove[edit]

merge Dororo [drr] and Guliguli [gli] into [kzk]

In 1953, Lanyon-Orgill provided short wordlists of two languages he called Dororo and Guliguli. His lists are so similar to Kazukuru that subsequent scholars have suspected they are dialects, if not alternative transcriptions, if not jokes. Karen Davis, in A grammar of the Hoava language, Western Solomons, notes "there was no one in present day Kusaghe who had heard of [Dororo or Guliguli], and Lanyon-Orgill does not identify his informant. As one of the names of the dialects, Guliguli, can mean 'masturbate' in Hoava-Kusaghe, I have my doubts about the existence of this language." Michael Dunn and Malcolm Ross expand on Davis's point in their 2007 article Is Kazukuru really non-Austronesian, with the view (accepted also by e.g. Harald Hammarström and Sebastian Nordhoff, in Melanesian Languages on the Edge of Asia: Challenges for the 21st Century) that if the lects were real, they were the same language as Kazukuru, which I propose to merge them into. (Sample words in Kazukuru, Guliguli, and Dororo: pito, bito, bito "arrow"; vinovo, vino, bino "banana"; viniti, vini, vinitini "body"; minata, minate, minate "die"; meta, mata, mata / meta "eye"; rano, rano, rano "head"; muni, moni, muni / moni "night".) - -sche (discuss) 06:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

remove Yarsun [yrs] and Wares [wai]

As noted by Hammarström, op. cit., the existence of a Yarsun language seems have been based on the confusion of language names with place names which is not uncommon in Papua (Yarsun is near Anus Island, and that's not a joke); "no such language is attested". Likewise with Wares. - -sche (discuss) 06:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:English 5-syllable words[edit]

For obvious reasons, this should be renamed to Category:English 5-syllable terms —This unsigned comment was added by Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talkcontribs) at 16:36, 13 May 2017.

User:Conrad.Irwin/creation.js to MediaWiki:Gadget-WiktAccFormCreation.js[edit]

Assuming that this is a script we still use, it should be moved out of userspace. - -sche (discuss) 17:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Why does it have "Wikt" in front? —CodeCat 17:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Presumably an old naming convention; it's also found on many other gadget pages. We could drop it from them all. - -sche (discuss) 18:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see a reason for including it in the name. —CodeCat 19:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Yair rand/TargetedTranslations.js to MediaWiki:Gadget-TargetedTranslations.js[edit]

As above. - -sche (discuss) 17:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Connel MacKenzie/mess-with-popups.js to MediaWiki:Gadget-popups.js[edit]

As above. Note that the latter page also imports other, non-Wiktionary-based scripts. - -sche (discuss) 17:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Categories in Category:Letters[edit]

Can we come up with more descriptive names than Category:Aa please? —CodeCat 22:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Limbs[edit]

Apparently this is not a set category, despite its name seeming like one. User:Smuconlaw apparently intended it to be about things related to limbs. I think it should be renamed to more clearly reflect that. —CodeCat 17:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

What is a "set category"? — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
A category that contains items belonging to a particular set. See Category:List of sets. A characteristic of set categories is that they have plural names. —CodeCat 17:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm not sure what it's supposed to be. I was just following the example of other categories under "Category:Body" such as "Category:Buttocks", "Category:Face", "Category:Muscles", "Category:Organ systems", "Category:Skeleton", "Category:Skin", and "Category:Teeth". — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm currently working with User:-sche on a more permanent solution to issues like this. —CodeCat 19:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:jiajie[edit]

This should be handled with {{liushu}}, since jiajie is one of the six categories (liushu). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Can both of these templates be renamed to include a language code? —CodeCat 19:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
{{jiajie}} should be merged with {{liushu}}, which could be renamed as {{Han liushu}}, following {{Han compound}} and {{Han etym}}. It might not be a good idea to use a particular language code because these templates are intended for use in multiple languages now. They used to be used under Translingual, but we have decided to move the glyph origin to their respective languages. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
You can use script codes as prefixes too. We have Template:Latn-def, Module:Cans-translit and such. —CodeCat 20:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge sesterce and sestertius[edit]

