Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for deletion/Others

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for verification English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Reconstruction add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for deletion of pages in the main and Reconstruction namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/Others add new request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other namespaces, such as appendices, templates and modules.	Language treatment requests add new request | history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's language treatment practices, including renames, mergers and splits.
		Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new request | history | archives Discussion of proposed moves, mergers and splits of entries or other pages.	Category and label treatment requests add new request | history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's categories or labels, including additions, deletions, renames, mergers and splits.
		Requests for cleanup add new request | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}} • {{rfref}} • {{rfscript}} • {{rftranslit}} • {{t-needed}}

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

This page is for requesting deletion of non-main namespace pages, such as appendices, categories, templates and modules.

To request deletion of a category that organises entries by topic, dialect, label or similar, please post at Wiktionary:Category and label treatment requests instead. 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.

Newest 10 tagged RFDOs

User talk:79.73.179.78/meaning of life
Appendix:Lidepla/planeta
Appendix:Lidepla/lingwa
Appendix:Lidepla/Lingwa de Planeta
Appendix:English dictionary-only terms/zzxjoanw
User:Rumsor/В̌ирод
Template:supplementary
Talk:Мурдод
Category:Reference templates
Template:Image frame

Oldest 200 tagged RFDOs

User:DCDuring/Sandbox
Wiktionary:Frequency lists/Complete Shakespeare wordlist
Template:gem-decl-noun-table
Template:gem-decl-noun-irreg
Module:iir-nominals/documentation
Template:iir-decl-noun-n/documentation
Template:iir-decl-noun-m/documentation
Module:iir-nominals
Template:iir-decl-noun-n
Template:iir-decl-noun-m
Appendix:Oromo pronunciation
Appendix:Dutch pronunciation
Appendix:Adjectives indicating shape
Category:CJKV simplified characters which already existed as traditional characters
Category:CJKV radicals
Template:templatetable
Template:ethnologue
Appendix:Glossary of contract bridge
Category:Japanese-coined CJKV characters used outside Japanese
Template:kk-regional
Template:en-suffix
Template:l-nb
Template:l-nn
Template:blockquote-top
Template:he-wv
Template:blockquote-top/documentation
Category:Yugoslavia
Appendix:Sports
Template:CJKV
Template:zh-verb
Template:zh-verb/documentation
Template:CJKV/documentation
Category:attention lacking explanation
Template:authority control
Module:template utilities
Template:table:colors/zh
Wiktionary:Frequency lists/Finnish/Press data
Template:desc/sl-tonal
Category:Sino-Tibetan templates
Template:table:Chinese Zodiac/zh
Category:Czechoslovakia
Category:Arabic definite proper nouns
Category:en:Multiracial
Template:center top
Template:center bottom
Category:Coptic male given names from Greek
Category:Coptic female given names from Greek
Category:Coptic given names from Greek
Category:Coptic terms derived from Greek
Category:Indo-Aryan reference templates
Template:list:Vaṅga Bengali calendar months/bn
Template:rfv-term
Template:rfv-term/documentation
Category:West Germany
Template:el-UK-US
Template:less common spelling of
Category:Breakable Han characters
Template:R:jpx:Tekin:1993
Template:kk-scripts
Appendix:Mass Effect
Appendix:Wanderwörter
Template:nan-coll
Template:nan-lit
Appendix:Gen Z slang
Thesaurus:原子爆彈
Appendix:Toki Pona/ilo sona
Appendix:Toki Pona/jan lawa
Appendix:Toki Pona/jan pali
Appendix:Toki Pona/jan pona
Appendix:Toki Pona/mama meli
Appendix:Toki Pona/mama mije
Appendix:Toki Pona/mi mute
Appendix:Toki Pona/tenpo lete
Appendix:Toki Pona/tomo sona
Appendix:Toki Pona/tomo tawa
Appendix:Toki Pona/ma tomo
Template:ja-see-kango/documentation
Template:ja-gv/documentation
Template:ja-see-kango
Template:ja-gv
Template:request for pronunciation
Template:request for audio pronunciation
Template:request for verification of pronunciation
User:Useigor/Proto-Indo-European extensions
Template:sla-pro-root-h₁rewdʰ
Category:German terms suffixed with -blütig (blooded)
Category:German terms suffixed with -blütig
Template:adapted borrowing/documentation
Template:adapted borrowing
Template:R: Reynold's Newspaper 1 August 1848
User:Robert Ullmann/Missing/frequency
User:Robert Ullmann/Missing
Rhymes:English/aɪtwɒʃ
Template:ast-decl-adj/documentation
Template:ast-decl-adj
Appendix:Middle English declension
Template:yi-prefix
Category:Proto-Indo-European amphikinetic root suffixes
Template:R:eo:Guterman:1932
Category:2-letter words by language
Category:3-letter words by language
Category:1-letter words by language
Template:fo-myt
Category:Physical actions
Category:Quantity
Template:prg-noun declension -s ptv
Module:ko-link/documentation
Module:ko-link
Rhymes:Spanish/ando
Template:script note
Template:R:grc:LSJ.gr
Template:R:Etymological Dictionary of Arabic
Template:R:bn:DDSA
Template:R:eo:LSV
Template:R:hi:DDSA
Template:R:ur:DDSA
Template:R:atv:Todozhokov A.S.
Template:nn-pronu-note
Template:linkify
Template:lt-numeral
Template:vec-conj
User:Cameron.coombe/Querylink
Category:Rhymes:Old English/idu/1 syllable
Category:Rhymes:Old English/ara/1 syllable
Category:Rhymes:Old English/udu/1 syllable
Category:Rhymes:Old English/āra/1 syllable
Template:Photo montage
Template:Image frame
Category:Reference templates
Talk:Мурдод
Template:supplementary
User:Rumsor/В̌ирод
Appendix:English dictionary-only terms/zzxjoanw
Appendix:Lidepla/Lingwa de Planeta
Appendix:Lidepla/lingwa
Appendix:Lidepla/planeta
User talk:79.73.179.78/meaning of life

February 2019

Russian non-rhymes

(Notifying Atitarev, Benwing2, Cinemantique, Useigor, Wikitiki89, Stephen G. Brown, Guldrelokk, Fay Freak, Per utramque cavernam, Wittiami): Masculine rhymes in Russian require at least one consonant, either before or after the stressed vowel. In other words, вода́ (vodá) rhymes with когда́ (kogdá) (the rhyme is -dá) but not коса́ (kosá) (where the rhyme -sá; it would rhyme with небеса́ (nebesá)).

If the syllable ends in a consonant, the preceding consonant is not necessarily required: стол (stol) does rhyme with уко́л (ukól) (the rhyme is -ól; it's officially considered a "poor rhyme" (бедная рифма), but is nevertheless very widely used in poetry).

The following recently created non-rhymes need to be deleted and entries linking to them need to be cleaned up by a bot:

Rhymes:Russian/a, Rhymes:Russian/ɛ, Rhymes:Russian/i, Rhymes:Russian/o, Rhymes:Russian/u, Rhymes:Russian/e, Rhymes:Russian/ɨ, Rhymes:Russian/ɵ.

Tetromino (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tetromino OK. This isn't how things work in English but I'm completely ready to believe that Russian works differently. If others can confirm this, I'll do a bot run to fix things up. (The bot could handle the whole process of adding rhymes, potentially, if people think this is useful.) Benwing2 (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It's actually a little bit more complicated: the consonant doesn't need to match exactly: ловлю́ (lovljú) famously rhymes with на Ю (na Ju) because in this case a palatalized approximant [lʲ] in [lɐˈvlʲu] is "close enough" to the glide [j] in [nɐ‿ˈju]. But you need something consonant-ish there; -u by itself does not make a rhyme. Tetromino (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wittiami: Please note that your creations can be deleted. You should discuss these edits first. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 19:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tetromino, @Atitarev: OK. I can reorganize all rhymes into subcategories in order to arrange every ultimate syllable accordingly to their preceding consonant. Also I think it is a nice idea to combine rhymes like люблю and на Ю with similar preceding consonants in one entry. Additionally I have already combined entries for /æ/ and /a/ sounds in one, analogously /ɵ/ and /o/. If my work here still make sense, I'll continue adding more rhymes and entries. Wittiami (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wittiami Even after you said you'd stop creating entries with rhymes like /a/, you are still doing it with туда́ (tudá) and сюда́ (sjudá). Note that in any case, adding rhymes is better suited to a bot than a human. Benwing2 (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tetromino, Benwing2, Wittiami Is this ready for bot cleanup? -- Beland (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

August 2020

Template:sla-pro-root-h₁rewdʰ

@Useigor, this looks like an aborted experiment? PUC – 11:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• It's created to control duplicated information and there are similar templates. Alternative solution is {{rootsee}} but it doesn't show translations. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Boo. You can use {{root}}. --{{victar|talk}} 03:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The deletion notice shows up in the pages transcluding the template. This is very confusing. I think that the deletion template should be wrapped in a noinclude tag. 217.197.198.196 08:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

As it now is. DCDuring (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Victar, Useigor, PUC, DCDuring Is the proposed alternative {{root}} acceptable? Does there need to be cleanup before this is deleted? -- Beland (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

There's nothing here that isn't elsewhere. --{{victar|talk}} 04:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

October 2020

All templates in Category:Chinese headword-line templates except Template:zh-noun

@Atitarev, Rua, Suzukaze-c With the exception of {{zh-noun}} and {{zh-punctuation mark}}, every one of these is a trivial wrapper around {{head}}. {{zh-verb}}, for example, is defined simply as follows:

{{head|zh|verb}}<noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>

This proliferation of trivial templates doesn't accomplish anything, so I think they should all be orphaned and deleted/deprecated. From the history, they were all created by User:Atitarev, and at the time they seem to have done something useful using {{zh-pos}}. However, this is no longer the case, and {{zh-pos}} itself no longer exists. Note that {{zh-punctuation mark}} is defined in terms of {{meta-punctuation mark}}, but doesn't appear to do anything that couldn't be accomplished just as easily using {{head|zh|punctuation mark}}.

Specifically, using the "rule of 1000" that I normally follow, I propose to orphan and delete the templates with fewer than 1000 uses, and orphan and deprecate (using {{deprecated code}}) the ones with 1000 or more uses. Benwing2 (talk) 06:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2: I have no objection to orphaning and deleting. @Justinrleung, Suzukaze-c. -- User:Atitarev 06:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm down with deleting them. I personally don't like these functionally 'neutered' headword templates either. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

In addition, the parameters of {{zh-noun}} are actually deprecated, and the content should be moved to {{zh-mw}}, which is more flexible. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Making sure other Chinese editors are aware of this potential change (because I somehow didn't get @Atitarev's ping above until @Tooironic told me about it): @Mar vin kaiser, Geographyinitiative, RcAlex36, The dog2, Frigoris, Apisite. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I support deleting all templates in Category:Chinese headword-line templates except Template:zh-verb (see Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2020/July#Inner structure of a Chinese verb - not supported now, but may be supported in the future). --沈澄心✉ 10:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@沈澄心: Apologies for forgetting you above. You do bring up a good point. I do wonder if it may be better for us to do it on a definition-by-definition basis, like we do with {{zh-mw}}, though. Is it possible for a verb to be more than one type? This reminds me that I forgot about @恨国党非蠢即坏, Thedarkknightli, Michael Ly. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 12:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: 出櫃 seems to be both. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: Exactly what I'm looking for. The first sense is separable (verb-object specifically), but the second sense is not. I think this is a good case for having it in {{lb}} rather than {{zh-verb}}. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 12:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: No. This is another Chinese grammar phenomenon. When a "verb-object" verb is followed by another object, it becomes unseparable. This rule applies to all transitive senses of all "verb-object" verbs, including 加速 mentioned below. There is no point to repeat stating a general rule in every definition. Also, this does not change the "verb-object" nature of the verb and it becomes separable again if the the object is omitted, regardless of the sense used. Thus I oppose the definition-by-definition format. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

... although there is also the issue of using a dot or slashes to demarcate where we can separate the verb. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 12:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Another example is 加速 (per Xiandai Hanyu Cidian). Also, 糊口 is separable in Classical Chinese (Zuozhuan: “寡人有弟，不能和協，而使餬其口於四方。”, Shiji: “伍子胥橐載而出昭關，夜行晝伏，至於陵水，無以糊其口……”), but in Modern Standard Chinese, it's not. --沈澄心✉ 13:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@沈澄心: 糊口 is in fact separable. The reason why we rarely see expressions like 糊了口 is a semantical one, not a grammatical one. 糊口 describes a habitual and ongoing action, thus there is usually no need to attach tense/aspect particle to it, which is the most frequent case of a modern Chinese verb to separate. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@恨国党非蠢即坏: Yeah, there seem to be some ghits for 糊著口, so it is separable. I guess there are grammatical restrictions that make verb-object constructions inseparable if it takes an object, but when that happens, I don't know if we should still treat it a verb-object construction. It's not like 出 is ditransitive in transitive 出櫃, nor is transitive 出櫃 functioning as verb + object anymore from how I see it. I'm not familiar with how people have dealt with these, but I think we probably need some scholarly sources to back up our decisions. I still think definition-by-definition is a safer way to go in case there are cases where a compound could be both separable and inseparable. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: It is very evident in the 把 structure and the passive voice that they are still verb-objects and separable.

我曝光了他们干的事。

我把他们干的事曝了光。

他们干的事被我曝了光。

The only key point is whether they are directly followed by another object. Of course they are not ditransitives. They simply don't work that way. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@恨国党非蠢即坏: Okay, that makes sense. I can also find some ghits for google:"把*加了速". Then we should keep {{zh-verb}} and implement the verb compound categorization soon. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung, 恨国党非蠢即坏 We also have {{tlb}} for adding a label after a headword to indicate that it applies to all definitions. That could potentially be used here, and has the advantage that {{lb}} could be used if there are cases where the compound verb has different structures per-definition. OTOH this doesn't allow for adding a dot or slash to indicate where the separation point is. Benwing2 (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Yes, thanks for bringing that up. I thought of it but forgot to mention it. We could use the |head= to show where the separation point is, but it'd be nice to have a template so that the formatting could be more easily standardized. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: This is fine with me. Benwing2 (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the coding so I don't have any particular opinions now. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I obsoleted/orphaned all except {{zh-noun}}, {{zh-verb}} and {{zh-hanzi}}. Maybe {{zh-hanzi}} should go as well; I figured it might be marginally easier to remember {{zh-hanzi}} than {{head|zh|Han character}}. I deleted all the ones with < 1000 uses, and deprecated the remainder (which includes only {{zh-adj}}, {{zh-adv}}, {{zh-idiom}} and {{zh-proper noun}}). Benwing2 (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Might be worth updating {{head}} to include the alias Hanzi for Han character? Theknightwho (talk) 11:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2 @Theknightwho it seems like this has been largely "resolved" by moving cat:Chinese Han characters to Cat:Chinese hanzi, but not all the entries have been moved across. Perhaps WingerBot could help give this a little push to the finish line? (No rush; I'll check back for a reply in two or three years' time) This, that and the other (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@This, that and the other, Benwing2, 恨国党非蠢即坏, Justinrleung, Suzukaze-c, Atitarev: Template:zh-verb is the only item left in this category. Can this RFD be closed or is there more cleanup to do? -- Beland (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

A good case was made for using {{lb}} / {{tlb}} for the special information encoded by {{zh-verb}}; all that's needed is the bot-power to do the migration. This, that and the other (talk) 11:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

April 2021

Module:template utilities

Unused. Created by @Kephir in 2014 and enlarged this year by @Huhu9001 with some potentially useful stuff, but is it actually useful enough that anyone is going to bother using it? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Abstain. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep. It is used now. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The template parsing code there seems to be supplanted by Module:templateparser. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

• Theknightwho renamed templateparser: Module:template parser. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 20:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone starts using it. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 19:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• Keep: As Huhu points out, it is being used now, though I cannot tell by which templates. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 21:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete and merge with Module:templateparser. We should not have multiple modules doing the same thing. IMO User:Huhu9001 should not have expanded this module and started using it but instead should have added any missing functionality to Module:templateparser. Benwing2 (talk) 07:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Delete - I am working to deprecate this now. Theknightwho (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Still used in Module:Jpan-headword (assign_kana_to_kanji) and Module:epto (effectively unused). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

