Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others

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

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for deletion/Others

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for verification
add new | history | archives | old index

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

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Requests for deletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.

Requests for moves, mergers and splits
add new | history | archives

Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.

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

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5
This page is for the nomination (for deletion) of non-main namespace entries. General questions about categories, templates and the like should be posted at Wiktionary:Grease pit. Remember to start each section with only the wikified title of the page being nominated for deletion.
Oldest tagged RFDOs


June 2013[edit]

Lots of templates by User:Sae1962[edit]

Propose deleting the following:

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

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

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

Speedy delete of all templates created by this user, and speedy validation of all entries this user has made. Razorflame 15:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Unblock him immediately. If you feel authorized to prevent him from creating templates, ask him on this talk page to no longer create templates or you will block him. Recall WT:BLOCK, a voted policy: "The block tool should only be used to prevent edits that will, directly or indirectly, hinder or harm the progress of the English Wiktionary. It should not be used unless less drastic means of stopping these edits are, by the assessment of the blocking administrator, highly unlikely to succeed.".

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

In fairness Dan, I think that text supports the block; we've talked to him plenty so there's good reason to think that more talking won't help. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
This shouldn't be that big of a surprise- see #A Bunch of Inflected-Form Templates, above. I nominated for deletion the nine I new about, but there was only one comment aside from mine and SAE1962's (a Turkish native speaker who argued for deletion) Chuck Entz (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the block (although I would have given a much broader / more encompassing rationale for it). We have to spend a lot of time cleaning up after this contributor: they create a lot of SOP terms, and terms with incorrect definitions (e.g. am Ende), and they make quite a few of the same formatting mistakes repeatedly, such as tagging things as the wrong language, or sometimes as two different wrong languages, as with WT:BJ#aktiven_galaktischen_Kerns. We could be spending that time on other things... - -sche (discuss) 07:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
"less drastic means" have been employed several times in the past with no success. Block should stay. But who has got the time or inclination for such a massive cleanup operation? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Template:Seldom or unused Turkish plurals not is an interesting one. It seems to say that all nouns have plurals, if not attested then hypothetical. I suppose it's okay to link to such plurals but not to create them as everything has to meet WT:CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the most common practice is to create entries for regular formations even if that specific form is not attested. I really doubt whether all of the verb form entries in the various Romance languages actually meet CFI. But we don't have a problem creating entries for them anyway. —CodeCat 20:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Template:U:tr:first-person singular kept under that new name (it was previously Template:first-person singular usage notes), since it's a useful (and fairly widely used) template. - -sche (discuss) 13:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Is anyone still working on this? There are really few left. Keφr 08:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I've renamed Template:U:tr:homograph pronunciation to fit the usual naming scheme for usage-note templates; it seems useful and is used. I've renamed Template:first-person singular possessive of to Template:tr-first-person singular possessive of since it's Turkish-specific, and kept it since it's widely used and there seems to be no effort to orphan it; I've handled the other templates likewise. I've left the old names as redirects, but they can be deleted once orphaned. It would probably make sense to combine several of them at some point in the future and use a parameter to set whether the first-, second- or third-person was meant. - -sche (discuss) 19:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
It should still be orphaned eventually because it's badly named and it creates a precedent for having many templates like these when this could be handled much more easily with a template parameter than separate templates. Turkish nouns have 6 possessives (1, 2, 3 singular and plural) but possessives can be applied to both singular and plural, and the possessives themselves can also take case endings. The current name doesn't say which case the form is in (presumably nominative), nor does it say whether it's the possessive of a singular or a plural noun. This is the main reason why these templates were RFDO'd... not enough thought was put into their creation and naming and it made a big haphazard mess. —CodeCat 19:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
That seems clear enough, but it is not what I asked. I asked if anyone is still working on this at all. Keφr 15:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll work on it. At this point, I think the main thing that needs to be done is put together an RFM on the remaining inflection templates. Here's an updated list of which templates have been deleted, which have been kept because they're useful, and which probably need to be merged into a standard inflection template that would take parameters: - -sche (discuss) 19:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
At this point I suggest closing the RFD and moving to an RFM to make a template that the last batch of templates named above could be merged into. - -sche (discuss) 19:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
What is wrong with {{inflection of}}? Keφr 19:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
There's already a template for this purpose, {{tr-possessive form of}}. —CodeCat 19:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Kept after 23 months of non-deleting. --Type56op9 (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]


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

I'm inclined to say keep, but remove what we don't really need. I think it would be nice to be able to avoid the constant "if x == "" then x = nil end" on all parameters, it does get tedious. I've thought of writing a module like this before. There's also something else I've wanted to add, which is checking arguments for usage, and a global category tracking system.
Checking arguments for usage would mean that each argument that gets used by the module is marked "used", and at the end if any arguments remain unused, this adds a category or error or something like that. That would allow us to find out easily which pages are using modules with mis-typed parameter names, or parameters that aren't actually recognised or supported by the template.
Tracking categories globally would make it much easier for any module to add tracking categories and such. In templates, you can just put a category anywhere and it works, but in modules you can't do that, which is a limitation. —CodeCat 14:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I cannot imagine why we would ever write something that would require Module:math. It mostly wraps basic mathematical functions so that templates can use them: we would probably do most of the work inside modules, making the wrappers unnecessary.
As for Module:arguments… I am unsure what that thing actually does. Looks like some kind of input sanitisation. For now I would prefer to do it directly in the modules which receive a frame. I actually do have one idea for a module for tracking argument usage, categories and errors, but this module would not be of much help there. Keφr 18:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Some at the WMF apparently want to integrate this… thing into Scribunto. Either way, we need not keep it here. Keφr 11:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Neither of the nominated modules has found any use in more than a year. CodeCat, your stance now? Keφr 18:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it might as well be deleted. I am considering making a module that fulfills a similar purpose, but I'd be rewriting it from scratch. —CodeCat 18:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Kept, no consensus to delete, luckily. --Type56op9 (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

{{hangulization of}}[edit]

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

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

Yeah, but "Hangul" is by far the more common spelling in English. But either way, I agree the template should be deleted. (This is more of an WT:RFDO thing, but I personally don't really care which page the discussion is on.) --WikiTiki89 04:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, I moved the page here, since it's not simply a deletion, {{hangulization of}} should be orphaned first. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Well it is simply a deletion. We always orphan templates before deleting them. It's not a move, because we're not moving the template. --WikiTiki89 08:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]


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

I think the information that a word does not mutate needs to be conveyed somehow; simple absence of a mutation table is far too ambiguous (considering that it is also what results from someone neglecting to add a table). Of course, a table that displays "unchanged" in all its fields is an unnecessarily bulky way of conveying that information... what if all the entries that currently use it were modified to have a templatised usage note "This term does not mutate" or an even shorter comment on the headword line, "does not mutate"? - -sche (discuss) 03:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Why should that be given, though? It's predictable — certain initial consonants just don't have mutated forms. And if someone doesn't know that, then our mutation tables in general will be useless to them, because they won't know what the mutations entail and when to use them, which is fairly complex. So it's not like people are going to be misled by removing these, because only people who can be expected to already understand this fact will even look at mutation tables and comprehend them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
On further reflection, this template may be useful for unmutatable loanwords and proper nouns that begin with sounds that are normally mutatable. Cdhaptomos, a native speaker who unfortunately seems to have left the project, added it to albwm and its plural albymau presumably to show that these words do not have aspirate-mutation forms *halbwm and *halbymau, and it could be used at, say, Manceinion to show that that word does not have a soft-mutation form *Fanceinion. On the other hand, it may need to be made more flexible since some loanwords like gêm are immune to soft mutation but not to nasal mutation. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
See also the previous discussion at Template talk:cy-mut-o. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
For indeclinable nouns in Russian (such as пианино ‎(pianino)) and probably many other languages, we just display (indeclinable) in the headword line and omit the declension table. A declension table would be silly for indeclinable nouns. Why can't we do a similar thing here? --WikiTiki89 17:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Because mutation is not a form of declension. It's a grammaticalised sandhi effect and it depends on the preceding word, not the current one. Any word at all can be mutated if there is a mutation-triggering word before it. —CodeCat 17:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Then maybe I misunderstood something. I thought this discussion was about how to handle words that don't mutate. --WikiTiki89 18:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
There are words that don't mutate even when there is a mutation-triggering word in front of them. Sometimes this is natural (the initial consonant of the word just has no distinct mutated form) but it can also be lexical (the word just doesn't happen to mutate, even if its first consonant has a mutated form in other words beginning with it). But this is complicated further in that there are several types of mutation, where different preceding words can trigger different types. Irish for example has leniting (aka aspirating/soft) mutation and nasalising mutation on its nouns, as well as more limited types of mutation like the t-mutation that's only triggered by the definite article. It's entirely possible that a specific noun could allow only some of these types of mutation but not others. So it is still necessary to be able to show "does not mutate" in some of the table cells in those cases. And at that point it's more consistent if we just use a table regardless. —CodeCat 18:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I still don't see how this would be different from displaying a declension table with the same form for all cases, just to be consistent. --WikiTiki89 18:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't disagree with that idea either, to be honest. —CodeCat 18:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Kept, but changed the ''unchanged'' for a {{PAGENAME}} --Type56op9 (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Template:en-ing form of[edit]

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

It is, for now, a simple demonstration of an alternative presentation, used to illustrate a discussion of WT:RFD#waxing. Though deleted from waxing, it is still available for its intended use in the discussion in the former version and should remain at until the later of termination of that discussion and a successful RfDO.
Keep. DCDuring TALK 20:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
You can use your user page for demonstration purposes. To demonstrate a proposed format of certain kind of entries, there was absolutely no need to create a template and place it to a discussed entry. Alternatively, you could have placed a demonstration of proposed formatting directly into the discussion, a thing very easy and straightforward to do. You can still do it. This template is unneeded and should be deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Wiktionary:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/Translation[edit]