Both sesterce and sestertius seem to have equivalent definitions (NB: 1 denarius = 10 ases), with the one in sestertius being more complete. I propose merging them, keeping sesterce as the main entry and sestertius as a synonym, and keeping the definition in sestertius. —Cousteau (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Entries in CAT:Taos lemmas with curly apostrophes[edit]

Many Taos entries use curly apostrophes to represent glottal stops. They should either use the easy-to-type straight apostrophe ' that many other languages use, or the apostrophe letter ʼ that Navajo and a few other languages use. - -sche (discuss) 21:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The headword template interprets the curly apostrophe as a punctuation mark (because it is), and automatically links words such as adùbi’íne as adùbiíne. (Personally, I think the apostrophe letter looks better, but there may be other considerations.) — Eru·tuon 21:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and I just learned of the Unicode character for the saltillo. But no entries use it, and I am averse to introducing yet another visually-almost-identical symbol to represent the glottal stop, next to the three (counting the curly apostrophe) mentioned above that are already in use, plus the ˀ that some entries use. - -sche (discuss) 02:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm in favor of standardizing on U+02BC MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE for any language that uses an apostrophe-looking thing as a letter. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Probably reasonable for glottalizationy apostrophes. At least Skolt Sami uses ʹ U+02B9 MODIFIER LETTER PRIME for suprasegmental palatalization though, which should likely be kept separate. --Tropylium (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:es:Cities of Mexico[edit]

To be merged with Category:es:Cities in Mexico, as produced by {{place}}. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] (parla con me) 15:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Similar inconsistencies[edit]

In Module:category tree/topic cat/data/Places, one finds mostly "municipalities in PLACE", but unusually "municipalities of China" and "of India". Changing the label is easy; moving the categories and recategorizing the entries could take a while. - -sche (discuss) 06:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Caprids to Category:Caprines[edit]

The family is called Caprinae so this makes the name match the family. —CodeCat 17:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Support move, but to be clear, it's not a family but a subfamily. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
It's a family that's a subfamily of its parent family. —CodeCat 18:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
That's at all not how this works. You might benefit from actually learning some biology before trying to reorganise our categories, especially what with the chordate business below. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
It's just silly nomenclature from an obsolete age. Genetically there's no difference between order, family, kingdom, genus etc. I just call them all families, since that's what they are. A common ancestor and its descendants, a branch point in the family tree of life. Would you prefer it if I called them clades instead? —CodeCat 12:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, yes, that would be comprehensible. Also, none of these are defined genetically, so that's irrelevant, and it is currently a matter of some debate in evolutionary biology what (if any) kinds of clades are units of evolution. But I'll stop here, else I'd go on all day, and I spend enough time busy with this kind of thing that I don't need to do it in my free time! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Pigs to Category:Suids or Category:Suines[edit]

"Pigs" is not well-defined phylogenetically, whereas the taxonomic names are. Suinae is a smaller group than Suidae, but there is no difference for currently living species because all species of Suidae not in Suinae are now extinct. We certainly can and should have entries for extinct species though, so I think the broader "Suids" would be a better choice. —CodeCat 23:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

So, what do you propose to do with peccaries? I would call them pigs, but they're not in the family Suidae.Chuck Entz (talk) 04:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't call peccaries pigs myself. I also favour the existing name, simply because it is normal English rather than biological. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
We have the taxonomic entries for technical terms, so we don't really need to go too crazy departing from common terms in vernacular language categorization. It may be fun to show off one's superior knowledge of taxonomy by insisting that birds are reptiles, that algae aren't a single high-level group, etc, but the English language terms and categorization based on them reflect how normal humans group things. I thought we were a descriptive dictionary, trying to be useful to humans. Shouldn't that also apply to categorization? DCDuring (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that we should prefer common names and common understandings whenever feasible (e.g. using CAT:Fish for all Craniata that aren't tetrapods), but "Pigs" is ambiguous. The WP article Pig refers only to the genus Sus. So should our category also refer only to that level? Are warthogs pigs? Maybe we could have both the narrower CAT:Pigs just for Sus and the wider and more technical CAT:Suina (not Suinae) to include warthogs as well as peccaries. Otherwise peccaries would have no category to go into besides CAT:Mammals. As a parallel, we already have both the broad, technical CAT:Felids and the narrower CAT:Cats just for the genus Felis. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe, but trying to cram all vernacular names of living things into some hierarchical scheme of our own devising using technical-sounding names that are imitative of the fairly changeable structure of taxonomy seems futile. If we had some evidence that users might get some benefit. Otherwise it is just a question of how useful it might be for content-oriented entry maintenance and enhancement, for which even the most technical of category names would be acceptable. DCDuring (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
IMO Category:Pigs is fine, like the Category:Cats Angr mentions. I think it might be easier to just consider "Pigs" to include warthogs, peccaries, etc, but I am also OK with the proposal of adding a higher-level category as Angr proposes to include peccaries, etc. - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Wasn't it Haeckel who said "(en:)Category recapitulates (mul:)Taxonomy"? DCDuring (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Split off Category:Fish and Category:Tetrapods from Category:Vertebrates[edit]