September 2021

Template:he-wv

This template pushes headword-line information off the headword, which makes entries unnecessarily messy, and is a practice seen nowhere else in the dictionary (and certainly not in other Semitic languages, like Arabic). As an example, take a look at how the entry מודה changed from a messy version using {{he-wv}} to its current, neater state with the structure standardly found on Wiktionary. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

In your example the template was in the definition line, however it is used in pronunciation sections: isn’t the usage in pronunciation sections as on מלך about the thing we need for Arabic entries presenting multiple vocalizations from the same root, to avoid structuring around pronunciation headers? Fay Freak (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: I'm actually fine with its use in pronunciation headers; it's the use everywhere else that I find to be a problem. Perhaps instead of deleting it, the solution is to change its usage? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Yea. Though it may be deleted if a template working for more languages is created. Fay Freak (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

At least 134 of the undesirable uses (on sense lines) remain. Presumably senses such as at תפריט can be deleted, since, in my experience at least, Wiktionary normally does not list non-lemma forms at the same entry as their own lemma (compare WT:ALA#Non-lemma forms). This, that and the other (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I've been slowly working at removing those. Hftf (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

October 2021

Reference templates categories by family

Note to archiver: please archive this discussion to Wiktionary talk:Reference templates

Undeletion of Category:Indo-Aryan reference templates

(discussion started at User talk:TongcyDai § CAT:Indo-Aryan reference templates)

Why did you have it deleted? This and CAT:Proto-Indo-Aryan reference templates are supposed to be different categories. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 22:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī I'm not quite sure about it, but it seems like these sorts of templates are categorized by languages, not language families. I've seen some templates that were belonged to a category named after a language family but later moved to a new category named after related proto language's name, so I did the same thing. --TongcyDai (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan reference templates do not necessarily deal with Proto-Indo-Aryan. Indo-Aryan reference templates just pertain to the family as a whole while Proto-Indo-Aryan reference templates are specifically meant for the language. So I do not agree with the deed, but I will at first inform other editors about it. (@Bhagadatta, Kutchkutch, AryamanA) ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 22:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: Since there are templates that would be in both categories and many Indo-Aryan templates are named as Template:R:inc:Name, that must have created the impression that they should be merged into a single category. However, there really should be a distinction so that templates that involve more than one Indo-Aryan language but not Proto-Indo-Aryan can be in Category:Indo-Aryan reference templates. For comparison,

Category:Sino-Tibetan reference templates

Category:Proto-Sino-Tibetan reference templates

are currently two separate categories. Kutchkutch (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch Category:Sino-Tibetan reference templates is currently a category of categories. Do we need this kind of category? In addition, I think it will be fine to add all main languages mentioned in a reference one by one, just like many templates do. --TongcyDai (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: You can now recreate the deleted cat. I have fixed those reference templates that deal with the family. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion moved from User_talk:TongcyDai#CAT:Indo-Aryan_reference_templates.

• Inqilābī RFD undeleted

  TongcyDai The issue with add all main languages mentioned in a reference one by one is that there may be too many languages to list individually and/or a reference may collectively refer to languages as a group rather than as discrete entities. If you still contest this undeletion, then continue here.

  Could you provide examples of I've seen some templates that were belonged to a category named after a language family but later moved to a new category named after related proto language's name Is one of them Category:Iranian reference templates? Kutchkutch (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Kutchkutch I don't really care about it, you can do whatever you want. But for now Indo-Aryan reference templates contains not only the templates which are hard to put into specific language categories, but also 55 subcategories you manually added. I'm wondering what's the purpose of it. If that is really necessary, I think you should consider integrating this feature into autocat. --TongcyDai (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Benwing, Benwing2, Erutuon, TongcyDai: Do you know how to integrate this feature into {{autocat}}? Kutchkutch (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Sino-Tibetan reference templates

(Notifying Atitarev, Tooironic, Suzukaze-c, Justinrleung, Mar vin kaiser, Geographyinitiative, RcAlex36, The dog2, Frigoris, 沈澄心, 恨国党非蠢即坏, Michael Ly): Kutchkutch (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

January 2022

Template:rfv-term

And its CSS subpage. This template, only used by its creator on 4 pages, attempts to indicate that a translation is questioned by blurring it out and thus making it impossible to read for someone like me with poor eyesight. It does not, however, give any explicit indication why the term is being blurred, and simply looks like a bizarre browser error. There may be a way to go about RFVing translations, but this template is not the right way to do it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Useigor Thadh (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The amount of fuzzing is ridiculous. The idea of making something even a little bit harder to read when we are supposed to be giving it attention to try to verify is contrary to logic. DCDuring (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge, DCDuring: Apparently, when you hover over the term, it explains the issue and unblurs it. Thadh (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

What about mobile? (Or me, who didn't think to hover over something I couldn't read?) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Since it is a departure from any standard way of indicating that something is being challenged, how would any user or contributor know what was going on? Hovering is not always the response one would make. We have often been encouraged to be sensitive to accessibility concerns. This seems like an occasion to apply that sensitivity. DCDuring (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I did not mean that I think this template should be kept in its current state, I was simply pointing out that blurring isn't the only thing the template does. By the way, what about just putting a dotted line under the term, or something similar? Thadh (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I would change the background colour to orange or the like (one sufficiently distinct from that of {{quoted term}} in any case). I found the blurring bizarre from the beginning (but ignored the template thinking that Useigor was still coding) and the reason boils down to that, as DCDuring said, the idea of making something even a little bit harder to read when we are supposed to be giving it attention to try to verify is contrary to logic. Fay Freak (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Why not just use the same format as Template:t-check? - -sche (discuss) 22:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Cause it was not “for translations” in translation sections, I don’t know whence this equation by Metaknowledge comes from but now have to dispel this conception, but apparently for strange derived terms and descendants in Proto-Slavic entries. The design of {{t-check}} is of course for the background of translation tables while descendants and derived terms sections look different and hence seek different tinge. Fay Freak (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

We could use the same format of adding superscript "(please verify)". Although really, if the term is so likely to be fabricated and the likelihood of someone coming back to provide references is low, maybe just remove it or move it to the talk page or HTML-comment it out... - -sche (discuss) 18:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not supposed to be readable because term is likely fabricated (i do some search before adding the template) and it is unknown when its editor will provide reference for it. Marked term could be removed instead but there is slight possibility that it can be verified. If you want to read, you can hover (swipe) or click and then create page with reference. For me, colored background or excessive text are ugly and distracting when i'm reader and not editor. Any editor can make custom CSS in User:USER/common.css (e.g. #mw-content-text .temp-rfv-term+[lang] {filter: blur(0px); text-decoration: underline dotted; background: orange;}). —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I have a computer that has no mouse input at the moment. It is very cumbersome to interact with words that have this text decoration. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Now blur is changed to strike. I wanted to use 50%-opaque 2px-thick line (text-decoration: line-through 2px rgba(0,0,0,0.50);) but for some reason wiki editor does not let use thickness so i had to use 80%-opaque 1px-thick line (text-decoration: line-through rgba(0,0,0,0.80);) —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I stand by my earlier comment that using the same format as Template:t-check, a superscript note explicitly saying "(please verify)", or even a non-superscript note like Template:rfv-sense, would probably be the clearest thing, although if a term is really most likely fabricated and the likelihood of someone coming back to provide references is low, maybe just remove it or move it to the talk page or HTML-comment it out. IMO we should allow people to occasionally RFV terms that don't have entries yet: then we could just submit the terms this is for to RFV and remove them after a month... - -sche (discuss) 03:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Delete, if this is not rendered more useful/user-friendly. Strikethrough is not a help. Text display of what action is to be taken and where seems essential, but has not been provided in the more than five months this RfD has been active. And deprecate now. DCDuring (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• I've added "(please verify)" in superscript (per -sche's suggestion), removed the strikethrough, and given it the same pale background colour as {{t-check}}. I also changed it to take the linked term as a parameter rather than using CSS to apply styles to the element that came after {{rfv-term}}. As a consequence of my implementation the subpage Template:rfv-term/styles.css is no longer used and can be deleted. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 21:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep now that its appearance has been improved. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 21:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• There are other problems that will need to be remedied if this is kept: to start with, the documentation says that the language code should be for "The language code of the term", which could mean either the term the template is added to, or the term that's being challenged. The template adds "Category:Requests for references for terms in [] entries", which suggests the former, but in actual use, it's the latter. There are two entries that use this template: Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/orǫdьje where the language code is goh, not sla-pro, and Reconstruction:Proto-Balto-Slavic/tewas, where the language code used is svx, not ine-bsl-pro. Since this is used in entries other than the one challenged, it is not found in entries for the same language as the language code, so the category name is incorrect. Secondly, our category infrastructure doesn't know about these categories, so Category:Requests for references for terms in Old High German entries is in Category:Categories with invalid label because {{auto cat}} doesn't recognize it. Category:Requests for references for terms in Old Church Slavonic entries doesn't use {{auto cat}} and thus has no problems, but it's empty and will probably be deleted soon. Reconstruction:Proto-Balto-Slavic/tewas has a redlink to Category:Requests for references for terms in Skalvian entries, but it's been 2 1/2 months since the last edit to either the entry or the template and no one has created it. Clicking the redlink and previewing the new page with {{auto cat}} shows that it would be in Category:Categories with invalid label if were created.

We need to decide what this template is for if we're going to keep using it, and make sure the template code matches that as well as making sure the documentation is clear and matches that, too. Then we need to update the relevant modules so the categories are integrated into our category structure.

The cosmetic problems that led to the RFD have been fixed, but the combination of unclear documentation, clash between category naming and actual use, and inability to create the categories without fatal errors is an absolutely bizarre train wreck that traces back to the original creation of the template. That needs to change or this needs to be deleted. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

At least there are no passengers on the train any more. DCDuring (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: The mismatch could be handled by a list at WT:Todo/Lists. --RichardW57m (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

February 2022

Template:ethnologue

Ethnologue stuff (like here for English) is behind a paywall. At the link it reads: "This profile is available with an Essentials plan." And following that link, it's stated that it costs $199/month or $480/year. That's not useful, quite expensive, advertising/spam. --學者三 (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Quite a lot of money, yes! We could tag the template with Template:crippling paywall (or whatever...), I suppose. If not, delete Notusbutthem (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Replace with {{ISO 639}} This, that and the other (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm doing a general rework of how we treat ISO 639 codes at the moment - part of which involves splitting out the ethnologue parameter from {{ISO 639}} because it's a bit of a mish-mash at the moment, which makes it trickier to deprecate things in situations like this. I agree that it's less-than-ideal to link to sites which are hidden behind paywalls, though. Theknightwho (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Delete. This is literal advertising. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 23:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

We should replace it with a Glottolog link, as that's free. Theknightwho (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Why not add a link to https://glottolog.org/glottolog?iso=aaa into {{ISO 639}}? This, that and the other (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Theknightwho ^^ if we do this we can surely delete the ethnologue template, unless there is some issue with divergent codes. This, that and the other (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@This, that and the other They do have divergent codes (Glottolog use a different system that is also much more comprehensive on the dialectal level), but that’s bottable. Theknightwho (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Delete, though I'll leave it to the more knowledgeable to decide if a replacement is appropriate. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 06:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
• We could change the links to point to the 15th or 16th editions which are openly available to borrow on the Internet Archive. You don't even need an account to view a link to a specific page, which is presumably all we'd need for the reference anyway. Glottolog and Ethnologue aren't remotely equivalent. Compare Glottolog on Estonian, Ethnologue on Estonian. 70.172.194.25 06:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  The 16th edition is from 2009; that info is starting to get a bit long in the tooth... This, that and the other (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Keep. Judging by this, the 28th edition isn't paywalled. 0DF (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

June 2022

Template:kk-regional

Rather than being presented as a floating box, this information should be incorporated into the headword line, like we do for other dual-script languages (Serbo-Croatian, Malay, etc). This, that and the other (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

It's also out of date, as Kazakhstan has been transitioning to the Latin alphabet since 2017 as well. Theknightwho (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep, and update to having three scripts. Thadh (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Why not put it in the headword line still? Having it all the way over on the right is nonstandard (except for Persian I guess) and easy to miss. This, that and the other (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree - merge into the headword template. Theknightwho (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC) I've changed my mind, as I actually really prefer this formatting. Keep. Theknightwho (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Keep JGHFunRun (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I did forget to mention: The statement that "Kazakhstan, therefore {{kk-region}} is out of date" is a non sequiter. The correct change is to simply start treating the Latin alphabet as the default; no changes to this template seem to be even relevant. JGHFunRun (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Not every contributor prefers to use multiple scripts in the headwords, apparently. E.g. Mongolian entries are gradually converted from that into a similar Mongolian template {{mn-variant}}, e.g. суулгах (suulgax) by @MonoParallax, LibCae, Crom daba.

We should also ask the opinion of primary Kazakh editor who heavily uses the template: @Vtgnoq7238rmqco. Note that the modern Roman spelling for Kazakh <> the Kazakh transliteration at Wiktionary and the conversion is not that straightforward. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

In fairness, that layout does make more sense for Mongolian given it's written vertically. Theknightwho (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I stuffed up my edits (put the answer into a wrong section), so repeating the ping to @MonoParallax, LibCae, Crom daba, Vtgnoq7238rmqco. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Atitarev, Theknightwho, This, that and the other I think I agree that it would be better in the headword line. If there were inflected forms in the headword line, having multiple scripts as well would get crowded, but it appears this isn't the case. We do have {{ku-regional}} for Kurdish but this isn't really parallel because these represent different languages rather than different script variants of the same language. Arguably the same thing is going on with {{fa-regional}}. Benwing2 (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I assume that the current layout of Azerbaijani lemmas could be a perfect example, as all three scripts (Arabic, Latin and Cyrillic) are represented independently on most occasions. However, it could be a huge work to give all Kazakh entries a similar overhaul. Vtgnoq7238rmqco (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Vtgnoq7238rmqco This should be easy by bot, no? Benwing2 (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Vtgnoq7238rmqco, Benwing2, This, that and the other, Theknightwho: Just wish to mention that a missing Latin parameter makes the current Kazakh entries with the template look ugly, e.g. жандармерия (jandarmeriä). Can they be safely made optional (or just the new one) or can we use named optional parameters instead? Re: bot. @Benwing2, @Vtgnoq7238rmqco: I don't think we have data to populate the new Roman spelling on all Kazakh terms and the conversion from Cyrillic is not 1:1 and can't be error-free, AFAIK. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Atitarev I can fix {{kk-regional}}. As for bot conversion: (1) can we simply convert whatever we have without needing out the Cyrillic -> Latin conversion? (2) what are the issues with Cyrillic -> Latin? Is it possible to automate it for some pages, while leaving others to be done manually? Benwing2 (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2: The Cyrillic -> Latin correspondence issue was mentioned by User:Vtgnoq7238rmqco in the past when we talked about what should be the romanisation standard but I don't remember the discussion. The issue may not be current, though. Back then we had digraphs in the proposed romanisation. They have been abandoned since. If we are targeting just one romanisation version, the future one, then it's possibly one-to-one but it's not the one we use at Module:kk-translit

Copying the table from Wikipedia. This must be the latest proposed romanisation to be implemented:

A a (А а)	Ä ä (Ә ә)	B b (Б б)	D d (Д д)	E e (Е е)	F f (Ф ф)	G g (Г г)	Ğ ğ (Ғ ғ)
H h (Х х, Һ һ)	I ı (І і)	İ i (Й й, И и)	J j (Ж ж)	K k (К к)	L l (Л л)	M m (М м)	N n (Н н)
Ñ ñ (Ң ң)	O o (О о)	Ö ö (Ө ө)	P p (П п)	Q q (Қ қ)	R r (Р р)	S s (С с)	Ş ş (Ш ш)
T t (Т т)	U u (У у)	Ū ū (Ұ ұ)	Ü ü (Ү ү)	V v (В в)	Y y (Ы ы)	Z z (З з)

The proposed romanisation may be updated yet again, LOL. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Atitarev Thanks. No digraphs any more in the proposed romanization and our own romanization only has digraphs for я ё ю which aren't anywhere in the table above (presumably they are used only for Russian loanwords?). I am all in favor of using a standard romanization instead of an ad-hoc one but I gather that the proposed romanization is a moving target. Benwing2 (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2, Vtgnoq7238rmqco: Yes, in the latest development, the digraphs (apart from Russian loanwords) are eliminated. Transliterations of я, ё, ю, ъ, ь, э, ц need clarifications. I support switching Module:kk-translit and WT:KK TR to the latest proposed transliterations and the Roman forms could simply be the automated transliteration of the Cyrillic spelling. I first proposed the switch in Module talk:kk-translit but it wasn't support. I'd like to ask @Vtgnoq7238rmqco to revisit. There may be a few corner cases but we can look up any of those.