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

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

Category:English noun forms[edit]

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

I proposed some time ago that Category:English plurals should be moved to Category:English noun plural forms. We don't need two different categories for noun plurals, after all. Are there any other noun forms in English, perhaps archaic case forms that are no longer in use? —CodeCat 19:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
The only other form is the possessive, which is now more of a morpheme than a case. --WikiTiki89 19:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
But is it possible that we can cite other noun forms in old texts, like Shakespeare for example? —CodeCat 19:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
No, because they disappeared phonologically. The last remnants were the presence or lack of a final schwa and by Shakespeare's time it was already entirely silent. --WikiTiki89 19:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Well in any case, I still think this should be kept as a parent category for Category:English noun plural forms. Or we could place the plurals straight in Category:English noun forms, if those are the only noun forms that exist anyway. —CodeCat 20:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Category:English noun plural forms wasn't a very popular idea, pure and simple. Nor was moving Category:English plurals to Category:English noun forms. I doubt the consensus has changed, but feel free to give it a go. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Convert to {{parent-only}}. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:WC and its language subcategories[edit]

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

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

May 2014[edit]


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

Looks like many languages create such shortcut also. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes but careful. Some of them have parameters that head doesn't. Just French isn't one of them. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
@Circeus, Connel MacKenzie, Mglovesfun, Yair rand, Metaknowledge Pinging the authors of this template. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Kept with favouritism as a commonly used template. --Type56op9 (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:definite and plural of[edit]

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

Probably means definite singular and plural form of [adjective], if it's used for Danish or Norwegian. I usually list them separately, on two lines. Donnanz (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
The wording used is far too vague anyway. Donnanz (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. Put it on two lines. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: If it can be used in multiple places, best to have it Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 15:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
    @Purplebackpack89 Care to clarify? Why should the template be used instead of what is currently being done at engelske? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
    Conversely, why doesn't engelske consolidate things into a single definition? And why can't users have the option of choosing between multiple templates? And why are we so quick to delete templates that being are used? Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 17:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
    Because usage alone doesn't determine how desirable a template is. —CodeCat 18:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete per Angr. - -sche (discuss) 17:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Keep. This is very important for the Danish language. If you delete it, all my work on this adjective form will be deleted. Are you guys kidding me? Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete and put on two lines. Two different definitions, two lines. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
@Ready Steady Yeti no need to 'delete' anything, just modify by bot and put onto two lines. This is a wiki; everything is constantly being reviewed! Renard Migrant (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Do NOT delete. I know there is already a way to say "definite and plural of" with another template but trust me, it's much more complicated, and I need that template, so don't delete TEMPLATES, why would you delete useful templates? Keeping this template will help the project in the Danish language field. If you still think this should be deleted then how should I make an alternative, because there was no other way to do this before, and there are thousands of Danish adjectives that have no definite and plural form entries, but are still listed on their head templates. Please do not delete, either that or make another easy alternative.
I understand everything is constantly being reviewed. But this must not be deleted. Every Danish adjective form has a definite and plural form so it would be useless to make two separate lines. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
And how often do they coincide? Is it on the order of magnitude of English "-ed" forms (where passive participle coincides with past tense)? Keφr 16:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I think you're spot on when you say "I need that template". You're thinking about what's best for you, not what's best for the wiki. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
And even for English, the template is language-specific: {{en-past of}}. —CodeCat 17:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
You realise of course that this argument can be turned on you by suggesting a rename of the nominated template to {{da-definite and plural of}}. Keφr 17:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and I would be ok with that, although in that case the wording still isn't ideal, because it still underspecifies what is meant. —CodeCat 17:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
As I said above, the wording is far too vague. If this template were to be kept, it should read "definite singular and plural form of". The same applies in Norwegian and maybe Swedish, but I always split it in Norwegian into two lines, and will probably continue to do so in Danish. I suspect a short cut is being looked for here. Donnanz (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Is the plural also definite, or only the singular? —CodeCat 17:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The plural form can be either definite or indefinite. The spelling varies when used in singular form, depending on the gender of the noun the adjective is used with, or whether it's used in definite form. The definite singular and plural form always have the same spelling, with very few exceptions. But there are also indeclinable adjectives, which don't vary in spelling, no matter what. They're the easiest ones to deal with. Donnanz (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry I'm a very wrong human being that should never have existed. I'm extremely abnormal.

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

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

June 2014[edit]

Template:User en-us-N[edit]

Template:User en-uk-N, Template:User en-uk-4[edit]

Category:User en-us-N, Category:User en-us, Category:User en-uk-N, Category:User en-uk[edit]

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

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

Also, a stupid typo I see on one of the templates.
"These users are native speakers of British English." Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I have changed "these users..." to "this user..." to match the rest. Equinox 19:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Probably delete: I agree that this seems to reflect a them-and-us false dichotomy between UK and US. Equinox 19:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, the other templates are bad. They word it incorrectly. "This user speaks English (American)" instead of "This user speaks American English at a native level." Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 20:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: So Kephir gets to decide what users get to call themselves now? The only reason a userbox should be deleted is if it is offensive. This isn't offensive, so keep it. Purplebackpack89 03:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The very existence of this discussion contradicts your childish personal remark. I would have just speedied it if I thought so. A userbox should be deleted if it is not expressly allowed by WT:USER, so not only because it is offensive. Also, offensive to whom? Nationalism offends me.
    Is that supposed to anger me or what? It fails. But if you want to spend your time here attempting to aggravate everyone who disagrees with you, as you have been doing pretty much all the time in recent months, we have tools to address that. Keφr 06:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I vehemently disagree with the user guidelines. I think users should be allowed to post whatever they damn well please in their user pages, including non-Babel userboxes. And just because you don't like that I voted keep on something you want deleted is not reason enough to block me, sorry. Purplebackpack89 14:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I think your disagreement has little merit, but whatever. You voted "keep", fine. You are bloody entitled to do so. I do have a problem with turning every dispute into "this-and-that user acts purely on their whim and is evil" and a "ha ha ha, you can't block me you stupid admins" attitude. Though frankly, given your track record at w:simple:, I doubt you can understand any of that. End of topic. Keφr 15:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Look, it seems to me that there are some things on this project that are motivated by personal likes and dislikes rather than actually being a good idea. Your silly little block proposal last month was one of those. Not having userboxes is another. Is having a bunch of non-language-related user boxes detrimental in any way to Wiktionary? No! So let users have all the userboxes they want! And, even under the present guidelines, there's not really a policy basis for deleting this. It appears that a significant portion of this nominated was that seeing this template used struck a discordant note with you. Purplebackpack89 17:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
(Surprisingly) I agree with Purplebackpack89: keep templates (not necessarily the categories). People should be able to use whatever Babel boxes they want, even if they want to say they speak Serbian rather than Serbo-Croatian. --WikiTiki89 14:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep templates, but delete categories. (And have the templates function as duplicates of {{User en}} etc.) The former allow people to identify as they prefer, which should be acceptable as long as it does not delve into obfuscation; the latter are for organizatory purposes such as being able to find people speaking a given language, and should not be fragmented into units smaller than languages. (Something along the lines of w:Template:User_Mixed_English might be handy too.) --Tropylium (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, unless someone knows a better way to categorise users by dialect (the Serbian/Croatian example WikiTiki89 gives is a good example of one case where it might be useful, and I can also imagine that there are times when it would be helpful to find e.g. Swiss German speakers or Brazilian Portuguese speakers). I can see a degree of value in these templates, even if UK/US is a false dichotomy. A fair few "I've never heard of this" RFVs/RFDs end up being about terms that are simply only used on one side of the Atlantic. However, these templates should automatically categorise people into Category:User en as well as Category:User en-uk, and Category:User en-uk-N, Category:User en-us-N‎ and Category:User en-uk-4 are simply meaningless (what's a "near-native" British English speaker?) and should be deleted. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
    • A near-native British English speaker is someone who speaks British English at a near-native level. —CodeCat 12:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep templates and categories. Add some more for English varieties like ANZ, Indian, etc. That they would have few members would seem to make them more valuable, not less. DCDuring TALK 13:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
How much granularity do we want? Should/do we have a template for AAVE? Northeast New South Wales? Lancashire? Weak delete. If kept, these should feed into the standard language categories (e.g. "Serbian" should put users into the "Serbo-Croatian" category, "British English" into the "English" category, etc), regardless of whether or not they also put users into subcategories like Category:User en-uk. - -sche (discuss) 01:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, if there are AAVE speakers on Wiktionary, it would be incredibly useful in some situations to be able to find them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
No, not Kephir gets to decide what we keep and what we delete. That's why we're discussing it here. We decide by discussing it. I just don't care to be honest. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@-sche: I tend to agree with Prosfilaes. If a user wants a userbox that does a particular thing, and that particular thing isn't offensive, we should allow that userbox to be created. Userboxes are for users to self-identify, and if a particular user's self-identity is a regional dialect, I don't see the harm in them being there. As for Renard Migrant's comment, it troubled me then (as now) that the initial deletion rationale seemed to be one of dislike for the division, rather than one of actual policy violation. Purplebackpack89 15:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

It's time to close this. It's been nearly a year and there's not enough support to delete it, so it should be closed as no consensus. Purplebackpack89 14:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • OK, so I call it kept. Let's continue being productive. --Type56op9 (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Template:dynamic list[edit]

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

Delete. Wikis are dynamic in the sense of "incomplete" almost by definition. No point in its sole existing use. Less point to further use. DCDuring TALK 21:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