Vertebrates as a group contains both things we call "Fish" (Category:Fish) and various land creatures, but in everyday usage we think of these as very different things. People distinguish meat and fish for example, as if the flesh of fish is not meat. Moreover, we have Category:Fish under Category:Vertebrates, which is inaccurate. Fish are chordates; specifically the chordates that are not tetrapods. Not all fish are vertebrates. Therefore I propose:

Alternatively, only Category:Vertebrates is deleted, and Category:Fish and Category:Tetrapods categorised under Category:Chordates. However, this solution is not as good, because there are no chordate species that are not either fish or tetrapods, so this category would never contain entries and never contain more than two subcategories. —CodeCat 00:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Please read w:Chordate and w:Vertebrate. Cephalochordates and tunicates aren't fish, which is why I created the Chordates category in the first place. As for non-vertebrate fish, hagfish are the only animals one could call fish that aren't vertebrates- sharks are vertebrates (their vertebrae are made out of cartilage, but they're still vertebrae). As for calling fish vertebrates being inaccurate, the tetrapods arose within the lobe-finned fish, so, if you want to be completely accurate, you will either have to move lungfish and coelacanths out of Category:Fish, or move Tetrapods into it. Category:Fish is based on obsolete science, but it's too entrenched in our world-view to mess with. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
So what do you suggest we do? —CodeCat 12:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind moving the un-scientific category "Fish" out of "Vertebrates" and into "Animals", but I'm not sure it would really make things that much more sensible (don't many of the same people who distinguish "meat" and "fish" also consider "animals" and "fish" and maybe also "birds" to be different?). I'm not sure we need a category "Tetrapods"; in particular, putting footless snakes into "Category:Tetrapods" would probably not make sense to non-scientist readers. I'm sympathetic to the argument that for almost all languages, "Chordates" is an empty category and even for English it only includes a few entries which could perhaps be moved to the parent category; in general, one could argue that our categories contain overly many overly specific levels (see previous discussion about Category:Grasses and its subcategories). But "Vertebrates" seems like a sensible category. - -sche (discuss) 19:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Han language to Hän language[edit]

To avoid potential confusion with the Han script, and categories such as Category:Han characters from which katakana were derived. Wikipedia uses "Hän language" FWIW. DTLHS (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

We have traditionally avoided diacritics in language names, but I think commonness and clarity are more important. Support move. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Would a user's search for Category:Han language lead to a failed-search list with Category:Hän language at the top, directly to Category:Hän language, or fail to generate a useful failed-search list? DCDuring (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, in the same way that you can type Category:Volapuk language and end up on Category:Volapük language. DTLHS (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Are there any potential naming conflicts? If not, this is not quite as high a priority as the category discussed below, but still, support move/rename per nom. - -sche (discuss) 19:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:E numbers to Category:European food additive numbers[edit]

The Category:E language surely has numbers, which would require this category to be used. Other suggestions for the food additive category name would be welcome. Maybe "List of E numbers"? DTLHS (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

If we adopt a systematic naming scheme for topic and set categories as CodeCat and I have been discussing, then I guess it could be "Category:mul:set:E numbers" or "Category:Translingual:set:E numbers". However, independent of whether or not such prefixes ("Translingual:set:") come into use, a more intelligible name like the one you propose, replacing "E" with "European food additive", would be good. Are there other food-additive numbering schemes in use in Europe? Even if so, I suppose it's no harm for them to also be in the same category. - -sche (discuss) 18:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)