BTW, https://sozdik.kz/ also has a romanised Kazakh. It looks up-to-date but I am not 100% sure. I have an account there. The site will require it when you have too many searches. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Atitarev: I tried to compare the transliteration of several Kazakh loanwords from Russian on the website you mentioned, and the results are as followed. I feel doubtful about these transliterations because I have not found any official documents to regulate them. Besides, я and ю are rather common in Kazakh text apart from Russian loanwords (e.g саясат is borrowed from Persian, and ю usually appears in some infinitives).

Я is transliterated into Ä (same as Ә. e.g ядро/ädro).

Both Ё and Э are transliterated into E (same as Е. e.g щётка/şetka).

Both Щ and Ч are transliterated into Ş (same as Ш. e.g чемпионат/şempionat).

Ю is transliterated into Ü (same as Ү. e.g юрисдикция/ürisdiksia).

Ц is transliterated into S (same as С. e.g циклон/siklon).

НГ is transliterated into Ñ (same as Ң. e.g акваланг/akvalañ).

ъ and ь are omitted as default (e.g гуашь/guaş), but there are irregularities. For instance, король is transliterated into ‘koröl’, but ‘korolı’ and ‘korol’ also appear in the sample sentences.

Perhaps further regulations would clarify those changes I mentioned. Personally, I doubt if Kazakhstan government will update the current transliteration once more.

Vtgnoq7238rmqco (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Vtgnoq7238rmqco, Benwing2: Sorry, I missed the response without the ping. It's interesting. I think we can start the bot could add the Latin spelling for words where these letters are not used and leave the rest to be filled manually or wait when the conversion is clarified. We can perhaps agree on what to use.

Some or most of Vtgnoq7238rmqco's findings make sense. Apparently "щётка" is not pronounced as in Russian, "ё" is ignored and read as a dotless "е" and it makes sense "щ" has become a "ш". Ц has become a single "s", rather than "ts" in the romanised Uzbek, Turkmen and Azerbaijani, although there are inconsistencies and variants with "ts". Tajik (even if it's still Cyrillic and not a Turkic language) has abandoned letter "ц" entirely in favour of "тс", which is also often just a "с".

I have asked a question on w:Talk:Kazakh alphabets regarding the policies on these selected letters - я, ё, ю, ъ, ь, э, ц, ч and щ.

Should part of the discussion be moved to Module talk:kk-translit or Wiktionary talk:Kazakh transliteration instead? This is not all about the template. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Combine and Deprecate Template:kk-regional and Template:kk-scripts into Template:kk-alt

(Moved from Template talk:kk-alt)
There was already a discussion at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others#Template:kk-regional but that was about moving Arabic spellings to the header, so this discussion is a bit different.
kk-alt can now preform all the functions of both kk-scripts and kk-regional (those were previously separate templates because kk-regional did not have a field for the pre-reform Arabic spelling); and kk-alt can auto-fill the various spellings (with the Cyrillic spelling provided, if the entry is Cyrillic it can use the page name). I think kk-scripts and kk-regional should be deprecated in favor of template:kk-alt, since kk-alt combines and improves on both of them (also kk-regional implies regional differences, so it's a bit of a misnomer). I had initially updated kk-regional and kk-scripts to simply forward everything to kk-alt... but i'm not sure if that's actually a good idea, I think it might be better to replace all instances of kk-scripts and kk-regional with kk-alt. سَمِیر | Sameer (^{مشارکت‌ها} • ^{کتی من گپ بزن}) 04:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

notifying @Atitarev, @Theknightwho, @Benwing2, @Thadh, @Vtgnoq7238rmqco, who were involved in the discussion in RFD. I would've started this conversation in requests for deletion but there was already a conversation started there (for a different reason), unless one of you thinks this should be added to that conversation??? سَمِیر | Sameer (^{مشارکت‌ها} • ^{کتی من گپ بزن}) 04:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sameerhameedy I think this should go into that same conversation in WT:RFDO; you can make a new L3 header for it in the same conversation. Benwing2 (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Moved, re-notifying @Atitarev, @Theknightwho, @Benwing2, @Thadh, @Vtgnoq7238rmqco. (as the old pings are no longer valid). سَمِیر | Sameer (^{مشارکت‌ها} • ^{کتی من گپ بزن}) 05:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sameerhameedy This is fine with me but we should decide whether this info is better placed in the headword. (If so, it should be easy to adapt the code in {{kk-alt}} into Module:kk-headword.) Benwing2 (talk) 05:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with the new template, but I would prefer it as a box rather than in the headword for aesthetic reasons. Thadh (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about this. The Cyrillic and Latin spellings are already in the headword line; it seems weird to repeat them in this box. The only unique info here is the Arabic spelling. If it is possible to find a nice way to fit it into the headword line, wouldn't that be better? Alternatively (heh), they could go under an "Alternative forms" or "Alternative spellings" header. This, that and the other (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I definitely think we should remove them from the headword line, if they are given there as well. But if you're referring to the transliteration, is not the same as the Latin script: cf. анархия. Thadh (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Thadh I think that is a mistake (re the difference between Latin script and translit). The problem is that the current approved Latin script version is very much a moving target and we haven't yet worked out to what extent we will try to track this. BTW I agree with User:This, that and the other that we should put these in the headword line. This is consistent with the handling of other multi-script languages such as Serbo-Croatian, Malay, Hindi/Urdu, etc. Mongolian is an exception but things are weird there due to the vertical script. Benwing2 (talk) 11:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2: What about Azerbaijani, Uzbek, Uyghur, Tatar...? You can't just name a couple of languages that do this option and say it's now some kind of status quo. Thadh (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

OK fine (for the record I named 4 languages not 2) but I still think it belongs in the headword. It will get generated automatically if placed in the headword (to the extent this is possible), but it needs a separate template call if placed in a float-right box, which is extra editor work (for this reason many of the Uzbek entries I checked were missing the box). Benwing2 (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

No the current transliteration Module for Kazakh doesn't match the current Kazakh Latin alphabet, so the kk-alt uses its own conversion. سَمِیر | Sameer (^{مشارکت‌ها} • ^{کتی من گپ بزن}) 17:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sameerhameedy Just FYI there are errors caused by kk-alt on Ь and ь; it seems the Yañalif code can't handle them. Benwing2 (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@This, that and the other, @Benwing2 it only automatically generates the modern Arabic, Cyrillic, and Latin spellings (sometimes it generates the yañalif spelling) but there's also the pre-reform Arabic spelling used by Kazakh prior to 1924 and the Latin script (Yañalif) used by Kazakh for some 7 ~10yrs before switching to Cyrillic (see құдай, which includes all of them). I suppose we could remove all Kazakh alphabets that are no longer used... But I think the information is helpful, even if it can only be included occasionally. I kinda agree with @Thadh that the Latin script should be moved from the headword to the box (assuming we don't move the Arabic spelling), It would be similar to what Pali does.

But if we end up deciding that the old Arabic and Latin spellings are not worth including.. or you guys have some other plan for showing them.. then whatever. I suppose it wouldn't matter where the Latin and Arabic spellings go. سَمِیر | Sameer (^{مشارکت‌ها} • ^{کتی من گپ بزن}) 17:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I definitely think we should aim to include these in the long run, so might as well start now. Unlike with scripts like IPA or shorthands, there is a good chance of people finding these in running text and wanting to look up what these words mean. Thadh (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

yes I think so too, the only issue I can think of is that since the yañalif alphabet was abandoned decades before the internet, it'll probably be difficult to attest. Nearly all Yañalif spellings will be red links unless someone sorts through newspapers from the 1920s and 1930s سَمِیر | Sameer (^{مشارکت‌ها} • ^{کتی من گپ بزن}) 22:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sameerhameedy I suppose if we are showing that many different scripts it makes some sense to put them in a box, but I'm not sure we need the older spellings esp. Yañalif, since it was used only for a few years. The alternative is to put some of them (the less common ones) in an ==Alternative forms== section. Benwing2 (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sameerhameedy Also if we do include the obsolete script forms we should have some clear indication that they are obsolete, like including the years used. Benwing2 (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd much prefer to put these spellings in "Alternative forms". We currently have a divergence of practice where Indic languages (e.g. आसन (āsana)) are using "Alternative forms" while Central Asian languages use this floating box. Floating boxes force the reader away from the top-to-bottom "flow" of the entry and should only be used for things that are truly peripheral to the lexical content, like sister project links. This, that and the other (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@This, that and the other, @Benwing2, @Thadh I could update the floating box to look more like the "alternative scripts" header used by Sanskrit and Pali if that's the main issue. (something like this?) Though this conversation has shifted away from whether to delete Template:kk-regional and Template:kk-scripts in place of Template:kk-alt; to the general layout of Kazakh entries. Since Kazakh Layout is more of a policy issue shouldn't that discussion be in beer parlor? سَمِیر | Sameer (^{مشارکت‌ها} • ^{کتی من گپ بزن}) 03:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sameerhameedy Yes, that looks fine to me and seems a reasonable compromise, and yeah it might be reasonable to bring this up in the Beer Parlour. Benwing2 (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

August 2022

Template:table:colors/zh

Extremely POVed and limited to modern Mandarin usage. Ignores usages in other Chinese subgroups. 青色 can mean a lot of colours between blue and green. On the other hand, it overly represents Mandarin words for some colours, e.g. 緋紅色, 艷紅色, and 大紅 are all just variations of 紅. (Also why only these ones but not 鮮紅 or 嫣紅?) Other table templates also have this problem, such as template:table:playing cards/zh, but this is the most offending one. Either delete, or move to Template:table:colors/cmn and allow creating templates under other language codes. -- Wpi31 (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Support move to colors/cmn, and the creation of colors/yue, playing cards/nan , &c. Remsense (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Support move to colors/cmn per nomination. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Template:table:Chinese tones/zh

Nominating some of the others as well since they more or less have similar issues. --Wpi31 (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Why not move these to [foo]/cmn? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

also nominating Chinese tones, which imo only the first table is relevant material. –Wpi31 (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

also the various templates in Category:Chinese list templates – Wpi31 (talk) 07:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Resolved. Seems like the only responses are in favour of moving these from /zh to /cmn. I will be doing the moves gradually over the next few weeks. This will need some manual intervention to determine which terms are Mandarin and which are not Mandarin but incorrectly added to these templates. – Wpi31 (talk) 08:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Wpi31 Did you ever get around to doing this? If not, do you need some help? Also, maybe some of these should be just moved into set categories rather than separate lists. Benwing2 (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Sorry I've just sort of forgot about them. I'll do them soon. There are sometimes non-Mandarin terms in the mix so it needs to be checked one by one. – wpi (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I've moved most of the table ones to /cmn, as well as splitting Template:table:poker hands/zh and Template:table:suits/zh into /cmn and /yue; except for Template:Table:Chinese Zodiac/zh where the template naming/formatting itself is problematic and Template:table:colors/zh where I'm not terribly familiar with the color names.

It would be helpful if there was a bot that (re)populates these templates and delete the unused /zh templates. And yes, some of the list templates would probably be better suited for categories. – wpi (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Wpi Thanks! Can you clarify what the issue is with Template:Table:Chinese Zodiac/zh and what you mean by a bot that "(re)populates these templates"? I can delete the now unused /zh templates. Benwing2 (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Template:Table:Chinese Zodiac does not conform to the naming scheme, and should be Template:table:Chinese zodiac or Template:table:Chinese zodiacs instead, and it wraps <span lang="und"></span> around the term which breaks some of the css formatting; there's also |language= which doesn't make much sense when we have {{langname}} - it seems the person who made the template hasn't put much thought into it.

By repopulating I mean replacing the existing uses of /zh with the /cmn equivalents, or perhaps even adding the template to pages which lack them. – wpi (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

October 2022

Appendix:Old Prussian Swadesh list

not Old Prussian but (re-)constructed Old Prussian AKA Neo-Prussian, and the page doesn't even clarify that it's a (re-)construction and by whom it was made. --11:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by 93.221.61.136 (talk).

• I'm in the process of verifying the table. The New Prussian lemmas will be replaced with the corresponding PRG attestations that I manage to find in the three Catechisms. I'll also try to supplement the entries that the table links to. Though it will take a while before the table is fully verified. JimiY☽ru 05:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:R:Etymological Dictionary of Arabic Comment Suggestion

This template is transcluded into two entries, but does not accomplish what it purports to do, eg, link to entry in the reference. It categorizes in English reference templates, not Arabic ones, though the reference work is written in Arabic about Arabic terms. It uses the deprecated template {{R:Reference-meta}}. Revision might eliminate any reason for deletion. The documentation says that it was derived from an English reference template. DCDuring (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

BTW, there are 101 other templates that use deprecated {{R:Reference-meta}}, though I don't think they all are as error-laden as this one. DCDuring (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, the categorisation was trivial to fix. --RichardW57 (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Have migrated it to {{cite-web}} and fixed the URLs at the two entries, so keep. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
  • @Al-Muqanna: The links on tuna and Algeria don't seem to work for me. Do they work for you? Btw, do you think it would be better to make the ID a parameter instead of the full URL? Maybe it wouldn't be a good idea if the IDs aren't stable or if the URL has to be very complicated, but if those issues don't apply then it seems preferable. Anyway, I certainly support keeping this in theory, but it would be good to make the links work if at all possible. 70.172.194.25 01:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

    They certainly worked a few months ago when I wrote it, but the links seem to have changed (which beats the whole idea of a permalink), along with the IDs. If they're not going to preserve stable URLs then it might be problematic to maintain the template. I've updated Algeria and will look for the other one in a bit. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 08:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• The links don't work anymore TypeO889 (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

December 2022

Template:R:Shuri-Naha Dialect Dictionary

The site shutdown more than 2 years ago and it's no longer accessible. So should we delete this? This includes removing all references to this template and putting a new one (if there isn't any). Chuterix (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Chuterix: was the site archived at the Internet Archive? — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes but I don't know if the full database is archived. Chuterix (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Chuterix: when Lexico was shut down we redirected {{R:Lexico}} to the Internet Archive. Not all entries were archived there, unfortunately, so I have been removing the template manually in those cases when I come across them. We could do the same for the Shuri-Naha Dialect Dictionary. — Sgconlaw (talk) 08:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Support Sgconlaw's idea. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 02:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Chuterix: Many of the entries seem to be taken from the Okinawa-go jiten (沖繩語辞典) which is freely accessible on CORE. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Kwékwlos, 荒巻モロゾフ, Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji, Atitarev, Fish bowl, Poketalker, Cnilep, Marlin Setia1, Huhu9001, 片割れ靴下, Onionbar, Shen233, Alves9, Cpt.Guapo, Sartma, Lugria, Mellohi!, anyone else interested in Japonic/Ryukyuan linguistics: The problem is it's only the Okinawan Dictionary that's available for free. The Ryukyu-go onsei database also hosted the Kunigami (Nakijin dialect), Northern Amami Oshima (Yamatohama dialect), and Miyako dialects, that which I can't find anywhere else online.

I am now undergoing the process of deleting this template from all Okinawan entries. Some time I will delete all remaining template usage involving RGODB (Ryukyu-go onsei database) in other dialects. Chuterix (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Any news? Chuterix (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

If Sgconlaw's suggestion, to point Internet Archive in the manner used for Lexico, is possible, I like the idea. If there are technical difficulties, or more false-positives than actually archived entries, though, it may not be worthwhile. Cnilep (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

Template:list:Vaṅga Bengali calendar months/bn

According to the Wikipedia article of Eastern Bengali, "Eastern Bengali or Vaṅga is a nonstandard dialect cluster of Bengali spoken in most of Bangladesh and Tripura". The list of Bengali calendar months in Vanga is produced possibly with an assumption that Vanga is a standardised written variant of Bengali. However, it is not the case and (as far as I know) Vanga speakers use Standard Bengali (based in Nadia, WB, India) in writing. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Is this variety never written, or just uncommonly? If these terms are attested then the template should be kept. Worth noting that we even have Vaṅga entries for many of these months, like জেঠ (jeṭh), আঢ় (aṛh), হাওন (haōn), etc., and Category:Vanga Bengali has 250 entries total covering a much broader range of topics, so it seems like specifically targeting the calendar template is the wrong way to go about this if you're challenging whether this dialect cluster is written at all. (Compare Westrobothnian above.) The user who created this template and most if not all of these entries, User:Sylotoid, may be able to comment.