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

  • Redirect: If two templates do the same thing and both are used in articles, one should be redirected to the other and neither should be deleted. Purplebackpack89 03:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, a redirect wouldn't work. —CodeCat 13:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 20:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep {{fr-adv}} simply calls {{head|fr|adverb}} - basically, it already is a redirect. I don't see what significant benefit is gained from deleting a widely used template (something like 3000 transclusions) to replace it with something identical but slightly harder to type. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Kept to keep my own life easier. --Type56op9 (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


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

  • Redirect: If two templates do the same thing and both are used in articles, one should be redirected to the other and neither should be deleted. Purplebackpack89 03:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, a redirect wouldn't work. —CodeCat 13:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 20:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep {{fr-adj-form}} simply calls {{head|fr|adjective forms}} - basically, it already is a redirect. I don't see what significant benefit is gained from deleting a widely used template (nearly 13000 transclusions!) to replace it with something identical but slightly harder to type. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Smurrayinchester. embryomystic (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

There's 12 entries in Category:en:Dragons and 23 in Category:en:Merpeople. The first is maybe questionable, but I don't see any need to merge a category with 23 entries into a larger category.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Note that 2 of the 12 Dragons are currently at RfD Purplebackpack89 18:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that Category:English words prefixed with mer- is a better category for the merpeople. (I didn't even know it existed, and it turns out it has more entries than Category:en:Merpeople!) --WikiTiki89 11:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't use the categories much, but I don't see the advantage in dumping 23 more entries into an already full Mythological creatures. Splitting out groups of 20 for subcategorization is usually a good thing in my experience from other Wikis.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the principle of splitting out scores of entries into subcategories, but perhaps a more general category for aquatic mythological creatures would be preferable, which could also encompass naiads and nixies and kelpies and kappas and so forth. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)



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

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

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

  • Redirect: Purplebackpack89 18:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Redirecting is just going to cause more breaking. People will expect the old template to work as it always did, which it doesn't of course. —CodeCat 00:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Case in point. (Though there have been surprisingly few such mistakes, it seems.) Keφr 13:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Changing my vote to keep, and restore Template:trreq Template trreq shouldn't have been deleted in the middle of the discussion. Purplebackpack89 14:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

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

  • Keep, and thereby make old revisions more legible. I don't object to deprecating the templates. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
You could use that reason to keep anything that's ever had a link to it. I think it's a terrible idea. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I could use that reason to keep any template that was ever very widely used. And that is a good reason. It helps keep old page revisions legible. Very widely used templates should be deprecated, not deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Just noting that Template:ttbc is still used by ~1450 pages. - -sche (discuss) 01:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]





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

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

Keφr 15:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep per "No single replacement for these" Purplebackpack89 17:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    Delete. @Purplebackpack89 I think you misunderstood. There is "no single replacement" for the ugly hacks module, but the nominated templates have already been replaced by the ugly hacks module. --WikiTiki89 17:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    No, @Wikitiki89, I understood that. I've come to the position that it's a bad idea to outright delete templates, as it confuses editors who don't follow RFD/O too much. Purplebackpack89 18:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    The argument you gave in you first post contradicts that, but at least now you made a reasonable one. I still disagree because these templates are only used by expert template programmers, who will have no trouble adapting. These are not the kind of templates like {{head}} or {{context}} that everyone uses all the time. --WikiTiki89 23:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, no reason to keep if they're orphaned and not needed. —CodeCat 17:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Template:isValidPageName is a very useful template to use when authoring other templates, and not everyone who will want to author a template knows Lua. If we delete template:isValidPageName, I very strongly recommend that (a) the deletion summary indicates what can be used instead (viz module:ugly hacks) and (b) module:ugly hacks have good documentation on how to use its functions in templates. (No comment/vote on the proposed deletions.)​—msh210 (talk) 06:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep all. If you want people to stop using them, edit their documentation to point to an alternative way of achieving what they were intended to achieve. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


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

  • Also, I don't think sockpuppets are a problem over here. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Of course you're a problem over here; it's just that no one can be bothered puttnig this template on all of your userpages. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Kept. The nominater was probably high at the time of RFDing --Type56op9 (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


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

  • Keep both: There have been sockpuppets in Wiktionary's history, so there are potential uses for this template. Purplebackpack89 13:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    Prime example above (just to be clear, not you PBP). --WikiTiki89 14:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Kept. The nominater was probably high at the time of RFDing --Type56op9 (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oh wait, it was me. Hmm, I thought I'd changed account since August 2014. Sorry guys for the confusion. --Type56op9 (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
      • You're sorry for nothing, Type. Please strike these discussions in the future. --IdotIdotI (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


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

It doesn't seem to be in use, but this is probably because people aren't aware it exists. I don't agree with the deletion rationale. Equinox 16:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: per Equinox. "Pointless" is not in itself a deletion rationale, Type56op9 must also assert that it's either never gonna get used; or is redundant to another template. Purplebackpack89 20:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete because it's overly general; it doesn't apply to LDLs. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: Where is this supposed to be used, and in what manner? Is it to be substed on talk pages of newbies? The template (not the template doc) just says this: "On Wiktionary, a word cannot be verified by looking in other dictionaries. Instead we try and find examples of uses of the word (mainly using [1] [2]) to prove that it is actually used." --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 01:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Caucasian languages[edit]

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

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

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

Scholarly sources, modern or dated, dealing with Armenian linguistics often refer to "Caucasian languages", when they cannot distinguish between Kartvelian/East Caucasian/West Caucasian. The code cau is very convenient for such cases. However, I understand that our etymological categories are based on genetic relationship and that the laziness of sources does not justify having this category. I will go through the Old Armenian entries and try to assign them to different branches. So, delete. PS By the way, your ping did not work. --Vahag (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep. There is no reason that we cannot have a category for languages that are often referred to as "Caucasian languages" outside of our etymological tree. --WikiTiki89 14:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries[edit]

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

Delete Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries, Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries/A and the other subpages. Note, however, that many of the discussions linked from there are not found on talk pages; e.g. macrocosmus has empty Talk:macrocosmus; curiously enough, macrocosmus is at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Archives/2007/03 anyway. If this gets deleted, remove a link to it from {{rfv-failed}}. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I see no harm in keeping it until everything from it is moved to talk pages. Though of course it should be eventually deleted. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant The harm is in increasing the entropy of the web site for very little benefit. For instance, {{rfv-failed}} currently links the reader to Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries as if this page were of any import. Having very old discussions on talk pages is inessential since they can be found in RFV and RFD page histories by looking by the date of deletion. In case of doubt, a deleted page can be restored and sent to RFD anew. Originally, I hesitated to support, but I now see immediate deletion as the best course of action. I do not think it worthwhile to wait until someone spends their resources (time, attention) to ensure that all discussions linked from Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries are copied to talk pages. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
This seems a lot like deleting the record of judicial decisions. In a common-law country such decisions certainly reflect efforts to interpret and apply laws and principles to situations not contemplated when the principles and laws are articulated and passed. Our decision-making is similar. Erasing convenient history seems to me to be a mistake, making investigation of our decision-making limited to those who can manipulate the edit history in XML dumps. I am aware of no such efforts. As it is, there is no effort to record speedy deletions and no ready means of accessing whatever record the wiki software retains.
More desirable would be a more systematic record of ALL deleted terms, at least via the RfD process, and a link to the current location of the discussion. Even better would be to make sure that there was a copy of the discussion in the talk page corresponding to the entry or definition deleted.
Accordingly, Keep until a more effective means of accessing such decisions and their rationale is implemented. DCDuring TALK 15:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand much of what you are saying. A systematic list of all terms deleted via RFD and archived using the method currently in place (placing dicussions on talk pages) can be found by looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:rfd-failed (2536 pages per AWB) and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:rfd-passed (1892 pages per AWB); ditto for RFV. This gives you an extensive history of discussions of past deletions. They are searchable using Goggle; Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries/A does not give you the text of the discussion, so it does not help searchability. As for terms deleted and not so archived, one only has to take the year and the month of the deletion, and then search in history, using the online wiki functions, no dump processing. Moreover, multiple of these links in Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries/A are broken anyway; e.g. for "adipoli" or Ábraham (never deleted). --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC) I have striken my comment that is worthless. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
At best the coverage of 'what links here' pages covers only a period for which the templates have been applied. It is likely to fall short of complete coverage even during that period due to imperfect implementation. It would not be a surprise to me if someone decided to replace these templates or change or dispense with the archiving process, further fragmenting our readily accessible historical record. I'd favor someone mining these pages to more appropriately archive the discussions of the included deleted items before the pages are deleted. If someone can do so more effectively by instead mining the XML edit history, they should do so.
I suppose it is possible, even likely, that we won't ever have the resources to actually be systematic about much of anything, let alone making sense of our actual practice in deciding to keep or delete entries and definitions. Making some of the history less available doesn't really matter if such history isn't going to be looked at. I have some hope that we will have the resources to do so and would like to preserve anything that might help. DCDuring TALK 17:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:be-adj1, Template:be-adj2, Template:be-adj3, Template:be-adj4, Template:be-adj5[edit]

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

The new template is kind of misnamed though. Generally, the templates named -table are the ones that contain the table, to which other templates supply the information to fill it in. It does not normally contain any grammar logic. —CodeCat 16:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
That's an arbitrary rule though, it makes sense both ways, but happens to go against your personal naming convention. The reason for my naming scheme is that I named them the same way I named the Russian noun template, and when I named the Russian noun template, Template:ru-decl-noun already existed, containing tables, so the first thing I thought of for the automatic declension table was Template:ru-noun-table. Then I named the Russian adjective template the same way, and now I used the same scheme for Ukrainian and Belarusian. --WikiTiki89 16:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
It's arbitrary and it did start off as my own personal convention, but I do think it's still sensible to follow it. And it's better to give the template the right name before it becomes widely used. —CodeCat 17:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Who else has followed your convention? I honestly don't mind switching them (it is arbitrary, after all) as long as the Russian templates are switched as well, but the Russian ones are widely used. --WikiTiki89 17:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought we had a module for Russian already? We probably don't need the template anymore then. And I don't know who else followed the convention, that would be up to those who followed it to say? —CodeCat 17:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Searching for "Template:table" gives templates I created, but also quite a few created by others from what I can see. —CodeCat 17:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that module is accessed through Template:ru-noun-table. The old template Template:ru-decl-noun, which is the backup table for irregular nouns, is still very widely used. And can you link to an example or two of a "-table" template that you did not create? --WikiTiki89 18:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
No wonder I'm confused. We have two or three entirely separate methods for making Russian inflection tables. I thought that when the module was created, the existing templates were changed to use it. But that wasn't done for some reason and an entirely new parallel template was created. We should probably try to sort that out by deleting what we no longer need, and merging/renaming what we want to keep.
A list of the templates named -table that I did not name, but do work in the way I described: {{osx-decl-noun-table}}, {{is-conj-table}}, {{fr-conj-table}}, {{enm-conj-table}}, {{uk-conj-table}}, {{ca-conj-table}}, {{be-conj-table}}, {{lv-conj-table}}, {{hit-conj-table}}, {{el-decl-adj-table}}, {{lv-decl-noun-table}}, {{cel-gau-decl-noun-table}}, {{ka-conj-table-transitive}}, {{el-conj-table}} {{el-conj-table-passive}}, {{nds-conj-table}}, {{non-conj-table}}, {{nn-verb table}}, {{nn-verb-table}}, {{nb-verb table}}, {{nn-adj table}}, {{nn-adj-table}}, {{nb-adj table}}, {{nb-adj-table}}, {{nn-noun table}}, {{nn-noun-table}}, {{nb-noun-table}}, {{gml-conj-table}}, {{nds-conj-table}}, {{egy-decl-noun-table}}, {{ang-decl-adj-table}}, {{kn-decl-table}}, {{oc-conj-table}}, {{lv-decl-part-table}}, {{ast-conj-table}}, {{sem-decl-noun-table}}. There may be more. —CodeCat 18:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I was going to propose deleting the old non-module templates for Russian right after this, but I thought I might as well get the easy stuff over with first. --WikiTiki89 18:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree. —CodeCat 18:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Done swapping the templates (very convoluted work). Now I'll do the Ukrainian ones. --WikiTiki89 19:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Done swapping the Ukrainian ones as well. @CodeCat do you plan on voting on these now? --WikiTiki89 20:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I supported the proposal from the start. I guess I forgot to say so... —CodeCat 20:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned and deleted. --WikiTiki89 11:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:uk-adj1, Template:uk-adj2, Template:uk-adj3[edit]

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

SupportCodeCat 20:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Can I orphan it now? Pinging Anatoli in case he wants to have a say too. Keφr 19:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No objections, if you convert all the entries to use {{uk-decl-adj}}. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned and deleted. --WikiTiki89 11:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Ladino headword-line templates[edit]

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

  • Moved from RfD. bd2412 T 18:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
To be honest I can't even guess what it is your trying to nominate for deletion. From the title it would be Category:Ladino headword-line templates but that doesn't fit your description. Not even close. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Struck as moot. Keφr 20:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:Ladino numbers[edit]

Category:Ladino terms by semantic function[edit]

Category:Ladino terms by usage[edit]

And now, what probably was actually intended to be nominated here. No opinion on these myself. Keφr 12:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:zh:Variant pronunciations[edit]

Category:cmn:Variant pronunciations[edit]

Category:zh-cn:Variant Pronunciations[edit]

Category:zh-tw:Variant Pronunciations[edit]

Category:Mandarin variant pronunciations[edit]

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

I would just delete the fuck out of them. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Me too. But notifying Wyang and kc_kennylau first. Keφr 17:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, obviously this category contains terms that have more than one Mandarin pronunciations. I would wait for the creator Atitarev to defend it. --kc_kennylau (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, why do you want to delete something you don't understand? Out of spite? The category contains terms with multiple hanzi readings. Entries are added automatically for characters with different readings in mainland China and Taiwan, e.g. 稍微 where character is pronounced "wēi" in PRC and "wéi" in Taiwan. The category is maintained by User:Wyang, User:Tooironic and myself. Since the majority of characters are pronounced the same way in Mandarin, it is useful for learners/users to see when there are variations. If the naming is not perfect and there's not enough description, then this can be fixed. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I've emptied and deleted the rest. The remaining category is automatically populated by {{zh-pron}}. By the way, I don't think the category name is unclear. Wyang (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Then what does it mean when the word 別介 is called a variant pronunciation? —CodeCat 02:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
It means that the term can be pronounced "biéjie" OR "biéjia". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
We already have another category for terms that can be pronounced more than one way: Category:English heteronyms. —CodeCat 02:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not the same. The term 別介别介 has two pronunciations for the same sense. Chinese also has heteronyms and words/characters with different senses, which can also be pronounced differently. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course don't delete this. This is one of the most valuable features we boast on here in our Chinese coverage. At present no other dictionaries can provide this information. That Renard Migrant proposes to "delete the fuck" out of these is ignorant and offensive. ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Rename to something like "Mandarin terms with multiple pronunciations", which would be clearer and would also better fit how other categories are named, e.g. Category:English terms with multiple etymologies, Category:English terms with rare senses. - -sche (discuss) 02:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Support renaming to that, definitely. —CodeCat 02:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@Wyang so, can we rename this? As I wrote above, "Mandarin terms with multiple pronunciations" would be clearer and would also better fit how other categories are named, e.g. Category:English terms with multiple etymologies, Category:English terms with rare senses. - -sche (discuss) 04:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Support. Wyang (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Renamed. Once the rename has propagated out to all affected entries, Category:Mandarin variant pronunciations can be deleted and this RFD can be closed. - -sche (discuss) 00:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Unicode:Hindu-Arabic script[edit]

Template:Unicode:Katakana script[edit]

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

Category:English words prefixed with Palestino-[edit]

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

Palestino- is used as a nationality prefix like Sino-, Italo-, etc. Words formed using these types of prefixes have been deleted in the past so I don’t know if a category for them can be expected to have entries. I agree that its current contents correspond to Palestine + -o-. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the pronunciation is the same as just Palestine + -o-, is it? —CodeCat 16:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Palestine: /-aɪn/. Palestino-: /-iːn-/. --WikiTiki89 22:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Then these must be separate terms, as there's no regular rule in English that would account for the change in pronunciation. —CodeCat 22:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Is Palestino- pronounced /-iːn-/, though? It seems counter-intuitive that it would be, at least to me, given that Sino- is /-aɪn-/. - -sche (discuss) 02:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I would want to pronounce it /-iːn-/, but I've never heard it. Does anyone have any YouTubes with this? DCDuring TALK 04:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The difference in pronunciation seems quite natural to me: the "in" in Sino- is the only syllable in the affix aside from the connecting vowel, the "in" in Palestino- has two syllables in front of it. Look at the pronunciation of Palestine vs. Palestinian. There may also be some influence from foreign borrowings such as Filipino. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:English phrasal verbs with particle (rid)[edit]

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

Template:Quercus Hypernyms/documentation[edit]

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

December 2014[edit]


This doesn't contain any language-specific logic, it just calls {{head|es|verb form|head=...}}. —CodeCat 21:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Delete as I said or {{fr-verb-form}}. If any only if such nominated templates have no language specific information and no realistic prospect of having any. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Kept. I use this all the time, especially in my illegal Spanish bot activities. --Type56op9 (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

Index:English and subpages[edit]

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

We should keep it (and update it if possible). The index contains the PoS and audio links, plus you can jump closer to a certain word from the first page using the TOC. The lemma category can't do these. --Panda10 (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Appendix:Finnish numerals[edit]

A transwiki fork of wikipedia:Finnish numerals from about five years ago. Has not seen substantial edits since its creation (while its original has continued to evolve). Most functions of the page are moreover covered by Category:Finnish numerals and Appendix:Finnish numbers. --Tropylium (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:English vyadhikarana compounds[edit]

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

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


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

In *bazъ and *bъzъ you can find Lower Sorbian baz. *bazъ: Lower Sorbian baz ‎(бузина Sambucus nigra); *bъzъ: Lower Sorbian dial. bez, baz. First entry also gives Russian dial. бас ‎(bas, бузина), Ukrainian dial. базни́к ‎(baznýk, сирень), базни́к ‎(baznýk, собачья бузина Sambucus ebulus L, сирень Syringa vulgaris). —Игорь Телкачь 16:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


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

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

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

Category:IPA pronunciations with repetition[edit]

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

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

February 2015[edit]

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

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

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

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


Not used. Category:English leet is enough.

previous discussion --Dixtosa (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete I don't know what those terms have to do with slate blue. Seems to have been created by a new(?) user, possibly by mistake. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


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

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

March 2015

Template:Webster 1828[edit]

It's no longer used. That's probably not a good enough reason for deletion. We also have * Template:R:Webster 1828 if that is another reason. --Type56op9 (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  • There is a couple of other templates that redirect to it. They should go as well (if not used). SemperBlotto (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 00:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Appendix:Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil[edit]

Crappy appendix with a misleading name. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

In principle this kind of information should be in Category:Tamil terms derived from Indo-Aryan languages on one hand (viz. individual etymologies), and perhaps w:History of the Tamil language (nonexistent, but see w:Tamil language#History) on the other (viz. details of sound substitutions and sound changes). This appendix seems to have much information that isn't currently in either, though, so I would first suggest (keep but) cleanup. Delete once fully obsoleted, perhaps. --Tropylium (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Upon closer examination: delete. w:Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil indeed exists. --Tropylium (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Excessive category granularity, IMHO. This category has 5 items, and is unlikely to get an interesting number of items. The parent Category:en:Diseases seems to have an okay granularity. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