I should state that I know next to nothing about Eastern Bengali, except for what can be gathered by reading the first two sections of the Wikipedia article. 70.172.194.25 03:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Template:blockquote-top

An untranscluded, undocumented alternative to {{blockquote}}, created by Ruakh in 2010. It looks like this:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

From reading the template code, it seems to open two <div> tags with the expectation that the template user would invoke the template, follow it with the quote, and then manually close the <div>s (e.g. {{blockquote-top}}Lorem ipsum</div></div>). Its only parameter sets the colour of the border. The default colour is generated using the current hour, minute, and second, effectively meaning it changes each time the page is reloaded. IMO it provides no advantages over just using {{blockquote}}.

— excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 20:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The reason it's untranscluded is that it's intended for use via subst:-ing. (So it's not true that the color "changes each time the page is reloaded"; rather, the color is fixed at time of use.) But I haven't used it in quite a while, and I don't think I've seen anyone else use it in quite a while, either. So if no one jumps in to say that they still use it, please feel free to delete it. (In that case I may end up re-creating it in my userspace.) —Ruakh_TALK 06:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

You can see some places where it's been subst:-ed here. 70.172.194.25 07:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It hasn't been used for a long time, or much at all, based on those results. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Ah, my mistake. That makes sense. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 08:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Even after substitution, the code in brackets remains, so the colors still continue to change. I cant tell what the change depends on, though ... from the code, it looks like it should be changing every second, so effectively it would be every time the page is reloaded ... but it seems not to be. But it definitely still changes .... and it also appears differently for me on different devices, possibly because their clocks are slightly out-of-sync. I really like this template, and in particular how it is possible to center it whereas with {{blockquote}} it is either not possible or I couldnt figure out how ... but the color-changing behavior stands out a lot and might be seen as a distraction from an otherwise down-to-earth conversation, so perhaps it would be best if it were kept in userspace where people could use it but not as an official replacement for the main template. —Soap— 10:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The color depends on when the page was last rendered, which can occur when a page is edited, when its cache is purged, when changes need to be propagated due to edits in templates, etc. I do not understand the point of having the colors change at all honestly, but I do not especially mind it either. It might appear differently on mobile and desktop devices (or rather skins?) because I think the WMF maintains separate caches for them. 70.172.194.25 05:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Weak keep. This kind of thing is useful when moving a discussion from one WT:RF... venue to another, for example (you can set the moved discussion apart from any new discussion); I didn't realize there was a template, but I noticed the subst:ed code one some page and have copied and used it sometimes, e.g. at Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/English#dussack. - -sche (discuss) 18:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

You can just use <blockquote> tags, which look like

this.

This, that and the other (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

May 2023

Template:el-UK-US

The provides links to both spellings of English words that end in -ize / -ise. e.g. {{el-UK-US|national|ise}} gives nationalise (UK), nationalize (US).

• This is not a helpful feature, as it clutters entries.
• It isn't specific to Greek, so why does this need to be a Greek template?

Theknightwho (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Good bilingual dictionaries will give US and UK spellings of translations.

The χρώμα entry gives:   colour (UK), color (US)

• This is precisely what templates are intended for, ease of entry for the editor and a standard output layout. Meaning that a global change to the layout can be easily achieved. I think it's useful. It doesn't need to be specific for Greek. Make it universal!

  — Saltmarsh^🢃 11:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Saltmarsh It has literally nothing to do with Greek, and it's an extremely clunky way of conveying information. color / colour is much more elegant, and can be done with the normal link templates just fine: {{l|en|color//colour}}. Theknightwho (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete. Vininn126 (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not particularly opposed to this template; our traditional reluctance to present both of the major spelling variants as glosses for foreign terms is one of many things that makes Wiktionary less friendly for those not already familiar with a language (English in this case). However, it obviously needs renaming if kept. Why it was ever created with an el- prefix baffles me. {{l-UK-US}} perhaps? This, that and the other (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd oppose this as well, because doing it that way becomes really awkward when someone wants to use it outside of {{l}}: we'd end up with even more horrible wikitext like {{cog|en|-}} {{l-uk-us|color|colour}} in entries. Much better to have something like {{cog|en|color//colour}}, which has the added flexibility of allowing other spelling variations, too, as spelling variations are sometimes more complex than that. These kinds of limitations are why templates like {{zh-l}} are being phased out. Theknightwho (talk) 04:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Such formatting would also be useful for dual-script languages such as Mongolian and Serbo-Croatian, solving two issues with one format. Vininn126 (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Precisely why I chose it, yes! It may be possible to automate it for English, though that’s likely to run into attestation issues with very rare terms.Theknightwho (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Usages such as {{cog|en|color//colour}} should be expunged as depending on undocumented behaviour - or the behaviour should be documented. --RichardW57m (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

We’re not going to remove features, Richard. Theknightwho (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Delete, we shouldn't be giving both spellings in glosses in the first place (it's ridiculous and redundant) and even if we do, we shouldn't be doing it like this. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• Those unfamiliar with a term (familiarise/ize) need both spellings, good bilingual dictionaries will give both, and this is the best way of doing it. If the el- prefix is a problem — make it universal.   — Saltmarsh^🢃 04:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Agreed. It is standard for bilingual dictionaries to offer both spellings, with some sort of label indicating where the spelling is used (just like this template does). Note that with a modification of the template, we could still have both spellings link to whichever entry host the definitions. I would support making this template more general and using it more widely. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Andrew Sheedy As noted elsewhere on the thread, there are much better ways of handling this issue than a dedicated template. Theknightwho (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The prefix in the name probably comes from it being part of the Greek subsystem of Wiktionary! The template is only used in the translation of Greek words. Note that that is an explanation of the name, not a justification of the name. --RichardW57m (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

FWIW I think it's a good idea to include both UK and US variants in definitions; when I encounter UK-only usages it sometimes trips me up (esp. when it's a word like swot that I've never heard of, but even the -ize/-ise and -o(u)r differences stand out to me and slow down my reading). As a result I tend to fix such usages to include both variants. IMO it potentially looks nice to have the {{a|UK}} and {{a|US}} tags explicit, but I only think this is really needed when the terms are totally different rather than just spelling variations; e.g. for wrench vs. spanner or (railroad) switch vs. points it's good to have the variant tags, but for color/colour or nationalize/nationalise it's enough to just list both spellings, and the reader can use the one that is familiar and ignore the other. In practice that means we can use User:Theknightwho's suggestion of {{l|en|color//colour}} in most cases, and manually add the tags for the more complex cases. Benwing2 (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Delete. No reason this should be language-specific. Ultimateria (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Delete per Ultimateria. I also tend to agree with Mahagaja that it's not useful to give both spellings (OTOH I think giving both a UK word and a US one is fine). But even if we do, I don't think the definition of a foreign term is the place to talk about Pondian differences; at first I found it highly confusing, as I thought the UK / US labels somehow pertained to the word being defined (the definiendum) rather than the words used in the definition (the definiens). If one wants more information about the latter, one just has to click on the links. PUC – 15:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Delete, pick one. Fay Freak (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

EL probably stands for “English Language” in the template name. 73.75.170.176 21:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Template:center top and Template:center bottom

Deprecate. These templates center arbitrary content, which {{center}} already does without requiring separate top and bottom templates. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 02:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

There's certainly no reason to be using these templates directly in entries. They seem to have various applications in templates and user pages though. I would at least rename to {{center-top}} and {{center-bottom}} for consistency with other templates of this type.

Most uses in entries are either direct usages in image captions, put there by some user(s?) who decided image captions should be centered (this should be a personal CSS tweak or a project-wide styling choice, not something applied randomly entry-by-entry), or transclusions from various inflection-table templates that use them for no apparent reason. These uses should be removed. This, that and the other (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

June 2023

some more form-of templates replaceable by Template:infl of or Template:participle of: part 1, participles

We have the following:

1. {{active participle of}}, {{passive participle of}}
2. {{present participle of}}, {{past participle of}}, {{future participle of}}, {{perfect participle of}}
3. {{present active participle of}}, {{past active participle of}}, {{past passive participle of}}, {{future passive participle of}} (NOTE: No {{present passive participle of}}, {{future active participle of}})
4. {{feminine singular past participle of}}, {{neuter singular past participle of}}, {{masculine plural past participle of}}, {{feminine plural past participle of}} (NOTE: No {{neuter plural past participle of}})

The following table shows the current uses and my suggestions for what to do with the template:

Aliased template	Canonical template	#Uses	Suggested disposition
Template:active participle of	Template:active participle of	297	Replace with {{participle of|...|act}}
Template:passive participle of	Template:passive participle of	157	Replace with {{participle of|...|pass}}
Template:present participle of	Template:present participle of	61028	Keep
Template:past participle of	Template:past participle of	38903	Keep
Template:future participle of	Template:future participle of	16	Replace with {{participle of|...|fut}}
Template:perfect participle of	Template:perfect participle of	12	Replace with {{participle of|...|perf}}
Template:present active participle of	Template:present active participle of	16	Replace with {{participle of|...|pres|act}}
Template:past active participle of	Template:past active participle of	67	Replace with {{participle of|...|past|act}}
Template:past passive participle of	Template:past passive participle of	41	Replace with {{participle of|...|past|pass}}
Template:future passive participle of	Template:future passive participle of	15	Replace with {{participle of|...|fut|pass}}
Template:feminine singular past participle of	Template:feminine singular past participle of	5672	Replace with {{feminine singular of|...|PAST_PARTICIPLE}}
Template:feminine plural past participle of	Template:feminine plural past participle of	5815	Replace with {{feminine plural of|...|PAST_PARTICIPLE}}
Template:masculine plural past participle of	Template:masculine plural past participle of	5861	Replace with {{masculine plural of|...|PAST_PARTICIPLE}}
Template:neuter singular past participle of	Template:neuter singular past participle of	359	Replace with {{neuter singular of|...|PAST_PARTICIPLE}}

Note that things like {{feminine singular past participle of}} really mean "feminine singular of the past participle of LEMMA". IMO non-lemma forms of participles should refer to the base form of the participle rather than to the underlying verb lemma, which is what I'm proposing here. Benwing2 (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• @Benwing2 When you say "Replace with..." in the table, is this meant to imply the deletion of the template being replaced? Or just deprecation? — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 00:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  @ExcarnateSojourner Delete those with < 1000 (or some similar threshold of) uses, deprecate the remainder. That is what I've normally done. Benwing2 (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Oh, right, of course. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 16:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

•  Support: As Tim Peters says in the Zen of Python, "There should be one—and preferably only one—obvious way to do it". — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 16:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Support. Ultimateria (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

some more form-of templates replaceable by Template:infl of: part 2, misc

Aliased template	Canonical template	#Uses	Suggested disposition
Template:attributive form of	Template:attributive form of	291	{{infl of|...|attr|form}} or just {{infl of|...|attr}}
Template:construed with	Template:construed with	77	This is a weird template that should be replaced with other methods. Need to investigate more. Seems used mostly for Hungarian.
Template:definite singular of	Template:definite singular of	9094	{{infl of|...|def|s}}
Template:definite plural of	Template:definite plural of	4242	{{infl of|...|def|p}}
Template:dual of	Template:dual of	76	{{infl of|...|d}}
Template:elative of	Template:elative of	219	{{infl of|...|elad}}
Template:equative of	Template:equative of	5	{{infl of|...|equd}}
Template:imperative of	Template:imperative of	1468	{{infl of|...|imp}}
Template:indefinite plural of	Template:indefinite plural of	3912	{{infl of|...|ind|p}}
Template:passive of	Template:passive of	3020	{{infl of|...|pass}}
Template:passive past tense of	Template:passive past tense of	96	{{infl of|...|pass|past}}
Template:past tense of	Template:past tense of	920	{{infl of|...|past|tense}} or just {{infl of|...|past}}
Template:present tense of	Template:present tense of	2352	{{infl of|...|pres}}
Template:singulative of	Template:singulative of	539	{{infl of|...|sgl}}
Template:superlative attributive of	Template:superlative attributive of	110	{{infl of|...|attr|supd}}
Template:superlative predicative of	Template:superlative predicative of	111	{{infl of|...|pred|supd}}
Template:supine of	Template:supine of	90	{{infl of|...|sup}}

NOTE: A few of the above categorize; this could be handled automatically in Module:form of/cats. Benwing2 (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

•  Support as above. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 16:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Support. Ultimateria (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I have deleted or deprecated all of the above except for {{attributive form of}} (because I'm not yet sure whether to replace with {{infl of|...|attr|form}} or {{infl of|...|attr}}) and {{construed with}} (need to look into this more). Benwing2 (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2: As far as I can tell as a native Hungarian-speaker "construed with" is strictly equivalent to the label "(with X)" and doesn't mean anything special beyond that. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Al-Muqanna Thanks. For non-Hungarian terms it seems replaceable with {{+preo}} or {{+obj}}. In the Hungarian terms it seems to be a catch-all for words often found along with the lemma in question. Maybe these are better handled by a usage note? Just saying "construed with" in such a general sense seems unhelpful. Benwing2 (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Perhaps @Adam78 can explain further? I agree that it seems unhelpful as a label, as the way it’s been used doesn’t really convey any information properly. Theknightwho (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Theknightwho, Benwing2 If you want, it might be converted into a label like "(used) with" to indicate that it strictly co-occurs with the given term in the given sense. Just like "few" has a different meaning when used as "a few". Or does it warrant a separate entry? Let me know if you have a better idea to convey this. Honestly, I think it's good to be able to look up terms used as part of a phrase or collocation in a given sense (I could even imagine a category for them, cf. Hungarian verbs normally used with a prefix), and without a dedicated template this option would be lost. Adam78 (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Adam78 I think this relates to @Vininn126’s ideas about government (i.e. how words must be used). I can’t remember the specifics, but I know a template exists. Theknightwho (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Adam78 Can you give some examples of Hungarian terms that strictly co-occur with other terms? In English and other language entries this is normally conveyed by {{only used in}}, where the larger collocation has an entry and contains the majority of the info. As for Category:Hungarian verbs normally used with a prefix, there are two situations: (1) the base verb exists but is archaic or obsolete, (2) the base verb doesn't exist on its own. In Russian we handle the analogous cases as follows: For (1) we list the verb as normal but mark it as archaic or obsolete as appropriate, while for (2) we consider the verb a combining form and precede it with a hyphen (see Category:Russian verbal combining forms for examples). In both cases there's a table of prefixed variants of the verbs; see -речь (-rečʹ) for a typical example. Benwing2 (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Examples where "only used in" could be applied: utol is obsolete on its own and (el)képed is unattested without the prefix. However, the above cases where "construed with" is applied doesn't mean that the given term is only used in a particular phrase but that it only has the given sense if/when it is used in the given way (with the given suffix, article, compound element, etc., whether in the same word form, same expression, or the same sentence but in a different clause). So it is like a restricting condition for the applicability of the given sense (even though the term may well have any number of other senses where this morphological or syntactic condition doesn't apply). Sometimes this template has a qualifier or clarification, as in kicsit or ledönt, and sometimes it has more than one value, as in készen, megenged, or jöhető.

I even created templates for verb senses used with a particular case-suffixed form of the reflexive pronoun: {{hu-maga1}} (where this argument precedes the verb in neutral word order), {{hu-maga2}} (where this argument follows the verb, since the verb works as a focus), and {{hu-refl}}, where the reflexive pronoun takes the role of the object. In these cases, the overall meaning of the phrase can only occur if the given argument is present. (Using reflexive as a label, as opposed to transitive/intransitive, would have been misleading as the verb itself doesn't have a reflexive sense on its own.)