What is an interesting number? 10? 100? 1,000? Could you be more explicit about "okay granularity"? How would one tell whether it was okay with you? DCDuring TALK 12:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I would favour keeping such a category. As w:Leprosy states, "[l]eprosy has affected humanity for thousands of years", with the first textual evidence of the disease dating back to the fourth or fifth millennium BC. Accordingly, it will have accumulated a lot of words in its semantic field (consider the obsolete mesel, for example), not to mention all the words for things involved in the disease's diagnosis, treatment, etc. You can confidently expect Category:en:Leprosy's granularity to improve considerably over time. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep. There are some words in the semantic field of leprosy that don’t belong in Category:en:Diseases, like leper colony, leprosarium and Lazarus. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
So, do we need to add equivalent categories in other languages? So that words such as lazzaretto could be included in them? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto: I would say so. It's a simple matter of creating, for example, Category:it:Leprosy with the text {{topic cat|it|Leprosy}}. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep. There are a number of leprosy-related terms in Category:en:Diseases, which is slightly crowded already at 265 entries, and there are quite a few entries in Category:en:Pathology (1463 entries) that belong in Category:en:Diseases, which would make that worse. Add to that the fact that topical categories tend to be under-used, in general, and I suspect that there could easily be a couple dozen in that category with a little work. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Is "pathology" a topic or a discourse domain? I would have thought that we might need for some terms to be in both a discourse-domain category and one or more topical categories.
Don't leprosy and its synonyms belong in a disease category? Where does a causative agent for the disease go? Where would distinct symptoms and treatments go? Where does leper colony (See leper colony at OneLook Dictionary Search) go? DCDuring TALK 15:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


Fully supplanted by {{taxlink}} in function and actual use. —JohnC5 06:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete as unnecessary and a source of confusion. DCDuring TALK 07:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Aye, delete per the discussion in User talk:DCDuring#spelink behavior. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015[edit]


While I suppose you could technically argue that the systematic names of astronomical nomenclature are synonyms of the common names, this is information that is really better suited to a dedicated star catalogue. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete; too high granularity for Wikisaurus, IMHO. And all the items are redlinks. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikisaurus:moon of Uranus[edit]

Wikisaurus:moon of Haumea[edit]

Wikisaurus:moon of Jupiter[edit]

Wikisaurus:moon of Mars[edit]

Wikisaurus:moon of Saturn[edit]

Wikisaurus:moon of Neptune[edit]

Wikisaurus:moon of Pluto[edit]

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

It does not matter that they do not list synonyms. Wikisaurus is about all semantic relations. E.g. Wikisaurus:bird is perfectly fine regardless of hosting almost no synonyms. And an overlap with categories is not a reason for deletion of a Wikisaurus entry. As for the moon pages, I abstain. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Abstain as the creator of all these pages, I don't particularly care if they survive or not in the Wikisaurus. But in any event, maybe these lists could be kept in appendices. --Daniel 07:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom; use list templates (template:list:moons of Haumea/en, etc). - -sche (discuss) 06:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Eh, list templates are also stupid for those which only have a few moons. Just spell them out. - -sche (discuss) 08:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


FIRST possible conjugational paradigm,

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

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

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

SECOND possible conjugational paradigm,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOURTH possible conjugational paradigm,

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

This template is cacophonic and ambiguous

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

FIFTH possible conjugational paradigm,

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

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

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

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

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

Optimum verbal paradigm of ABOLIR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In as much of what I have been made aware:

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

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

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

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

Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!


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

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

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

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


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

Wiktionary:Related terms[edit]

This is currently a redirect to Wiktionary:Semantic relations, which is not a good idea in light of the fact that the Related terms header is explicitly not about semantly relations. I might have just deleted it, but it's been this way since 2010. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we can redirect it to Wiktionary:Entry_layout_explained#Related_terms. Dixtosa (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and redirect to WT ELE as proposed. I instated the proposed redirection since it is such an obviously correct thing to do. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

May 2015[edit]

Template:short form of[edit]

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

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


This is a particularly bad offender among l-subtemplates in that it doesn't have the automatic stripping of macrons from target page names that {{l}} does. For example:

  • {{l|la|ōrdinārius}} gives ōrdinārius. Correct display, correct link
  • {{l/|la|ōrdinārius}} gives ōrdinārius. Right display, wrong link.

So rather than equivalent to {{l|la}} it is inferior to it. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep. In rare cases, macron-, breve-, and diaeresis-stripping (which is done automatically by {{l|la|…}}) is undesirable; see, for example, Citations:conāta and Citations:suscēpit. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
You can prefix the term with : to disable all processing. {{l|la|:conāta}}conāta. —CodeCat 05:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Delete, and @I'm so meta even this acronym, you ought to reconsider given what CC added. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Whoa, why do we even have Citations:conāta and Citations:suscēpit? Just because some editors choose to add some diacritics in their learners' editions doesn't mean that conāta and suscēpit are actually alternative spellings of cōnāta and suscēpit that we need to record. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@Μετάknowledge: Yes, given what CodeCat wrote (thanks, CodeCat), I now vote to delete {{l/la}}. @Aɴɢʀ: The rationale for not having macra in page titles is that they don't occur in running text; macra and breves are rarer than diaereses and acute accents, but they do occur, as you can see. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
They occur all over the place in pedagogical works for Latin learners, like the book the citations given are from. We've decided not to include them in page titles, so I see no need for corresponding Citations-namespace entries for them. Usually if there's a Citations page for a mainspace redlink, it's because there's an expectation that the mainspace entry will be created as soon as there are enough citations for it, but these entries with macrons should never be created. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@Aɴɢʀ: WT:ALA#Do not use diacritical marks in page names gives "macrons do not appear in written Latin or in reproductions of literature and texts" as a rationale. Since that isn't true in this case, that rationale doesn't apply. "We've decided not to include them in page titles" because of certain reasons; if those reasons are inapplicable, the decision ipso facto becomes inapplicable. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
It's never been true if pedagogical works like this one are taken into consideration. There are plenty of books that show all relevant macrons (rather than just a select few like the book cited does). We have chosen to ignore such works and represent Latin words without macrons, just as we've chosen to show Old English words without macrons (even though the macrons are present in plenty of Old English readers) and Hebrew and Arabic words without vowel points (even though the vowel points are present in editions of sacred texts as well as material for learners). So "macrons do not appear in written Latin or in reproductions of literature and texts" is untrue taken at face value, but it's still good practice to omit macrons for Latin (and Old English) at Wiktionary. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Appendix:Palindromic words[edit]

Appendix:Palindromic phrases[edit]

Based on two old discussions I'm going to link to below, I'd like to delete these two long lists of palindromes of all languages. I've copied the contents of both pages into 55 language-specific appendices like Appendix:Portuguese palindromes.


Also sorry if I did anything wrong with Croatian/Serbo-Croatian in the process, I've just copied all the phrases into Appendix:Serbo-Croatian palindromes. --Daniel 06:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete both. The languages look much better when they’re separate. Piling them all up in one entry is messy. --Romanophile (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
We already have Category:Portuguese palindromes. Why create an appendix? Split Appendix:Palindromic phrases and then delete both. --Dixtosa (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Delete the page of words (but ideally move red links somewhere, e.g. to requested entries). Not sure about the phrases, since they don't merit entries, and I suppose the list is interesting (?). Equinox 17:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Does it really make sense to have Appendix:Urdu palindromes, with its two entries? I'm all for breaking out longer lists of palindromes by language, but for the short lists, I see no benefit to splitting them out rather than keeping them together on a page. bd2412 T 17:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Do we really want appendices of palindromic phrases? Anything that meets CFI we can categorize (and we do), but what about non-CFI meeting stuff like madam, I'm Adam? Do we even want that in the appendix namespace? Palindromes aren't lexical anyway, they're mathematical like anagrams. I'd rather we delete the whole lot and just keep the categorization. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
We should do it with categories rather than appendices. For now, that would cause us to lose the red links, though. Equinox 17:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
By all means move them to WT:RE. But being palindromes doesn't make them more urgent as entries. Like I said, palindromes are mathematical not lexical. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
My opinion as the creator of this discussion: Keep words and phrases in the language-specific appendices. Palindromes are interesting, and they are shown/organized in an interesting way in appendices, with their translations readily available and the words normally organized by letter count, see Appendix:Slovene palindromes.
I don't know whether the aforementioned Appendix:Urdu palindromes is useful as a single page with only 2 instances, I just like how it fits this system which is consistent enough in style and 100% consistent in categorization, which is rare for appendices. Category:Urdu palindromes has 2 entries not mentioned in the appendix, for a grand total of 4 palindromes.
Question: About the suggestion of having a separate page for the languages with few palindromes, isn't it an unnecessary layer of complexity? The way it is now, one can see/navigate all the languages at once since I left them all cross-linked in the See also section. Cases in point: Kabyle and Egyptian have 1 entry each.
Delete Appendix:Palindromic phrases and Appendix:Palindromic words, it is tedious having to scroll to find examples of a particular language and come back to the top for section links. I also don't like having to navigate and search for words and phrases separately if all I speak or want to see is, say, Danish. --Daniel 09:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't be tedious if all languages with larger numbers of palindromes were removed, and the only languages on the page were those with only a handful. In that case, I would think that it would be more tedious to look through several different pages of languages with two or three palindromes then to have them all in one place. bd2412 T 14:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Good point. Still the current separate appendices words/phrases are a mess. Also, pages like Appendix:Urdu palindromes are categorized in language-specific categories like Category:Urdu appendices, thus more likely to draw attention of the language's speakers/editors and be improved. Perhaps we could have Appendix:Palindromes (currently a redirect to "Appendix:Palindromic words") with duplicate content from Urdu, Kabyle, Egyptian, etc. and links to all appendices. Personally, I am still leaning towards having just the language-specific appendices with nothing else, but do you and/or think that would be a reasonable compromise? As long as we're keeping palindromes here, while some languages have too few palindromes, I'd argue that languages with a substantial number of palindromes benefit from having their own appendices no matter how you look at them. (Appendix:English palindromes, Appendix:French palindromes, Appendix:Finnish palindromes, Appendix:Danish palindromes, Appendix:Italian palindromes, Appendix:Slovene palindromes, Appendix:Swedish palindromes, etc.) --Daniel 04:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Appendix:Afrikaans and Dutch Swadesh lists[edit]

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

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

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

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

For the record:
  • Delete the Dutch/Afrikaans/German appendix, for the reasons I stated above and also per Renard Migrant.
  • Keep the whole bunch of family Swadesh lists, I'm not nominating those for deletion, I was just asking. They seem useful enough. I don't see any harm in them aside from maybe comparetively more work to keep both versions consistent with additions/corrections/whatever. --Daniel 11:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't understand that bit of Angr's comments. I see no harm in keeping them for language families which are well enough defined that we know which languages should and shouldn't be in there. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Keep, but remove German. Believe this list could be a good addition to [3]; a Germanic languages list would likely be too cluttered to allow an easy use of it. Morgengave (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:de-proper noun[edit]

Discussion moved to WT:RFC.


This template doesn't do anything beyond {{head|en|suffix}}. It also has a rather big shortcoming: it doesn't show inflected forms of the suffix. A noun-forming suffix has its own plural, which can be irregular in any way that any noun derived from it can be. For this reason, the regular part-of-speech templates now accept a suff=1 parameter, which causes the entry to be categorised as a suffix. So for example for -osis, you would have {{en-noun|suff=1|-oses}}, and for -y there would be {{en-adj|suff=1|-ier}}.

This is probably even more important for languages that have more inflected forms, so we may want to examine them as well. —CodeCat 22:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you do this for {{head}}? --WikiTiki89 22:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
There isn't really much point for {{head}} because you can just change the category parameter. —CodeCat 22:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
But then it would easy to just add |suff={{{suff|}}} to any template that is implemented in terms of {{head}}. --WikiTiki89 22:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
How it's done now is not much harder, see {{et-noun}}. —CodeCat 22:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I would consider {{#if:{{{suff|}}}|suffixes|nouns}}|cat2={{#if:{{{suff|}}}|noun-forming suffixes}} to be much harder than suff={{{suff|}}}. --WikiTiki89 22:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe so, but we should be able to assume a higher level of skill from those editing templates (as opposed to entries). And it's definitely within the capabilities of anyone writing headword-line templates. —CodeCat 22:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not so much about skill as it is about ease, quality, and uniformity (as with all code-reuse). If we make it as simple as suff={{{suff|}}}, then it would be difficult to mess it up and we would also be sure that all templates that use this will function the same way. And if we (hypothetically) decide to change category names from "X-forming suffixes" to "suffixes that form X", we would only need to change it in one place. --WikiTiki89 23:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
What makes me hesitate here is that we'd end up with two very different ways of accomplishing the same thing; one with the old way and one with the new way. Essentially what you've done is to add a more specific tool that is unlikely to be known or understood by many users, to perform the same function as a much more widely understood tool. This leads to less uniformity as editors will be confused over which method to use, not more. There should be one, and preferably only one obvious way to do it. —CodeCat 23:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
If we were to go by that logic, we would just do '''-um''' (''plural'' '''[[-a#English|-a]]''')[[Category:English lemmas]][[Category:English suffixes]][[Category:English noun-forming suffixes]][[Category:English countable nouns]] rather than the totally non-obvious {{en-noun|-a|suff=1}}. There is always going to be more than one way to do things. The best strategy is to have shortcuts for anything that is done often enough. And this particular thing should probably be a feature of almost every headword-line template in existence. --WikiTiki89 23:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: Here we go again deleting widely-used templates and needlessly merging them into other templates. There's not really any harm in having two templates that do the same thing; while merging or renaming templates creates piles and piles of bot work and confuses editors. Purplebackpack89 02:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • You haven't actually given a rationale for keeping. Furthermore, two templates that do the same thing is confusing to editors, and merging and renaming templates is very easy to do with a bot. —CodeCat 10:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I gave a rationale against deletion, namely that merging or deleting it would cause too many problems. RfD/O isn't like RfD; whether or not a template like this is kept or merged is wholly subjective and there are few, if any, governing policies. And, no it isn't, really: you just pick one of them (probably the one you first started using when the time arose) and continue using it. Purplebackpack89 13:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Precedents say keep: I nominated {{fr-adv}}, {{fr-verb-form}} and {{fr-adj-form}} for deletion on the basis they're redundant to head, and all three got kept. It's a recent precedent and I see no reason why the community would change its mind just a couple of weeks later. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep this template, currently used in more than 500 mainspace pages, to make old revisions legible. The only action that can be contemplated is deprecation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


Is this really of any use? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, but before deleting it someone could go through and make sure we have all the entries. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a requested entries page. Move instead of delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Wiktionary:Requested entries (Umbundu) (and add {{requested entries preamble|umb}}). --WikiTiki89 20:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015[edit]


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

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

Hi! So do you need clarification or elaboration on this? Or, what could I do to convince you that this is actually a good idea? I'm using A Grammar of Modern Telugu written by Krishnamurti and Glynn and published in 1985, so it's reasonably modern and, from what I see, includes good, descriptive linguistic analysis that feels good to me as a heritage/native speaker. –AxaiosRex (అక్షయ్⁠రాజ్) 22:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I think you can make an arrangement like that (listing oblique forms and a central appendix) work for advanced students, but I don’t think that most Americans, Brits, Canadians, and Australians who want to study Telugu would be able to use your appendix system at a beginning or intermediate level. But do it however you like. I’m not going to get into an argument about it. —Stephen (Talk) 23:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I get you. I just think this is a lot more concise and less redundant. Also, if you wanted to include a declension table, I feel you would quickly rush into issues with just which postpositions you wanted to include on it, considering there are so many suffixes and adverbs and other words that could fill that morphological category. I suppose you could just include those ones that are purely postpositions (and thus don't have their own oblique forms and can't take their own postpositions), but that would make it seem like those are the only ones that exist. However, there is also the issue of phonological interactions between the oblique and the postposition, which could complicate things enough that a declension table would be necessary, though for the written standard that isn't as much of an issue, I believe. @Stephen G. BrownAxaiosRex (అక్షయ్⁠రాజ్) 00:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Re: what could I do to convince you that this is actually a good idea? I basically just want it to fail an RFD. I was not comfortable speedy deleting this template because 1 it was made by a trusted user, and 2 I don't know anything about Telugu. —Internoob 01:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Old conjugation templates for Yiddish[edit]

The new {{yi-conj}} and {{yi-conj-e}} have obviated the need for the plethora of old templates.

The following have already been orphaned:

And eventually:

--WikiTiki89 20:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Current RFDO discussions:

Older discussion:

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

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

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

Template:filling station[edit]

It's time to Delete this template, a dead duck which contained a list of synonyms for "filling station". It was created in 2007 by long-departed User:16@r. It might have been handy at the time, but it has been superseded by Wikisaurus. I have just updated ws:filling station to include all the synonyms listed in this template, and I removed the template from the mainspace entries where it was used (there were only 4 of them), taking care to ensure that each entry does contain a link to the Wikisaurus record. -- · (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete. It seems redundant now. Equinox 12:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Don't manage synonym information duplication using templates containing the synonyms. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:User SUL[edit]

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

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

Template:User Wikipedia[edit]

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

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

Template:User unified login[edit]

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

Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 07:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


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

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

July 2015[edit]


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

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

Category:2000 German basic words[edit]

This has been sitting in RfC for ages. A project that was started but never got anywhere. There's only 100 words here and with no source given there's absolutely no chance of ever completing it, thus it serves no purpose at all. -- Liliana 11:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

We don't need a source. Just let people add whatever words they think are important to it. It's how we populated Category:100 English basic words, Category:200 English basic words, Category:1000 English basic words... - -sche (discuss) 18:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
(Not that I expected anyone to realize it,) ^that^ was tongue in cheek. In my opinion, the category should be deleted. But I fully expect it will be kept and populated with whatever random words people like. - -sche (discuss) 21:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete (I would have done it in but I see that it needs to be depopulated first). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Depopulated (it contained 132 entries) and deleted. - -sche (discuss) 05:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:inflected form of[edit]

This template is widely used for German adjective forms, but it doesn't actually say anything about what form. The reason is, presumably, because a single German adjective form can have a variety of different functions, as can be seen at roten. However, I don't think that's really an excuse to just give up and say "it's just some form, we can't be bothered to tell you which". So I think this should be deleted, or at least orphaned for German entries. I don't know if it's used for any other language.