For the category of Hungarian verbs normally used with a prefix, I think most if not all might have an obscure and/or obsolete sense without the given prefix, or maybe in some very special (unlikely, uncommon) syntactic situation it might be possible to use them without the prefix, so I think your option (1) applies. Adam78 (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Adam78 I thought about this and if a term is "only used in" a particular phrase in a particular sense, but has a meaning of its own, you should define that phrase as its own lemma entry. Compare put up vs. put up with. What we don't do is define put up with under put up and say "construed with with", which is the analogy of what you're doing. Instead we define put up with as its own lemma, and put it as a derived term from put up. I would recommend doing the same for every case where you're currently using {{construed with}} for this purpose. In general all languages in Wiktionary should follow the same practices as much as possible and it seems that Hungarian is doing things differently for no clearly good reason. I would caution against creating Hungarian-specific templates like {{hu-maga1}} and {{hu-maga2}}; if you continue in this vein it will amount to a mess that others will eventually have to clean up (compare the similar situation with Chinese and Japanese, for example). Benwing2 (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I followed the practice used in {{R:Nagyszotar}}, see e.g. érez ("to feel"), which also defines érzi magát. However, I find the way you suggest equally good, and I understand that it's more in line with the current practice in Wiktionary ("mess" might not be the best word for another editorial decision), so all right, I will convert the entries in the way you suggested. (@Panda10, just to inform you.) Adam78 (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Adam78 Apologies, "mess" is a loaded term and I understand you have been trying to follow a definite practice, if not the practice of most languages. (I'm biased by the end state I see in the Chinese and Japanese entries, where I've done quite a lot of cleaning up to bring them more in line with normal Wiktionary practice and there is still a lot more to be done.) Benwing2 (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Support Vininn126 (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Template:l-nb

Template:l-nn

These are just wrappers for {{l}} which include the qualifiers (Bokmål) or (Nynorsk) after the term, seemingly for linking to the equivalent term between the two Norwegian L2s. They can easily be replaced by simply using {{l}} and {{q}}, which has two further advantages: it's more intuitive, and (more importantly) it means that most of the auxliary parameters aren't disabled, which is a common problem with wrappers like these. Theknightwho (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Delete both as redundant. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 03:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  Delete. Benwing2 (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Theknightwho I am thinking of creating a template {{lq}} or {{l+q}} (or similar) that is just a link template but auto-adds the language name after the link as a qualifier. This is conceptually similar to what {{m+}} does for mentions, but with a different display format (i.e. the language name is added afterwards instead of before, in qualifier format), and would avoid the redundancy and typing hassle of having to write out the name manually. Provided we allow the language name displayed to be customized on a per-language basis, this could also replace {{l/sl-tonal}}, and probably has uses in Chinese entries as well. The corresponding version of {{desc}} could replace {{desc/sl-tonal}}. The new template(s) would be implemented in Lua, similarly to how {{m+}} is implemented, and would support all the parameters that {{l}} and {{desc}} support. What do you think? Benwing2 (talk) 06:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete. PUC – 16:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete I think this template are redundant. Hiyuune (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Roman Empire toponym categories

Further to Wiktionary:Grease pit/2023/August#Auto cat and the Roman Empire.

Specifically:

• Category:Places in the Roman Empire and subcats
• Category:Cities in the Roman Empire and (one) subcat

None of these are widely used: Cities in the Roman Empire has 3 entries, all English; most subcats for Places have 1 entry, with the most populated being (not Latin, but) Portuguese with 23. Compare Category:la:Places in Italy with 258 entries at the top level.

Per Module:place/shared-data, "former states such as Persia, East Germany, the Soviet Union and the Roman Empire should have their cities, towns, rivers and such listed under the current entities occupying the same area". Creating categories for former countries creates obvious consistency and maintainability issues, as well as not being particularly helpful for readers (saying that, say, the Daradax is an otherwise unknown river in modern Syria is far more useful than it just being a river in the Roman Empire). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I think different categorisations would be useful for different people. If you're reading a Latin text on provincial government in Pannonia, it would be more useful to you to have a category like Category:la:Cities in Pannonia, Roman Empire to get the lay of the land than it would to have the same contents dispersed over Category:la:Cities in Austria, Category:la:Cities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Category:la:Cities in Croatia, Category:la:Cities in Hungary, Category:la:Cities in Serbia, Category:la:Cities in Slovakia, and Category:la:Cities in Slovenia and mixed with irrelevant-for-your-purposes place names therein. 0DF (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@0DF I think this is an extreme example; most of the Roman provinces were more similar to Syria in corresponding to one or two modern entities. However, even in this case, the problem is that the set of provinces in the Roman Empire (and Roman Republic, etc.) changed over time, and they changed their shape. In order for this categorization to work, Module:place/shared-data needs effectively to have a list of all provinces that existed at any point in the Roman Empire, and presumably another one for the Roman Republic (and similarly for all other historical entities we want to categorize: practically speaking, an impossible task). And then you have the issue of what happens when a province changes its area over time? Does the city have to be categorized in all provinces that it existed in at any point in time? Who is going to do the research to make this happen? Benwing2 (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2: According to w:Roman province#Primary sources for lists of provinces, we can derive an exhaustive list of provinces from Tacitus De origine et situ Germanorum, Ptolemaei Geographia, Laterculus Veronensis, Notitia Dignitatum, Laterculus Polemii Silvii, and Hieroclis Synecdemus. 0DF (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Pages under Wiktionary:Requested entries (Japanese)/Phrasebook/

• Requested entries (Japanese)/Phrasebook/Asking for directions and time
• Requested entries (Japanese)/Phrasebook/At the bank
• Requested entries (Japanese)/Phrasebook/At the hotel
• Requested entries (Japanese)/Phrasebook/Common phrases
• Requested entries (Japanese)/Phrasebook/Greetings and farewell
• Requested entries (Japanese)/Phrasebook/Ticketing

Not quite sure what these pages are. They were transwiki'd from Wikibooks in 2009; the pages' original creator, Swift, is still occasionally active on other wikis. Most of the pages have broken templates. I found one of them in the Thesaurus: namespace where it had incorrectly been stored for the past 9 years.

Can any Japanese editors shed light here? Ping @Eirikr, Atitarev This, that and the other (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

If I recall correctly we moved this here during some cleanup of Japanese language learning related Wikibooks. They had accumulated a lot of bits and pieces over the years and many didn't really add to a coherent structure. I suspect that moving these phrases to Wiktionary came after some discussion that this was a more appropriate project for that type of content. If the Wiktionary admins decide that's not the case, I won't oppse deleting this content. --2A00:C88:4000:A003:EC1A:2EE7:DB94:F62F 14:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Can't really remember what the story was but these were moved around in an attempt to consolidate a number of unfinished (and, frankly, hardly started) books teaching Japanese on Wikibooks. I'm not the original author of these and have no special opinion on what should happen to these. Language learning has evolved massively in the past decade and a half and these resources are probably mostly worth while as an incentive by someone to clean them up and consolidate into a properly useful resource. --Swift (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

September 2023

Template:R:jpx:Tekin:1993

A fringe source promoting Altaic and only used to source fringe cross-family comparisons. We're not a catalog of every single crackpot's favorite theory. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Probably worth examining all of the sources for the supposed "Altaic" family. It's about time we purge any promotion of it from here. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

Appendix:Glossary of contract bridge

Discussion moved from WT:RFC.

English. Anyone know anything about bridge? This page uses a range of nonexistent templates to try to show various aspects of the game, including suits (the templates probably exist on Wikipedia - for instance w:Template:BridgeSuit and w:Template:Ds). Also the initial case of each defined term (or in some cases, each individual word in a multi-word term) needs to be checked; all our other glossaries use lowercase initial letters. This, that and the other (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

This seems to just be a poorly-maintained/less complete duplicate of Glossary of contract bridge terms? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It is. Back in 2007, Connel MacKenzie's bot transwikied it from Wikipedia here, on the presumption that a glossary of terms was more appropriate for a dictionary than an encyclopedia. Since then, it's barely been touched here. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Arguably they were right, but in practice Wiktionary appendices are basically invisible to readers and potential editors whereas Wikipedia articles of general interest within a particular niche like this one tend to be well-maintained. I think there's a good case to RFD this one. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

On my to-do list/bucket list is to try and bring some order to the chaos that is the Appendix namespace, perhaps through a "breadcrumb trail" like what {{auto cat}} generates at the top of category pages, and in the long term, possibly even proposing to rearrange the appendix by language: Appendix:French/Verbs, Appendix:English/Star Wars vocabulary, etc. Then we can feel proud of the appendix and add a link to it (as well as the thesaurus, rhymes section, ...) from the sidebar, making it much more visible! This, that and the other (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I used to play bridge so I am familiar with many of these terms but I'd argue that information presented in this form (glossaries of specific subjects) is more encyclopedic than dictionary-like, so I have no problem with deleting it. Benwing2 (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Delete. Ioaxxere (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Move to mainspace, with checking to see if the terms are used. CitationsFreak (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@CitationsFreak I used to play a lot of bridge, and there are quite a lot of technical bridge terms that could/should be defined if they're not already, e.g. void, singleton, doubleton, ruff, slough (maybe spelled sluff?), squeeze, double, redouble, trump, notrump, dummy, declarer, Blackwood, Stayman, negative double (found a red link!), etc. But some of these terms I've absolutely never heard of, and for some of them the definition doesn't even make sense e.g. rainbow "A movement used in individual events" (?). I see for example that Stayman (a type of bridge bid/convention, which includes many variants such as puppet Stayman; see the Wikipedia article on Stayman convention) is not defined, but the less common derived convention Namyats (which is "Stayman" spelled backwards) does have a definition. Something for a rainy day I suppose. Benwing2 (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Arabic definite proper nouns

Arabic. All proper nouns are definite. --2A02:9B0:4057:C5AE:796D:4966:EE3A:3763 04:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

They all behave as though they are definite, sure, but morphologically, some are indefinite: Template:ar-decl-noun#Definite_proper_nouns. However, I'm not sure that this category serves any useful purpose. It's instructive to observe that Category:Arabic indefinite proper nouns doesn't exist. This, that and the other (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Ill-named for the reason mentioned by IP, but does not create maintenance work, given it is automatically added via the inflection table. Its only use could be as a kind of tracking category, so one might opine it should be hidden, also deleted as for tracking one can use source code search. This category is remarkably added if one provides both |pos=proper noun|state=ind-def; I have never provided both and used state=ind-def only ever for proper nouns, I think; I see having both changes the text to “declension of proper noun”. This conversely means all entries in Category:Arabic definite nouns, currently 1,507 against 15 in Category:Arabic definite proper nouns, are wrong, according to @Benwing2’s original logic as module creator, and the former would rather go into the latter, but again there is no use in either category bar tracking. I see the idea of them arises in contradistinction to all other inflection types of nouns and proper nouns. I recognize that IP is in a cognitive conflict but it is also useless work to take out this category. Fay Freak (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Template:R:non:Koebler, and all other similar templates

Posting it here with a {{rfd}} tag since it already had the {{d}} tag added. However I oppose deletion. There was some contention about whether umlauts should be allowed in template names, which would apply to all templates ending in Köbler. I would personally prefer keeping the umlaut variant as the main page and using redirects from Koebler for those who cannot input ö. In either case, the form with oe should be kept. Helrasincke (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• I'm finding it difficult to understand exactly what happened here, but Equniox deleted the one with the umlaut about half an hour after this discussion started, and the original contents of this template seem to have been lost. Does anyone understand how the first revision of a page can be a move? — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 19:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

For now, I've made the "oe" spelling the main one, since "oe" is the standard way of rendering "ö" where "ö" is unavailable (or in this case, undesired by someone). (The move to "o" was by one user without consensus AFAICT so I have no qualms about reversing it.) I'm not opposed to just making the "ö" spelling the main one and having redirects from "oe" (and even "o" if Victar really wants to type just "o") per nom, though, since either "lemmatizing" "ö" with a redirect from "oe" or vice versa is equivalent from a user's perspective. - -sche (discuss) 16:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

No ping? You can find a relevant conversation here: User talk:Victar#Template:R:non:Köbler. If this 4k edits user really wants the templates to a website I reference every day at Koebler, sobeit, it's not that deep. So long as it's not at Köbler, like they were initially pushing for, as no templates should ever have special characters in their name. -- Sokkjō 20:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

November 2023

Appendix:Mordvinic word lists (edited)

@Anazarenko, Surjection We already have a word list, it contains cited words; This "version" is just full of neologisms instead of the more commonly accepted borrowings and Latin-script Mordvinic, which is neither supported nor used by the overwhelming majority of speakers. Thadh (talk) 12:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, Heikki Paasonen was wrong. Transliteration is a crime. https://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/rueter/Paasonen/ORIGINALS/mw_styles_a_.shtml Anazarenko (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

BTW, would you be kind enough to provide specific examples of these "neologisms" or will we talk in general terms? Anazarenko (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Translations from NorthEuraLex are (unfortunately) largely incorrect or imprecise. That's why I posted the edited list, although some Russophiles may not like the fact that I actually omitted most of the new (borrowed in the second half of the 20th century) Russian loanwords. Anazarenko (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• incorrect, imprecise or incomplete

Anazarenko (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Anazarenko: Please refrain from implying anyone here is a "Russophile". And you do not get to ignore sources just because of your political opinions. Also, what are your sources for the source being "largely incorrect or imprecise"? Are you the Mordvinic speech communities? Are you a native speaker of either language at all? Did you speak to natives about this, ask them what words they used, and published these interviews? Because there is absolutely no reason for anyone to believe your word against a published resource unless you give any evidence of you being any kind of authority at all. Thadh (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not a native user (although I specialize in Uralistic), but each of the words I added comes from dictionaries created with the help of native speakers. Nothing was invented by me. I'll post a list of all the sources used below the list soon. Anazarenko (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Uralistics

Anazarenko (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Appendix:Mass Effect

I would like a verdict on keeping or deleting this page. Check WT:FICTION. I do not want to participate in debate, only accept the decision and move on. Thanks! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete fancruft. The claim of "eliminating everything good from the 2000's" is silly. I want to keep dictionary words from the 2000s since this is a dictionary. I do not want to keep encyclopaedic topics, cookie recipes, or kitten photos here, since those are not for dictionaries — 2000s or otherwise. Equinox ◑ 10:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete There are already Mass Effect wikis + Wikipedia which document this sort of stuff so it won't get lost. Maybe it could be of linguistic interest to conlangers, but does Mass Effect even have proper conlang(s)? Jberkel 11:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Review WT:FICTION --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Did you want an opinion, a clarification of WT:FICTION, or just use the vote to keep your work from getting deleted? – Jberkel 23:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep: As far as I ccan see, this page doesn't violate policy. I don't like appealing to the existence of third-party wikis, which often supply an inferior user experience with stuff like ads, to justify deletionism. Lists of words and names are not comparable to cookie recipes or kitten photos. --Urszag (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

That's because we don't have a policy on what should go in the Appendix. I feel like we could really do with a set of overarching guiding criteria that define the scope of the namespace, which could evolve into a more formal policy after several years of trial and error. Without any guidance, it's very difficult to know whether to keep or delete this page. I could probably make a bona fide argument for either case. This, that and the other (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess keep, per CFI. However, I would recommend Geographyinitiative to find some cites that do not other reference Mass Effect for some of the words. CitationsFreak (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

If the policy allows us to keep this dreck, the policy is wrong. Delete. PUC – 23:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep per WT:CFI and WT:FICTION. In my opinion, there's not much sense in deleting this appendix specifically while keeping others like Appendix:Dungeons & Dragons and Appendix:Magic: The Gathering. If some people don't think any of those appendices should be here, I suppose we can talk / discuss / vote about the possible idea of changing the current policies. But in my opinion, the policy is OK as it is and I think we should instead create more fiction appendices and expand our coverage of fictional terms. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Keep; I agree with Daniel. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 18:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Shouldn’t have words applicable but to a limited set of videogame titles or motion picture series. I am not sure what WT:FICTION is trying to tell us here, it seems like it should be updated; the situation of wikis specific to fan franchises (which are also generally meticulously attestation-based) is different to what it was around 2010, and so is our editor and user base, and their actual opinions. Fay Freak (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Wiktionary today is a flawed gem, but it is an incredible achievement nonetheless. I believe Wiktionary has the potential to be the ultimate dictionary of all terms from all times in all languages. And so, what Wiktionary has been or is today is nothing compared to what it can be, or what it certainly will be. It would naturally include all terms- everything- in its ultimate form. Hence I vote to keep because I just want to go ahead and get there. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