Alternatively, if there isn't an agreement on actually showing the inflections, we could rename all German uses to {{de-inflected form of}}. Then we can re-evaluate whatever transclusions of this template remain for other languages. Presumably if it's only used for German, we don't need this. —CodeCat 21:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind renaming it {{de-inflected form of}}, but I do prefer having a single line saying "inflected form of rot" to 26 lines listing every possible form. Either way, the user isn't going to find what they're looking for, but with a single uninformative line at least they realize that fact quickly and can click through to rot to find the inflection table, while with 26 lines, they're going to spend 15 minutes perusing them all trying to figure out which one of those 26 forms they're looking at in their text before giving up and going to the inflection table at rot. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@Angr Kephir did get the number at roten down to 11, which is more manageable.
In any case, I've now started to rename all the German uses to {{de-inflected form of}}, which I just created. There seem to be a few other German-like languages that also use this template, like Luxembourgish and Yiddish. But there's far less entries for those. But I'm thinking, if it's too much to actually show the list of forms, what we could do at least is give them some abstract name. For example, roten would have something like "-en form" and rotes gets "-es form". That way there's a bit more information than just "inflected form of" at least. What do you think of this? —CodeCat 14:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Down to 11 is better. "-en form" and "-es form" is easy to read but not very informative since anyone can see roten ends in -en and rotes ends in -es. It's a little tautological. I suppose what would be ideal would be to repeat the inflection table at the inflected form. (I know we don't normally do that, but we could make an exception.) That way the definition line could just say "inflected form of rot (see table below)" and then the user would open up the table and all the instances of roten would be in bold face and everything else would be a link. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that "-es form" would be stupid. (It would also, AFAICT, be our own idiosyncratic invention; I can't find any references in German or English that use such a designation.) I don't like the idea of duplicating inflection tables, either. I think the idea, previously discussed, of having a line like "inflection of x" and then collapsed subsenses is probably the best balance of übersichtlich ‎(easy to look over) and yet informative. - -sche (discuss) 23:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It would have already implemented the collapsing behaviour if not for a certain editor who claims the sky is falling with everything I do. —CodeCat 23:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems to be a useful template - I don't remember using it, but it would speed up adding word forms. As Aɴɢʀ says above - a one line "form-of" puts the user one click away from an inflection table, and would speed up creating all those inflected forms! If its renamed to {{de-inflected form of}} I would, if I followed that route, have to create an {{el-inflected form of}} !   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 14:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see what it's useful for, other than if you're actually creating form-of entries by hand (why, I don't know) and feel to lazy to give a proper definition. You should use {{inflection of}} for Greek entries. —CodeCat 15:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep for a general use by the editors who prefer these sort of form-of entries that do not indicate which form it is, and merely direct the reader to the lemma with an inflection table. Do not rename to {{de-inflected form of}}. Stop removing the uses of the template. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    • This is not a matter of preference. Form-of entries should always give information about the form. This is the established practice and has been forever. If we want to start allowing editors to put {{inflected form of}} instead of the appropriate definition, whenever editors feel like it, then there should be a consensus and a vote to change the format of form-of entries. —CodeCat 23:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Providing the specific inflected form is not the sole established practice. CodeCat's removal of more than 5000 uses of the template shows otherwise. Even now, the current uses of {{de-inflected form of}} and similar show that there are two practices established. I asked before in a failed vote that CodeCat's bot is debotted, and I ask, somehow in vain I feel, again. CodeCat's bot made changes without consensus; CodeCat's suggestion that the state being changed was somehow forbidden or not supported is denied by verifiable evidence. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    As per https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/MewBot&offset=&limit=5000&target=MewBot, the template was recently used in more than 5000 entries. Now it's largely gone. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep but discourage. It is better to show specific information about an inflected form, but this information is not always known by the editor and there may be other scenarios where it would make sense. --WikiTiki89 11:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Maybe the use of this template could put the entry in a cleanup category alerting editors to the fact that a more specific template is needed. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, and I like Angr's idea of doing so with a cleanup category. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Purplebackpack89 23:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Isn't "inflected form of" far too vague in most cases, and use should be discouraged? Is it the lazy way out? Donnanz (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This is a !vote on what should be done with this template. The question of whether or not a !vote that just says "this is a !vote" but doesn't say "delete" or "keep" is a useful !vote can perhaps be answered in the same way as the question of whether or not a template that just says "inflected form of" but doesn't say "dative", "plural", "definite", etc is a useful template. - -sche (discuss) 16:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:English terms spelled with ‐[edit]

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

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


Previous discussion: User talk:I'm so meta even this acronym#Should_we_ask_for_the_R:Urban_template_to_be_removed.3F

Urban dictionary isn't a reliable resource; anyone can edit it, and (as was discussed in a news article about it a while ago) the principle criteria by which users admit to upvoting definitions is not whether they are accurate but whether they are funny. - -sche (discuss) 07:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep. It provides a window into slang usage that cannot be achieved otherwise. It is not a substitute for attestation, of course. Some of the definitions are good and some of those rise to the top by user vote. Judgment is required in the deployment of the template, but that's true of most content: definitions, usage examples, lists of synonyms, derived and related terms, templates, lists of cognates, etc. DCDuring TALK 17:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep but Urban dictionary is, I believe, user-editable like a wiki. Reference links would only make sense if we can link to a specific revision. Otherwise, the content that has been referenced might well have disappeared in the meantime. So if permalinks are not available, then delete. —CodeCat 17:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
"Like a wiki" is misleading. Anyone can add a new definition of a word (which becomes its own little packet, shown under the headword, with all the others, and pushed up or down by user votes — which of course aren't based on lexico merit but on general popularity or trolling); it's not wiki-like in the real sense, i.e. one person can edit and improve another person's writing. Equinox 22:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, largely per -sche. The above-linked previous discussion features User:JohnC5, User:I'm so meta even this acronym, User:SemperBlotto, User:Dixtosa, and User:DCDuring. AFAIK, Equinox is correct that Urban dictionary posts are not edited by other users or proposed for deletion; they are upvoted and downvoted, with zero use of lexicographical evidence. For the record, the template has currently 0 entries using it in the mainspace (was it depopulated?), and was created on 3 July 2013‎. From what I have seen, Urban dictionary is so full of low-grade content that it is not even worthwhile as an external link AKA "where else would you send me to look at?". Mining Urban dictionary for attestable content is fine (rephrasing needed!), but once we succeed in adding attested content based on UD, we become higher authority than UD via our attesting quotations, and our linking to UD gets superfluous. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete; not a good source for understanding slang usage. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay. As previously stated, I would be fine with this template's deletion as long as it was accompanied by a disallowance of UD as a source. This template should be removed only if we agree that UD should not be cited. Alternatively it could be used for something else than citation (example usage, perhaps?), but it would need to be explicitly removed from the R: namespace. —JohnC5 04:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Spanish nouns suffixed with -idad[edit]

Redundant to Category:Spanish words suffixed with -idad. --A230rjfowe (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]


An accent template displaying (Southern American English). Replaced by {{a}}, and no longer used in the main namespace. Enosh (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Del per nom. - -sche (discuss) 20:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Thanks for updating Module:a/data, -sche. I am surprised it wasn't in there before, and I hope users continue to add more missing accents (I wrote the module because the old template was weird and annoying, which I think led to users not adding more). —JohnC5 22:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I was surprised, too! (It's Enoshd who added it to the module; I just added a few more aliases.) I guess it was the {{label}} module that it was already in. We should check what other {{label}}s need to be added to the accent module. - -sche (discuss) 23:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Kill. Nothing worth debating here. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


I don't see much point in this, TBH --A230rjfowe (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Strong keep. It is history. --Dixtosa (talk) 09:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep, at worst harmless, at best could be referenced in debates about old edits and who had admin powers at the time of those edits. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep. Good ratio of possible utility to storage space, IMO. DCDuring TALK 18:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Czech entries with audio links[edit]

This category is redundant, since there is already Category:Czech terms with audio links, which is not filled manually but by a template. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete. --WikiTiki89 11:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 17:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom as redundant and manually maintained. I would also delete Category:Czech terms with audio links, but there won't be a consensus for this, I fear. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I think Cirrus search would allow the members to be found fairly easily without Category:Czech terms with audio links, although not very efficiently. DCDuring TALK 17:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Category:cmn:Names / Category:cmn:Transliteration of personal names / Category:cmn:English surnames[edit]

All of the surnames have been updated to the new Chinese layout. —suzukaze (tc) 00:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Some Cantonese topic categories[edit]

It seems like some of them are empty; however, the category structure is very convoluted so I haven't listed them. —suzukaze (tc) 02:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


There is no consensus on this process, as is clear from the various discussions that have occurred in the past, and that are still occurring today. User:Pereru is adding this to all kinds of entries to satisfy his personal need for sources, not Wiktionary's. —CodeCat 01:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