Template:desc/sl-tonal

This is just {{desc}}, but adds the label "tonal orthography" after it. I'm not even sure whether it follows the same format as {{desc}} anymore, since @Benwing2 changed how it worked. Either way, it's a wikicode mess, and a pointless maintenance headache that will inevitably get forgotten about. Theknightwho (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Theknightwho There is also {{l/sl-tonal}} and maybe some others. The reason for these is that there are two different diacritic systems for Slovene, one that marks tones as well as vowel length and the other which just marks vowel length, and references to Slovene terms are (or maybe were) a mess, with some using one system and some the other. In general you can convert from tonal -> non-tonal but not the other way around, and we were trying to move everything to tonal. Unfortunately, however, the two systems use the same (or at least overlapping) diacritics but for different purposes, so it's not possible to simply autodetect all uses of the non-tonal orthography and flag them automatically. So I created the special tonal templates to indicate that a given term uses the tonal orthography. Note that this was done a long time ago before I was very conversant with Wiktionary conventions. Someone will need to survey the current Wiktionary state to see whether the non-tonal orthography is still used; if so it might make more sense to distinguish the two orthographies with etym-lang codes. Benwing2 (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Rua who added a lot of the Slovene infrastructure. Benwing2 (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Rework into something else, perhaps an added parameter or template to {{desc}} (I think of {{ru-PRO}}, though this is used near {{alter}}), and then delete if it is made believable that we have no loss. I have always been annoyed by it, but one can’t help but special-case if there are language-specific problems. The concern that this falls out of date or sync is very valid either way. Fay Freak (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Template:nan-coll

Template:nan-lit

Min Nan-specific forms of (colloquial) and (literary). Completely unnecessary. Theknightwho (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Theknightwho Support although they link to language-specific pages describing what "colloquial" and "literary" mean in this context; I would maintain those links using language-specific label entries. Benwing2 (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant, with Benwing's qualification. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 00:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Appendix:Irish given names

I brought up Appendix:Irish given names at WT:RFC due to multiple issues (addressed there). I have cleaned up the page to some extent but I think that it may be better to delete it since there’s already Category:Irish given names which renders the appendix redundant. 2001:BB6:B84C:CF00:6068:6AE:AFF4:590A 17:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant to the category. The appendix does give some anglicizations, but we can retain these in etymologies. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 00:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Having this appendix isn't redundant. At worst, it is a list of names to be added in future. At best, it is a nice compact list of names, with English equivalents. Father of minus 2 (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Appendix:Adjectives indicating shape

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits#Appendix:Adjectives indicating shape.

To Appendix:English adjectives indicating shape. The appendices are not just for English. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 01:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

This seems like something to handle via categories. Theknightwho (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hmm, I agree actually; delete. I want to wait for more input before moving to RFDO, though. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 17:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Template:bo-decl

This template is unnecessary and even if it were deemed necessary for some reason, it would be exceedingly complex to correctly implement, according to the nuances of Tibetan language. Let me explain:

Tibetan nouns are technically uninflected. As Nicolas Tournadre and Sangda Dorje put it in Manual of Standard Tibetan: Language and Civilization (Snow Lion, 2003):

The system of cases in Tibetan is quite distinct from that of European languages such as Latin, Greek, German and Russian, for a number of reasons. First of all, contrary to the case of these languages, the form of the noun itself remains invariable. Instead, it makes use of particles or suffixes that vary in form.

Now, even if we agreed that a declension table employing these separate case-marking particles could be included, the cases, as well as the case-marking particles themselves, vary wildly between different forms of the Tibetan language, especially between the two "standard" forms of Tibetan, "Literary" or "Classical Tibetan", aka ཡིག་སྐད (yig skad) and "Colloquial" "Lhasa Tibetan", aka ཕལ་སྐད (phal skad)/ལྷ་སའི་སྐད (lha sa'i skad). The cases and particles included in this template mostly belong only to the literary language, and not the colloquial spoken language, the latter of which is the focus of the Tibetan entries on this website and is used in the pronunciation module, etc. And even then, as it stands now, the way this template is set up, it lacks all of the sundry permutations of each case-marking particle that depend on the final letter of the noun that precedes it, and in many cases, the choice of the user. For example, the "dative-locative case" of Tibetan, aka ལ་དོན (la don) (which this template wrongly partitions into two separate "dative” and "locative" cases), uses 7 different case-marking particles: ཏུ, དུ, ར, རུ, སུ, ན, and ལ. The colloquial language mostly only uses ལ, and in fact the name of the case ལ་དོན (la don) means "has the same meaning as ལ". The literary language uses the other particles depending on a combination of the final letter of the preceding noun and user preference. For examples of what is meant by "user preference", either གང་དུ or གང་ལ ("where, whither") are grammatical, and either འོག་ན or འོག་ལ ("under") are grammatical. So, in order to make a declension table out of this system, one would have to first divide the usage according to the literary and colloquial languages, and for the literary language, multiple variations (as many as 6!) would need to be included. And this doesn't even take into account the peculiarities represented by dozens of regional variations of the Tibetan language, some of which are quite widely used, such as Khampa ཁམས་སྐད (khams skad) or Amdowa མདོ་སྐད (mdo skad).

Additionally, as it appears now, this template has several mistakes—it lists certain cases such as "associative", but this is not even an actual case according to traditional Tibetan grammars. It is only considered as a case by some Western grammars of Tibetan for learning, as well as by some Western linguists. Tibetans consider this merely a conjunctive particle. In Amdo and Central Tibetan, the particle ལ is used instead of དང. In Ladakh, the particle དང is used for the "associative" usage, but also instrumental usage. The "terminative" case (which isn't a case in Tibetan at all) is shown as employing the particle སུ, but this is one of the "dative-locative" case-marking particles. The final/terminative particles in Tibetan, aka རྫོགས་ཚིག (rdzogs tshig, “completion word”), use reduplication of the final letter of the sentence, combined with the Tibetan vowel ན་རོ (na ro) (ཨོ) and number eleven in total: གོ་ངོ་དོ་ནོ་བོ་མོོ་འོ་རོ་ལོ་སོཏོ. There is no "elative" or "comparative" case in Tibetan. Both literary and colloquial Tibetan have four cases plus the absolutive (six, if counting the "associative"): genitive, agentive-instrumental, dative-locative, and ablative. The ablative case is used for comparisons in colloquial Tibetan. The ablative case in this template is also missing the second ablative-marking particle ལས (which is the one used for comparison in colloquial Tibetan). Tibetans use ནས when using ablative in terms of spatial contexts, e.g. "he came out of the cave", and they use ལས when using the ablative in terms of "consubstantial provenance", as Tournadre and Dorje put it, e.g. "it was made out of gold". The genitive and agentive particles each number five (of which this template only lists one each), and, as well as the dative-locative case-marking particles, have a variety of uses in addition to their case-marking usage. For example, the "genitive" case-marking particles are used to connect postpositions, and they are also used to create constructs similar to Hebrew's סמיכות (smikhút) constructions, where one noun modifies another, such as in སེར་གྱི་འཁོར་ལོ (ser gyi 'khor lo, “golden wheel, wheel of dharma”). The dative-locative and agentive have even more complex usage, usually with verbs, being used also to connect clauses in a sentence.

Another major complication is, in both the written and colloquial languages, as an agglutination language, the case-marking particles are placed after other particles denoting number, and the particles denoting number are different in literary and colloquial Tibetan, and there are multiple possibilities in literary Tibetan—to say nothing of regional variations of Tibetan.

In summary, besides being the objectively wrong way to consider the Tibetan language (again, nouns are not inflected/declined—case-marking particles are used instead), the complexity and subjectivity of the system of case-marking particles (see attached images below), combined with the different registers, dialects, etc and all of their variations, makes even the possibility of such a template as this a hopeless pursuit, besides being a fundamentally misguided pursuit.

Some tables from Manual of Standard Tibetan to help put just a portion of the problem into perspective:

• Fig. 1: Case Markers
• Fig. 2: The Cases
• Fig. 3: (Some) Variant forms of case-markers

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mellohi! I saw you commenting on Tibetan-related lects at LTR and wondered if you might be able to offer some input here. I suspect HTG is right, but I don't feel confident enough in the matter to vote delete. This, that and the other (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I did not actually study Tibetan itself yet, so I cannot offer judgement at the moment. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

For Kurtöp, which has a very similar system, I have also opted to analyse these as enclitic particles, not inflectional endings: e.g. གི. Now, as I understand it, Tibetan doesn't even have stress, unlike Kurtöp, so there it's even more clear that these are better seen as separate words. Thadh (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Nobody has argued in favour of keeping, and HTG's argument is watertight. If there are no further opposing views, I intend to delete this template/module soon. This, that and the other (talk) 09:25, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, RFD-deleted. Was only used in 5 entries. This, that and the other (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Rhymes:Toki Pona/wen and Category:Toki Pona rhymes/wen-

Not rhymes; w can only occur in the onset of a Toki Pona syllable. The rhyme page just lists two words that end in the same three segments (trivia at best), despite the stress falling on the earlier syllables (a-, ki-) as a rule. AgentMuffin4 (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 05:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Found more of these: Category:Rhymes:Toki Pona/asa, Category:Rhymes:Toki Pona/nu, Category:Rhymes:Toki Pona/te, and Category:Rhymes:Toki Pona/un. Submitting them here on essentially the same grounds:

• -asa only matches nasa. The only ostensible rhyme, alasa, has stress on the first syllable like any other word, so there are no rhymes.
• Likewise, -un only matches mun. The only ostensible rhyme, esun, still has stress on the first syllable, so there are no rhymes.
• -nu and -te each start at the onset of a syllable, so they cannot be rhymes.

AgentMuffin4 (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Juwan (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I RFD-deleted the pages in the heading of this request; should I be deleting Category:Rhymes:Toki Pona/wen too? @AgentMuffin4, Juwan This, that and the other (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I believe so. AgentMuffin4 (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

May 2024

Some Headword-line Templates for Phrases

There are some headword-line templates for phrases which can be replaced with {{head}} directly: {{el-phrase}}, {{jam-phrase}}, {{hy-phrase}}, {{gu-phrase}}, {{az-phrase}}, {{sv-phrase}}, {{tg-phrase}}, {{uz-phrase}}, {{my-phrase}}, {{mr-phrase}}, {{cpg-phrase}}.

In addition, there are some templates that use lang-headword modules, but the modules do not provide special functions for phrase entries, so it seems that they can be replaced by {{head}} or other templates. For example, maybe {{fr-phrase}} can be just replaced with {{head|fr|phrase}}. Other potential candidates include {{hi-phrase}}, {{km-phrase}}, {{la-phrase}}, {{acm-phrase}}, {{th-phrase}}, {{ne-phrase}}, {{ur-phrase}}, {{aii-phrase}}, {{tlh-phrase}} and {{ja-phrase}}. --TongcyDai (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete the upper row (those that are directly implemented with {{head}}). Keep the lower row pending further investigation, since often the generic headword handler provides extra functionality; e.g. {{fr-phrase}} has special French-specific headword splitting; {{hi-phrase}} provides parameters for Urdu equivalents (and {{ur-phrase}} likewise for Hindi equivalents); etc. Benwing2 (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Appendix:English Wanderwörter

We deleted manual lists like this years ago. @Sbb1413 -- Sokkjō 03:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sokkjo Implicit in that statement is a suggestion that this exists as an automated list, but I don't see a Category:English Wanderwörter. Do you mean Category:English internationalisms, which only has a single entry (xanthene) as of this moment? I feel like this could be an informative manually-curated appendix if it were broadened to a translingual scope and moved to Appendix:Wanderwörter, although I admit I'm not sure how it ought to be laid out. This, that and the other (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@This, that and the other, many such words should be found at CAT:English terms derived from substrate languages. For some of the rational to "burn [such pages] with fire", see Appendix_talk:List_of_Proto-Indo-European_roots#RFD_discussion:_January–May_2019. -- Sokkjō 17:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused. My understanding of a Wanderwort is that it is a word that has been borrowed into many languages over a dispersed geographic area and a long period of time. Such a word may or may not ultimately be derived from a substrate language. These seem to me to be two entirely different things. This, that and the other (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Many Wanderworts have substrate origins, like silver on this appendix, but then copper there is just a Latin borrowing and hardly a Wanderwort. But even if it could be argued that the very fuzzy term Wanderwort should be used, it should be category, not a manual list. -- Sokkjō 03:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes appendices are the way to go. As an example, we used to have categories like Category:Italian terms inherited from Latin nominatives, added by User:Nicodene, which always bothered me because a lot of the terms there had questionable and/or disputed etymologies, only some of which proposed inheritance from the nominative. I proposed renaming to something like 'Foo terms potentially inherited from Latin nominatives' but we eventually settled on an appendix, Appendix:Survivals of the Latin nominative in Romance, which I think is a much better solution for this because it gives room to enumerate which ones are clearly accepted, which ones generally accepted, which ones doubtful, etc. and for what reasons (previously the reasons were hidden in HTML comments). (Note, maybe we should rename Appendix:Survivals of the Latin nominative in Romance to something beginning with 'Latin' or 'Romance' to make it easier to find.) In this case, an appendix Appendix:Wanderwörter might make the most sense. Benwing2 (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem with covering Wanderworts via categories is that these are inherently hard to pin down. We often don't know what language they originated from or what the original form was. We only know for sure the results of their interactions with known languages or proto-languages. Because of that, the ones without an attested original source are more often than not impossible to cover as reconstructions. What's more, a substrate form becomes a loanword when another language picks it up, so a given Wanderwort doesn't get covered well by any one category. How do we know which language-specific categories a given Wanderwort belongs to?

That said, I think that covering these by language- even in an appendix- just perpetuates the fragmentation. Not only that, a given Wanderwort would be guaranteed to appear in multiple languages, so the more language-specific appendixes there are, the more duplication there would be. We would be better off having an appendix consisting of a master list of suspected Wanderworts, with subpages for each one. Each subpage would list the known forms, analyze the history and distribution patterns, discuss what we know about the phonological shape, etc. The main challenge would be naming the subpages. I suppose we could have intermediate subpages for regional and other groupings: no need to link to a page for the names for Datura in southwestern North America on the main page. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete 🥱 Fay Freak (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

This page feels similar to our Hall of Fame section for long etymological chains, and I would be for some way of being able to document such "interesting cases" at a single location, though if i'm understanding right that part of the issue is the page's use of Wanderwörter and it having a particular meaning that is beyond the scope of what is actually being documented? A couple solutions could be had, simple put: either moving the content to a page titled more aptly to it's goal/content, or deriving a category based on the number of derivement from different languages(plus possibly other matters of categorization) via {{etymon}} (well, future implementation of such via @Ioaxxere). Akaibu (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Appendix:Gen Z slang

1. There is no such thing as "Gen Z slang". Any list claiming to describe "Gen Z slang" inevitably ends up including a hodgepodge of terms that have practically no reason to be listed together. Gen Z is not a monolith, and this appendix has negative lexicographical value.
2. This appendix will inevitably become a worse-maintained duplicate of w:List of Generation Z slang.
3. The appendix breaks its own rules, since skibidi isn't a term which is "unique to or which originated with Gen Z". Almost all of the terms in the Wikipedia article don't meet these criteria either, proving the incoherence of the concept of "Gen Z slang".

Ioaxxere (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings on keep/deleteKeep, but it is clearly true that there is a slang associated with (American and Internet-connected) Gen Z kids. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Koavf: Yes, due to ignorance. Much of the so-called "Gen Z slang" has been used in AAVE/LGBTQ communities for decades. Ioaxxere (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, but kids born in 1999 and picking up century-old slang like no cap is still a thing. I don't know that anyone claimed that Gen Zers coined "Ohio". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Irrelevant and boring. And wrongly essentialized, as said. Fay Freak (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep The crux of the nominator's argument is wrong. There is such a thing as "Gen Z slang". Purplebackpack89 21:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep If anything the enwiki article demonstrates that it is possible to maintain such a list, and tentatively there will be more dictionary-suited information to add here ("rizz" has already been documented as such by various dictionary sources). AAVE and LGBTQ slang are not mutually exclusive, and that Wikipedia list actually does a pretty good job of identifying which subcultures the individual items originated in. عُثمان (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

This is trenchant. In addition to the fact that AAVE and Gen Z slang are not mutually exclusive, not all AAVE or even AAVE slang is part of Gen Z slang. Keep. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep. This is exactly the kind of content that normal users would be interested in and that we can do better at than other online dictionaries. Why get rid of it? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete: If it's that deep, make it a category, not a manual appendix. -- Sokkjō 04:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

By that logic, why have any appendices... Purplebackpack89 16:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, more appendices should be deleted. -- Sokkjō 16:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Appendices are useful for terms that won't have broad attestation (e.g. many terms can be cited with one source all at once and some of the individual ones may meet general CFI as independent terms/senses) and they are also useful for framing or contextualization. A page that has some introductory text can help make things more manageable or navigable than an indiscriminate alphabetical listing in a category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

How miserable. — Ganjabarah (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete - make it a category. Theknightwho (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete, make it a category per User:Theknightwho. Benwing2 (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete and make it a category. Ultimateria (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete and make it a category. Some appendices give more on each term than just their definitions, but this is not one of them. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 00:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep: This makes little sense as a category, because we don't have parallel categories for other generations' slang. Are we really going to create Category:English Boomer slang and Category:English Gen X slang? These concepts are too vague to be codified as hard categorization, and I would even hesitate to label words as such on entries. On the other hand we do have precedent for this sort of appendix, which you can see at Category:Slang appendices. The arguments involved in this discussion apply to all such appendices. An appendix has the benefit (yes, really) of being somewhat subjective, as we can choose what to include and what to exclude, add notes, and convey a sense of “this is just an incomplete dynamic list” better than categories do to casual users; other benefits include the ability to organize the items into sections that would never in anyone's right mind be subcategories, linking between appendices, and creating more visually attractive spaces on Wiktionary. Separate manual definitions from those on the corresponding entries are not a necessary feature. — Ganjabarah (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

November 2024

Template:authority control

This template has a complex network of subtemplates, but is only used on two users' user pages. While important to Wikipedia, this is not relevant on Wiktionary. This, that and the other (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm unclear why you think a template in active use on user pages is eligible for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  It's been done before: Template talk:click Template talk:Yes This, that and the other (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Bad precedence is no precedence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. We shouldn't be burdened with having to maintain massively complicated templates that are only used on a small number of user pages. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

There is hardly a maintenance burden, It changes extremely rarely, and if it does can be reimported from another project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps moving this to userspace would be a solution? Simply being in use on user pages can't protect something in the Template: namespace from deletion or else we'd have a lot of other userboxes that e.g. Wikipedia has, and indeed I don't see the value in this one (e.g. User RogueScholar's page contains only an ORCID link: wouldn't it be easier to just paste the link, rather than going through a template?); OTOH, clearly at least one longtime Wikimedian does see value in it, and I don't see harm in it, so abstain. - -sche (discuss) 16:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Abstain. Neither complication of this template nor maintenance burden has been substantiated, and looking at the source code it does not look like it can be. Though it is interesting that the Wikipedia version has been Lua-ized and developed away from it. Looks like we can have a slim port of it for user pages, but on the other hand all users using it link to their Wikipedia pages, alternatively MetaWiki or Wikispecies or another project for which it makes more sense to maintain it, anyway. Fay Freak (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

Template:wa-conj-ner

This template just causes clutter in the verb conjugation templates. This type of conjugation, where a verb of the 1st gategory gets an '-êy-' in certain times definitely needs a template, but this template was made short-sightedly, as not all of the verbs in this category end on '-ner' in the infinitive, for example: boerler, dji boerlêye; xhilter, dji xhiltêye. I think it would be better to get rid of this one and make a more general template in it's place. Poly Kraken (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

January 2025

Appendix:Sports

Just a list. Redundant to the Sports header at Wiktionary:Index to appendices. Ultimateria (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:CJKV

(Notifying Atitarev, Benwing2, Fish bowl, Frigoris, Justinrleung, kc_kennylau, Mar vin kaiser, Michael Ly, ND381, RcAlex36, The dog2, Theknightwho, Tooironic, Wpi, 沈澄心, 恨国党非蠢即坏, LittleWhole, TAKASUGI Shinji, Atitarev, HappyMidnight, Tibidibi, Quadmix77, Kaepoong, AG202, The Editor's Apprentice, Saranamd, Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji, Atitarev, Fish bowl, Poketalker, Cnilep, Marlin Setia1, 荒巻モロゾフ, Shen233, Cpt.Guapo, Sartma, Lugria, LittleWhole, Chuterix, Mcph2, Theknightwho, MedK1, Mxn, PhanAnh123, MuDavid):

I believe {{CJKV}} is unnecessary because it duplicates what {{desc}} already does, but with less functionality. Keeping multiple templates for the same purpose can create confusion and make things harder to manage. Since {{desc}} is more versatile and already covers what Template:CJKV offers (and more), I think it makes sense to simplify things by deleting/deprecating {{CJKV}}. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 19:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I think what would be better is to instead improve the functionality of {{CJKV}}. For instance, so be able to display descendant trees like the {{desc}}. CJKV is used for a very specific type of loan word from Chinese in Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese, not for all loan words. The dog2 (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Fenakhay I agree with you here. Is there anything in {{CJKV}} that isn't currently supported by {{desc}}? Benwing2 (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

1) Japanese (and Okinawan) ruby works better with {{CJKV}} than trying to combine {{desc}} and {{ja-r}}.
2) Variant forms where C ≠ JKV (see the example of 掛礙 / 挂碍 (guà'ài), where the standard form in Sinoxenic JKV are all descendants of the variant form in Chinese, 罣礙 / 罣碍 (guà'ài), but are generally listed best under the standard traditional C form).
3) Shading the "standard" CJKV readings is best (see the example of 白菜 (báicài), where there are non-Sinoxenic borrowings as well), given that these are primarily orthographic borrowings. However, I concede that the use of labels with {{desc}} can provide this; we just need to expand those. Michael Ly (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Fenakhay, @Benwing2: I vote keep as well, at least with the current generic template functionalities. Currently language-specific templates do a better job for transliterations and furigana and per @The dog2 and @Michael Ly's arguments.

The Japanese transliteration is not even in the main name space.

Also, currently there is no handling of Vietnamese Hán tự: e.g. Trung Quốc (中國) as it is shown in 中國#Descendants. The section also nicely separates Sino-Xenic borrowings from the rest. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep per what's already been stated. Sino-Xenic descendants are notably different from traditional borrowings, and more importantly, the way we currently handle Chinese makes it more necessary to separate out Sino-Xenic borrowings as a single group. If we separated out Old Chinese, Middle Chinese, etc., then I'd lean towards supporting the deprecation of {{CJKV}} but until then, no. The mess that is 白菜 (báicài) illustrates that for me, like what is "others"??? AG202 (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep for now, for reasons that others have mentioned (and rename for clarity); however {{CJKV}} should at least be Lua-fied in the near future, and eventually be integrated into standard templates like {{desc}} (e.g. highlighting, better handling of |qq=).

I should also point out that (a) many other languages in the Sinosphere also have Sino-Xenic readings, and not just the three four five that are currently supported, and (b) {{CJKV}} currently does not have the functionality for distinguishing different layers of Sino-Xenic readings (e.g. go-on, kan-on, and tōsō-on in Japanese). In any case, we should rethink the existing approach.

Regarding AG202's comment on separating out OC/MC, I agree that it is basically a mess. I think we could perhaps list the various stages of the language with indented lists of {{desc}}, similar to those in Reconstruction space. This could also solve the two problems mentioned in the previous paragraph, but anyways this is probably best discussed on BP. – wpi (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Wpi @AG202 @The dog2 How about we rename this to {{desc-Sino}} or similar? {{CJKV}} is a terrible name as it says nothing about the actual purpose of the template, not to mention that there appear to be languages other than the CJKV languages themselves that have Sino-Xenic borrowings in them. Benwing2 (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The only other language with Sinoxenic borrowings in Okinawan. Other languages like say, Thai, Malay or Khmer just have regular borrowings from Chinese. The dog2 (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Support renaming. The current name is very poor and caused me considerable confusion when I first came across this template. The ideal name would be {{zh-desc-sino-xenic}} but this is too long. Happy with {{desc-Sino}}. This, that and the other (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: The problem with that is "Sino" implies Sinitic but "sino-xenic" implies non-Sinitic. That would make it even more confusing. Perhaps "zh-desc-non-zh" or something along those lines. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Personally, I would take "Sino" or "sino" in a descendants template to mean "Sino-Xenic"; {{zh-desc-sino}} is even clearer, because descendants of a given language are never in that same language. If you don't like that, then the issue with {{zh-desc-non-zh}} is it's rather long; probably {{zh-desc}} is enough as the descendants are necessarily non-zh. Benwing2 (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with re-naming it to {{zh-desc}}. That is indeed clearer than {{CJKV}}. Speaking of which, perhaps we should also have a similar template for descendants of Sanskrit words in Indian and Southeast Asian languages. The dog2 (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the template {{Sinoxenic}} also exists. That template (undocumented 😢) appears to be used on Proto-Sino-Tibetan reconstruction pages, and has completely different parameters from {{CJKV}} (😢😢). Perhaps {{Sinoxenic}} could simultaneously be renamed to {{sit-desc-sino}}, or whatever {{CJKV}} gets renamed to with sit in place of zh. This, that and the other (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it might be a better idea to simply merge these two templates. They serve similar purposes in descendant lists. – wpi (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:topicalized form of

A general form-of template used only for a very specific quirk of Okinawan. This is not an effective use of such templates; we have {{form of}} (or better, {{infl of}} with an Okinawan-specific inflection tag) for such cases. Benwing2 (talk) 06:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: Will the same apply to {{hiatus-filler form of}}? Since this is probably only supposed to be used when both with-hiatus and without-hiatus forms exist. Or is the occurrence of pairs of forms with and without hiatus strong enough in Apabhramsa? Svārtava (tɕ) 11:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Svartava: The occurrence of pairs of forms with and without a hiatus is strong in Classical Prakrit because with respect to y, it just pertains to the spelling convention being used.

• In this regard, hiatus and hiatus-filler forms are comparable to nuqta and nuqtaless forms in Hindi and Gurmukhi Punjabi.
• The difference is that

• hiatus-filler forms contain an additional intervocalic letter at hiatuses, which are extremely common in Classical Prakrit.
• nuqtaless forms lack the nuqta diacritic, which is an optional indicator of clarity for certain letters.

• {{hiatus-filler form of}} is not being transcluded as much as {{nuqtaless form of}} because Hindi and Punjabi are modern languages with significantly more attention.
• Although the applicability of hiatus-fillers in Apabhramsa still needs to be addressed, there is a wide applicability of {{hiatus-filler form of}} to Prakrit.
• Topic markers, on the other hand, pertain more to theta roles.
• Unless

• the status of {{nuqtaless form of}} changes
• the output text of {{form of}} can be customised without needing a stand-alone template

the deletion of {{topicalized form of}} may not affect {{hiatus-filler form of}} because {{hiatus-filler form of}} has a wide applicability and does not involve theta roles.

Kutchkutch (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch @Svartava I would like to get rid of all three of {{topicalized form of}}, {{nuqtaless form of}} and {{hiatus-filler form of}}. In general we shouldn't create language-specific form-of templates like this, esp. without prefixing with the appropriate language code. The proper way is to add a language-specific tag, hence e.g. {{infl of|pra|𑀚𑀡𑁆𑀡𑁄𑀯𑀯𑀻𑀬||hiatus-filler}} (or {{infl of|pra|𑀚𑀡𑁆𑀡𑁄𑀯𑀯𑀻𑀬||hf}} if you need a shortcut). This language-specific tag can be made to display the same as the existing {{hiatus-filler form of}} template. Similarly, in place of {{nuqtaless form of|hi|फ़्रांसीसी}}, you would use {{infl of|hi|फ़्रांसीसी||nuqtaless}}. Benwing2 (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Quantity

Courtesy ping @Victar. I know this was created back in 2023 but just a reminder to please not create vague related-to categories like this without clear BP consensus (or in fact any topic categories; you will notice that before creating a couple of IMO obviously missing set categories, I made a BP posting). This category has exactly one subcategory in it (Category:Units of measure) and no terms in the vast majority of languages it exists in. The only language with more than 1 or 2 terms is Proto-West Germanic, where it has a grab-bag of 6 terms meaning "few", "fewness", "many", "multitude", "fewer" and "reduce". IMO delete the category and move the one subcategory up. Benwing2 (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

 Support. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 02:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The category was modeled after Category:Quantity. I've added CAT:Size as a subcategory. Where do you recommend words related to quantity, like few, many, etc., be categorized? --{{victar|talk}} 05:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Please undo your change to Category:Size as this is an active RFD. I don't think words like few and many need to be categorized anywhere, particularly not grouped randomly with reduce. Benwing2 (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

In general we need to rethink the use of related-to categories as random dumping grounds for thesaurus-type stuff. There should be a Category:Sizes instead and the remaining things that aren't sizes should probably be removed IMO. Benwing2 (talk) 06:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I get what Victar is trying to do here, and I actually wouldn't mind if we had more of these Roget-style categories. The goal of having every entry in a "topic cat"-type category makes sense to me.

However, I do agree with Benwing that some kind of community discussion at BP is needed, in order to test for consensus and work out the operational aspects of such a significant expansion of Wiktionary's category tree. This, that and the other (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

February 2025

Template:vec-conj

Only used in one entry (dormir), but gives a completely different conjugation compared to what is generated by the template used on all other Venetan verb entries ({{vec-conj-auto}}). Once a Venetan editor sorts this out we can delete this template. @Nicodene, IvanScrooge98, Catonif This, that and the other (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Frequency lists/Complete Shakespeare wordlist

Don't want to get picky here, but this isn't actually a frequency list. One would've thought en.wikt would've realised this after 20 years... Father of minus 2 (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

This is the kind of crap we used to have in the Concordance namespace before that got deleted. Delete This, that and the other (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:wikiversity

"Wikiversity has more information", says this template. In fact, it doesn't. Despite being billed as a hub for free "learning resources", Wikiversity seems to mainly consist of opinion essays and stubby encyclopedia-style articles.

A random sample of the 16 entries on which this is used:

• peace links to wikiversity:A World of Peace, Love and Happiness, someone's essay about world peace
• religiosity links to wikiversity:Religiosity, a one-sentence encyclopedia-style article that has sat unchanged and unexpanded since 2008
• ñoñear links to wikiversity:Spanish/Verbs/ñoñear, which looks like it is supposed to contain the conjugation of this verb (which would duplicate Wiktionary's own content), but actually doesn't contain any relevant information at all
• follicular dendritic cell links to wikiversity:Follicular Dendritic Cells, which does have some basic info, but is certainly inferior to the Wikipedia article on the topic
• nonkilling links to wikiversity:Ethics/Nonkilling/Discussions, which contains two users' opinions, signed like a talk page

We shouldn't be using such a prominent box to link to a site of such little value to our readers. In fact, I'm not convinced we should be linking to Wikiversity at all - but that's another matter ({{R:wversity}} still exists). This, that and the other (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete, also has very less usages. Svārtava (tɕ) 03:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:wikiversity lecture

Adding this template to the deletion request. Most of the uses of {{wikiversity lecture}} point to somewhat more fleshed-out Wikiversity pages (or portals) than those showcased above. Nonetheless, the content in the linked Wikiversity pages (or in the pages listed in the linked portals) is generally rudimentary – comparable to a stubby Simple English Wikipedia article – and unworthy of the significant prominence that we are giving it by way of this box.

Let me put it this way: If Wikiversity wasn't WMF-hosted – making it officially one of our sister projects – we wouldn't even consider linking to it at all, let alone giving it a floating link box. I don't think our loyalty to the Wikimedia universe should overwhelm our better judgment such that we give special prominence to this type of content.

My vote is to convert each use of {{wikiversity}} and {{wikiversity lecture}} to {{R:wversity}} under a "Further reading" header if there is real, useful Wikiversity content on the topic, otherwise remove the use. However, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to removing all Wikiversity links entirely. This, that and the other (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Out with all of this! Delete. — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 03:50, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete. MedK1 (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

March 2025

Obsolete Proto-Indo-Iranian declension tables

Template:iir-decl-noun-n

All superseded by {{iir-decl-noun}} and its backend Module:iir-decl-noun. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Module:iir-nominals has data for the pronouns though. Exarchus (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

It's not in actual use, though. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Appendix:Oromo pronunciation

I was going to fix a broken Wikipedia link, but then I noticed that this is nothing but an unwikilinked list of consonants and vowels (both single letters and digraphs).