  • strongly oppose. Sources are as necessary to protoforms as usage examples are necessary to make sure words were not made up. How do we know a protoform was not just invented by the author of the page on the spur of the moment? CodeCat, for some reason, seems not to like sources; I say avoiding sources cannot be an acceptable procedure in any dictionary that wants its etymologies to be trustworthy. --Pereru (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Trustworthiness comes from them making sense, not because we parroted the views of someone else who said so. Review and editing by other editors is the only thing that can produce reliable etymologies, I don't see how citing a source magically makes the etymology more sensible. People have published pretty rediculous ideas, much crazier than something the most experienced Wiktionary etymology editors would come up with. Wiktionary has always been opposed to appeal to authority, why should this be an exception?
      Aside from all that, there still needs to be a consensus on policies that would govern the use of this template. Right now anyone can stick it on a page and anyone else can remove it again. —CodeCat 01:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
    • If you are not the author of the form, then you ARE "parroting" someone: the author (in the trade, this is called 'citing'). Why complain about something that you yourself are doing? And you must believe the sources you're using are good, or else why would you use them? If, on the other hand, you are the author of a given reconstruction, then say so, and state your reasons. "Trustworthyness" is NOT helped by hiding the process whereby you came to the conclusion that this specific protoform deserved its own page -- much the opposite, especially for non-specialist readers. "Making sense" is something that needs to be argued for, and not in a discussion several years ago that nobody is going to go through the archives to find -- copy it to the page itself. Or place it in the talk page. This will be the source, if you're the author. Now, if you're not the author, then you did not create that reconstruction yourself, you simply saw it somewhere; it should then be a simple matter to copy the title of the source where you saw it and the name of its author to the page you created. Why not do it? Can you present a single argument in favor of hiding the name of the person who proposed the form -- especially when YOU think the form is right, since you created a page for it? To me, that is more than simple courtesy; if you don't say who made the claim, you're not giving him/her credit, i.e. you're simply stealing that person's ideas. Which is, you know, not ethical.--Pereru (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree on the need for a procedure; but it simply seemed to me pretty straightforward. If you see a reconstructed entry without a source, tag it. When a source is added, remove the tag. If someone doesn't do it this way, s/he is doing it wrong. Or would you suggest something else? --Pereru (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I think demanding the deletion of this template because someone is adding it to entries without waiting for consensus is a bit much, especially since you routinely do the same (Dan would probably find some way to make it sound like you were inscribing the Mark Of The Beast on people's foreheads and sending tanks to seize parliament, but that's just Dan).
Not that I agree with rushing this out while in the middle of a heated argument. Such things are best done after things have cooled down and other opinions have been heard. I think the best course of action is to keep the template for the time being, but to hash out all the issues and to come to a consensus before putting the template in its final form and adding it to entries. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not sure if I should even add anything, this nom seems a bit ridic., the template is a great idea, imo, I agree with Pereru that I don't see any controversy in how it should be implemented – something is unsourced, a person would like sources (for whatever reason, it's no one's business to try to do psychoanalysis on them or make up conspiracy theories what might be their "hidden agenda" for requesting sources, I mean come on...) and said person simply adds the template. The only thing I see as meriting discussion is the exact wording, perhaps the template could be made more general to be used in Mainspace as well...? (Or does RFV already cover all of Mainspace, not just the attestation of the lemma, I'm not sure?)
I have never understood CC's trail of thought in this regard (like her bizarre dislike(?) of easily accessible online resources like Etümoloogiasõnaraamat), one thing I can tell you there have already been a bunch of times in my current little Uralic project where I'm simply not linking to a Uralic etyl appendix because it simply has no sources, all I'm left with is hope that User:Tropylium will add sources at some point. I'm not equipped to speculate what Pereru might or might not plan to do, but English Wiktionary is probably the #1 most comprehensive, multi-faceted resource on Latvian at this point, what if Pereru's potential Uralic project approaches that, something tells me that he feels similarly to me in regards to completely unreferenced etyl appendices and would assume a general policy of simply ignoring them which is such a tremendous waste of human resources/time (the time that CC took to put those app's together.) Such a template is an attempt at communication, I don't see how obstructing communication is in any way beneficial. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 07:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep this template or similar. Readd the template to Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/wed-, Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/álteros, Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/ánteros and the like. Note that the template does not require deletion of the page, merely points out that sources are missing. Start removing CodeCat's original research from etymologies and reconstructions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
    How do you know it is original research? --Pereru (talk)
    Fair point. Note, however, that CodeCat does not post their sources in their edit summaries, nor anywhere lese, so original research is likely, especially given that they publically advocate use of original research in etymologies and reconstructions. I have seen CodeCat change, with no edit summary, etymologies entered by other people. When that happened, I did not know what to do; from what I recall, I gave up and did not revert. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep but tone it down in both size and rhetoric, to something approximating {{rfv-sense}} in both size and direness. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why delete the template just because there is not yet a consensus? Should authoring and deploying such a template be a privilege limited only to cognoscenti?
    If the problem is with a lack of policy about its use, then the forum is WT:BP, not this relatively underwatched venue. This has the look to venue-shopping, analogous to moving as many template features as possible to Module space. See abuse of process at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring TALK 11:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
    One question: is there really a lack of policy on the topic, since both Wiktionary:Etymology#References and Wiktionary:Reconstructed_terms#References_and_verifiability mention the need for good sources? --Pereru (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep a template, per Neitrāls vārds, though toned down per Angr; in particular, get rid of the suggestion that sources need to "claim this exact form", per the BP discussions going on at the moment (where there seems to be consensus that standardization of notation, for instance, is good). - -sche (discuss) 17:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep either as a smaller inline template or with toned-down wording. A boilerplate is too much of a blunt tool for requesting individual references; and if someone's concerned about a complete lack of sources, something along the lines of w:Template:Unreferenced would be preferrable. --Tropylium (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
But we haven't even established that a lack of sources is a bad thing. This is just the opinion of some people. But as I argued in the BP, it goes too far to require sourcing for every single piece of etymological information. So it should always be necessary to specify which pieces information are missing a source. Another point that has not been addressed is, what if there is no external source for the information? There is, again, no policy or procedure for deleting information not sourced to someone else. Most information on Wiktionary is sourced to Wiktionary, per WT:CFI. For unattested terms, there are no established rules, and the current practice is to mix external sourcing with editorial review and consensus, just like anywhere else on Wiktionary. —CodeCat 19:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I disagree -- I think we have, since you even agreed that sourcing (including mentioning yourself/Wiktionary as the author and giving the reasoning behind a certain choice of form) is a good thing in the BP discussion on this template. A lack of sources is not a deleting offense -- it's like a lack of inflection tables: it should simply be fixed. Which is what this template is for. This is not just "some people's opinion": an entry with an inflection table is indeed better than one without one, if the word in question does indeed have inflections. Likewise, a reconstructed entry with sources (= either external sources or the Wiktionary-internal rationale) is better than one without, because it allows the interested reader to judge the form better. All good etymological dictionaries do this; why shouldn't Wiktionary? Again, this template is not for deleting (where did you get that?): it's for tagging entries that don't have sources, just like {{rfinfl}} tags entries that don't have inflection tables. If people think the tone is too strong, it can be toned down; but its usefulness is obivous: it creates a category with all unsourced entries so that interested people like you can go about adding sources (again, not just external sources: also rationales and explanations for why this form is there rather than some other form). --Pereru (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we don't have to establish sourcelessness as "bad", only as less preferrable as having at least some sources. I have seen no argument for what harm do sources do, so this really should be a shoo-in.
As for low-level original research that an editor expects to be truly novel (not merely unsourced but also unsourceable), an explanation in footnotes should probably suffice. This is what published papers do for minor etymological observations all the time: "A previously unnoted reflex of Proto-Fooic *zark is North Fooian zorg"; or "Droopy Fooian blop and Loopy Fooian blep can be connected as Proto-Fooic *blöp"; with no further argument required as long as the sound correspondences and the semantics work out well enough. (Only if they don't, would I be concerned about including an etymology in Wiktionary in the first place.) --Tropylium (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep, but tone it down. --Vahag (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I've just toned down the template, so that it resembles Wikipedia w:Template:Unreferenced (offering the additional option of marking something as original research). It seems that the verdict here is 'keep'. If nothing changes, in a couple of days I'll removed the {{rfd}} template and start adding it to PIE entries that have no sources or OR tags.--Pereru (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
If we're going to include the term "original research" in templates, then we should at least have a page that descibes what it means and what our policy on it is. It would be especially good for Wikipedians who are used to Wikipedia's policy. —CodeCat 20:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, we should come up with a better, more neutral descriptor just to avoid that one which is loaded by Wikipedia's strident stance on it. Perhaps (for a wording to put on own-research entries) simply "This reconstruction has been deduced according to the sound correspondances [etc] described in WT:About Proto-Germanic." That page would then cite rules for reconstructing proto-forms, with references, which would serve as the "reliable sources" {{needsources}} asked for. (Omitted/excluded by such an approach would be any completely-original research, where a Wiktionarian posited their own sound correspondences etc without references, and proceeded to reconstruct proto-forms from those all by themselves.) - -sche (discuss) 20:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Just reading this template, without editing here in months, I can see it's a reaction to CodeCat's original research. We do have {{unreferenced}} and I'd be tempted to add a {{{1}}} to it instead of creating an entirely new template, but of course we do need something so either this template or an edit to {{unreferenced}}. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


Unused template, superseded by {{confix}} and {{affix}}. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. It wouldn't even work in its current state, it uses templates we've replaced long ago. —CodeCat 19:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    And yet it was created only 5 months ago. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I wonder why DCDuring did it, then? Was it a migration thing, migrating from an old to a new template, and was intended to be deleted when no longer used? It doesn't matter of course, delete either way. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Appendix:List of the 1750 most frequently used French words[edit]

I think when Wonderfool made this 10 years ago, it was supposed to be a "find missing entries on WT" page. All the links are blue now, and I can't see much of a purpose for this. --A230rjfowe (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely delete. Since it has no definitions it's just a list of words, and for defining them, we have the entries themselves (and yes all are done). Renard Migrant (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Why? We have frequency lists for other languages. --WikiTiki89 17:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Despite the title, this isn't a frequency list. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, then fix it up to make it one. Keep Purplebackpack89 18:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete. This isn't a frequency list, so it's misnamed (or you should provide references proving otherwise), and if someone were to find a reference that authoritatively stated what the most common French words were, 1750 is too weird a number -- go for the most common 1000, or 2000. - -sche (discuss) 19:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't imagine how in any language the word for watering can (arrosoir in French) would be in the top 1750 most frequently used words. Perhaps there is a bizarre tribe which worships them....--A230rjfowe (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, and if someone wants to make a real frequency list, they can recreate it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


Proto-Baltic was deleted as a language just recently after a Beer Parlour discussion which had majority support. But now Pereru seems to be hell-bent on creating this page and making it appear like a real language as much as possible (and reverting my attempts to change it). And then working around the fact that there is no longer a language code for this language (which means no way for any page to link to the entry and no use of {{head}}) by other means. I think this makes no sense; we delete the language, but then we pretend it's not deleted by giving it its own entries and categories?

Aside from all this, the reconstruction itself is wrong too. The Lithuanian nominative singular akmuõ does not come from *akmens, it comes from the older form *akmō, a direct continuation of PIE *h₂éḱmō. It's only Latvian that has reformed the nominative analogically. —CodeCat 22:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is not even 12 hours old (let alone a day.) Don't you think a bit hasty? And I actually think this might not be such a bad idea and I think WikiTiki kind of (unless I misread) suggested that too (other uninvolved parties have yet to post there.) Neitrāls vārds (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)