It's true that there are no letter or symbol entries for Oromo, but this is no substitute- no information on pronunciation beyond consonant vs. vowel, and no links to or from anything on Wiktionary (though it's in Category:Pronunciation by language).

It was obviously intended as the beginnings of an appendix, but it hasn't been edited in the 4+ years since the day it was created. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete. No usable content. Ultimateria (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Appendix:Dutch_pronunciation

Simply delete this page and have a hard link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/Dutch, which at least tries to indicate some pronunciation differences between the Netherlands and Belgium. The IPA at the appendix doesn't even agree with current practice for e.g. /eː/ (instead of /e/), and yet this is what is linked to as IPA key. Exarchus (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Strong support but not for deleting it. Looking at Appendix:Romanian pronunciation, it could be replaced with this instead: See the Wikipedia article {{w|Dutch phonology}} for a thorough look at the sounds of Dutch, or the help page {{w|Help:IPA/Dutch}} for the symbols used in phonemic transcriptions of Dutch words. 83.28.53.192 17:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Support. Ideally we'd have our own page, but absent that it's better to delete it because what we currently have is misleading. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. Why not just correct whatever is misleading or add whatever is missing? Re /e/ - well, why not just add the length sign (no idea why it's missing anyway)?--~2026-27957-9 (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:tooltip

This template is a usability disaster. Quite aside from the fact that the tooltip is inaccessible on mobile (a flaw shared by {{abbr}}, {{comment}} etc), the template fails to even give a visual indication that a tooltip is present, unlike abbr or comment.

Uses of the template are almost entirely restricted to verb conjugation tables. I propose to replace uses of the template with either {{abbr}} (for abbreviations) and {{comment}} (for everything else), then delete it. (The usability issues of these templates on mobile are a separate issue best dealt with other than at RFDO.) This, that and the other (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

...but there are 94 uses directly in entries. Nasty stuff. This, that and the other (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• Strong support. Benwing2 (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Support replacing this with the other, better tooltip/comment templates, as proposed. - -sche (discuss) 02:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

April 2025

Template:lt-numeral

I'm not sure if it is accurate to call these terms part of the "inflection" or "declension" of the number, as the placement of this table in the entries implies. The standard way of displaying this type of information is to incorporate it into {{number box}}. This, that and the other (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Non-Lua templates in Category:Sanskrit noun inflection-table templates

Namely:

• {{sa-decl-noun-a-m}} (423 uses)
• {{sa-decl-noun-a-n}} (305 uses)
• {{sa-decl-noun-i-f}} (23 uses)
• {{sa-decl-noun-i-m}} (17 uses)
• {{sa-decl-noun-i-n}} (6 uses)
• {{sa-decl-noun-u-m}} (11 uses)
• {{sa-decl-noun-u-n}} (5 uses)
• {{sa-decl-noun-ā}} (250 uses)
• {{sa-decl-noun-ī}} (43 uses)

These templates use an old display style and appear to generate the same forms as the modern Lua versions {{sa-decl-noun-f}}, {{sa-decl-noun-m}}, and {{sa-decl-noun-n}}. It seems to me that they have been superseded. @Pulimaiyi This, that and the other (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

In fact: (Notifying AryamanA, Pulimaiyi, Svartava, Kutchkutch, Getsnoopy, Rishabhbhat, Dragonoid76, RichardW57, Exarchus): This, that and the other (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

It would be some work to switch those to the Lua versions. The accent would need to be checked. But phasing out these templates is OK for me. Exarchus (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Exarchus according to my script, of the 571 remaining uses of the non-Lua templates, 426 (75%) generate exactly the same forms as the equivalent Lua-based template with no parameters specified (other than |novedic=true). Would it be possible to replace these 426 in bulk? (If so, I assume we would not specify |novedic=true when converting - is that correct?) Or, alternatively, are you saying that the accent of every term using a non-Lua template needs to be manually checked before conversion? This, that and the other (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The non-Lua templates don't indicate Vedic accent, while the Lua ones do. So if the headword has an accent specified, then the Lua template should get it too, for example at दर्पण. But I regularly see Vedic accents that are simply wrong, I've now stumbled on उदार where the pronunciation indicates accent on second syllable, the headword indicates no accent, while in fact it should be 'udārá'. But this isn't related to the declension template properly speaking. Exarchus (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I would generally not give |novedic=true, though it may be appropriate in a lot of cases, but the same can probably be said about many declension tables that already use the Lua templates. Exarchus (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Exarchus it sounds like what you're saying is that, although converting the tables of the 426 entries in bulk would not actually make things worse, these tables would benefit from a close audit.

In that case I'll refrain from any mass conversion for the time being in case any users find the time and inclination to check the entries by hand and do the conversions themselves. This, that and the other (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Several of these entries need to be reviewed in totality, see my edit at कृत्ति. So having a non-Lua template could be an indication that "no one has had a proper look at me since creation by Ivan Štambuk, please help" (as at पुलस्ति). Exarchus (talk) 08:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

May 2025

Template:ja-see-kango, Template:ja-gv

Nowadays redundant to {{ja-see}}, which many pages already use over them. Even the creator of all three regretted creating three instead of one. These should at least be deprecated.

Perhaps a bot could be made to change the two to {{ja-see}}—it would just be one to one. I don't know how that would be done technically, but I'm sure it's possible. As an example, if you look at older revisions of Mandarin terms, many of the templates used then are now deprecated and green, and new ones are in use. Ookap (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I've realized {{ja-gv}} may have a bit of extra functionality for extended shinjitai forms, which could hopefully be merged into {{ja-see}} by someone who knows Lua better than I do. Ookap (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

If someone (not me 😄) can successfully update {{ja-see}} to include the functionality in {{ja-gv}}, such that removing {{ja-gv}} and {{ja-see-kango}} would not cause any loss of features, I'd fully support deprecating these other two and using just {{ja-see}} going forward. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Template:request for verification of pronunciation, Template:request for audio pronunciation, Template:request for pronunciation

Unused verbose redirects created by @W.andrea in March. Generally on Wiktionary we have kept template redirects to a minimum ({{rfclarify}} has passed through many permanent renames, for example), and the benefit of something so bothersome to type is unclear. —Fish bowl (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete. We aren't in the habit of keeping many template redirects, especially if not used. This, that and the other (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep. The reason I created them is to make them searchable in the TemplateWizard. The process as a relatively new user is:

1. See an entry that needs a pronunciation (for example)
2. Edit the page and open the TemplateWizard
3. Search for "request pronunciation" or something like that
4. Click "request for pronunciation"
5. It says "No parameters could be determined for this template due to absence of TemplateData documentation", however it gives you a link to Template:request for pronunciation which redirects to Template:rfp and you can go from there
   • That means {{request for pronunciation}} isn't used directly, it's just a stepping stone to find {{rfp}}

— W.andrea (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

That said, I think my putting the verbose names in the documentation (e.g. for rfp) was overkill. I'll undo that. — W.andrea (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Done: for rfp, for rfap, and for rfv-pron. — W.andrea (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

BTW, I added an anchor to this section to facilitate linking to it: #rfp-verbose. (Kinda ironic :p ) — W.andrea (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

June 2025

Template:nn-pre, Template:nn-before

@Eiliv This template has only 16 uses and is an odd combination of a label and either {{alt form}} or {{alt spell}}. It should be replaced with a combination of properly crafted lang-specific label and either {{alt form}} or {{superseded spelling of}} or something. The label can take care of proper categorization. In general, underpowered language-specific wrappers around generic templates just end up being a maintenance headache as well as increase the learning curve for new editors. Benwing2 (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Unsourced Yugolsav names of User:Sheldonium

This user added a lot of names which is dubious or marginally attested now all placed under Category:Requests for verification in Serbo-Croatian entries. It's been a year, should we just deleted it? Chihunglu83 (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Chihunglu83 Was this ever listed at WT:RFVN? I can't find any mention of Serbo-Croatian given names on that page. This, that and the other (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Category:German terms suffixed with -blütig (blooded)

Not a suffix. deutschblütig is not deutsch + -blütig, but deutsch + umlauted Blut + -ig, as the entry actually said before this change.

Category:German terms suffixed with -blütig (flowered)

Same. rotblütig is not rot + -blütig but rot + Blüte + -ig, as the entry actually said before this change.

It is true that we have some precedent for this in Category:German adjective-forming suffixes (-köpfig, -äugig, -wöchig, -jährig...), but imo those should be deleted (as wrong and uneconomical analyses) rather than be used as an argument for new creations.

@Fay Freak, Mahagaja, -sche, Jberkel and other German editors whom I'm not thinking of right now. PUC – 10:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Probably. With Geblüt one not have a choice either. When -ig was added, without due regard to notorious German compounding capabilities editors and proliferation of alleged suffixes, knowing fewer analogues than native speakers they deemed everything following the first stem a suffix, apparently because it is easier to memorize as such if you are knewly into the language. But if you add -blütig from deutschblütig, you also add -rassig from deutschrassig, and they already added -stämmig, and there is no end. Why not -eckig as in viereckig? Suffixes should be relatively closed classes, don't you learn this in linguistics class?

The suffix editors probably contend that quadriracial has to be analysed as quadri- +‎ -racial. It is quadri- +‎ race +‎ -ial like vierrassig is Rasse (“-ig”), not quadri- +‎ racial. Fay Freak (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I would note that Duden has entries for these. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Keep - Given the umlaut, this is clearly not just a case of -ig. Theknightwho (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

July 2025

Template:adapted borrowing

Per discussion in Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2025/June#Adapted/Unadapted borrowing; the term "adapted borrowing" is confusing and this template is constantly misused. Regardless of whether we keep the "adapted borrowings" category or not (I think we shouldn't, but if we do, we must rename it to something else), this template would become obsolete regardless, because the category would be added by using other etymology templates like {{af}}. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

August 2025

User:DTLHS/WantedPages

Nominating User:DTLHS/WantedPages and subpages. It seems to be last updated in 2016 and no longer very useful. We have more recent user-supplied lists and the live Special:WantedPages. (Notifying @DTLHS.) -- Beland (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

The existence of Special:WantedPages is a canard. Have you looked at it? It would be better to delete it were it not part of the basic MediaWiki software. Maybe it is good to have it as a bad example. DCDuring (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Keep all. If a version of WantedPages that excludes certain pages is wanted, then a user can set that up with basic scripting. The pages are useful if only to get a sense of how many wanted pages have become created since them. There are too many new and old maintenance pages to attempt to clean "clutter" from WantedPages by occasionally nominating deletion of them. Hftf (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we need some tools for basic hygiene of such lists. I occasionally comment out old wanted lists on my user subpages. They can then be uncommented-in if I want to, for example, review progress. A tool for removing blue-links from wanted-page listings might be useful. Also, a tool for removing redlinks for items that have failed RfD or RfV. I don't know whether this would be simple if we want to be specific about L2 sections.

I find that links from user pages clutter up and distort search results, which often appear in descending order of incoming links. Would it be possible to reversibly comment out a single user page and, better, all subpages of a given user page? This could address many instances of this problem without completely eliminating any potential utility of the subpages. Eventually pages which no one finds useful could be deleted, using this page to solicit keep advocates.

If a user has not been active for some number of years (3?, 5?, more?), this page might be useful to determine whether the pages were still in use. DCDuring (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

How exactly do you find that search results appear in order of incoming links? In my experience after relevance, pages appear in order of page creation id, so pages created earlier in history tend to show up first, and this would maybe be correlated with links. Hftf (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe that this search illustrates. Perhaps this only occurs where there are lots of search results? I can certainly force it by specifying the order. DCDuring (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Another reason I have for keep: finding these interesting pages at the bottom of WhatLinksHere helps my discovery of them and other interesting words. Hftf (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - about time Vealhurl (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Delete as obsolete and cluttering WhatLinksHere (I have no problem with it being recreated with fresh data, of course).

(As a general remark I would say that any list of this type is fairly useless without breaking down the results by language, as User:Jberkel/lists/wanted does. However, I'm not sure if Jberkel's lists include pages linked using [[plain wikilinks]].) This, that and the other (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Comment: One reversible way of decluttering entries' Whatlinkshere would be to blank (but not delete) this page; anyone interested in its contents can then find them in the edit history and preview old revisions to see what links are still red. this would also work for the pages nominated below. - -sche (discuss) 21:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't be opposed to that either. This, that and the other (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

A "blanked-page" template with boilerplate explaining how to view the page and allowing for a comment or parameters explaining the content, date page content last modified (before blanking), and, perhaps, size of the page would make it less mysterious and allow for some kind of census of such pages. DCDuring (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

RFD-resolved by blanking the subpages of this page to remove their entries from WhatLinksHere. This, that and the other (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Robert Ullmann/Missing

Nominating User:Robert Ullmann/Missing and subpages. These were last updated in 2009, and randomly checking shows that a significant fraction have been taken care of in ways that don't make blue links. It would be a lot of work just to delete the ones that don't need attention anymore, so it would probably be best to concentrate work on a more updated dump. There's a bunch at Wiktionary:Redlink dumps, including a page that's updated in real time. The maintainer of this list is sadly deceased, so there is little prospect of it being refreshed. (Notifying most recent users: @BD2412, DCDuring, John Cross, Equinox, G23r0f0i) -- Beland (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• I would tend towards keeping this, in part for its historical value, and in part for some measure of potential utility. While it is true that it is long-unmaintained, the lists there do contain red links worth examining, and specifically red links that are or were linked from other articles. If the list could be merged somewhere so that those could still be examined, that would also be fine, but then the merge target would have whatever dross is included. bd2412 T 01:11, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

As a general principle I think we should err towards deleting very old maintenance lists, as they clutter up WhatLinksHere but are normally useless for actual maintenance activities due to their age. "Historical value" does not seem like a good reason to keep utilitarian word lists like this.

However, in this particular case I can accept that there is still some "potential utility". For instance, ditchmoss may be (just about) attestable, and even though *derogatability is a non-standard form, we somehow still lack the easily-attested standard form derogability after all these years. This, that and the other (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to reversibly "comment out" subpages of a User page. I find that the biggest problem with such pages is that they clutter up What Links Here and thereby distort the order in which many searches display pages. If I have something that appears on 10 different Missing Taxa pages, it is likely to be very near the top of any search on which it appears. DCDuring (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@DCDuring one approach would be to replace regular wikilinks with external links. (This would prevent the OrangeLinks gadget from working, though.) This, that and the other (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

That would not work for templated links (eg, via {{taxfmt}}, {{vern}}), but would work for most user pages which only have plain links. In particular, it would probably work for most of Ullmann's pages. It would add ~25 bytes per link, 125K for a page of 5,000 links. The Ullmann pages in question may not even total much more than that. DCDuring (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

There are other user subpages that generate large number of duplicative hits, by repeatedly doing dump runs that have a lot of repeats of redlinks. (I have been guilty.) These pose a bigger problem for me than Ullmann's remaining pages because they are often much larger than Ullmann's and can have many repeat links, which corrupt the incoming links sort order. DCDuring (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - about time Vealhurl (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

User:RJFJR/WTconcord

This was last updated in 2007, and many of the remaining complaints are incorrectly capitalized, are sum-of-parts hyphenated phrases, or are no longer used in other pages. It would be good to concentrate effort on more updated versions that handle non-ASCII characters better, like Wiktionary:Spell check/most wanted. (Notifying previous users: @RJFJR, BD2412, DCDuring, Scs) -- Beland (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - about time Vealhurl (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Keep the page - I don't feel comfortable about deleting someone else's user page in circumstances where there is content beyond a simple word list. But delete the actual list of words from the page, to avoid cluttering WhatLinksHere. The list can still be viewed in the page history if wanted. This, that and the other (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

This user was active within the last few days over on Wikipedia if anyone wants to ping him to ask if he minds this being deleted (I notice that in more recent years he was using the centralized requested-entries pages) or wants to update it to fix the link targets etc. - -sche (discuss) 20:42, 24 August 2025 (UTC) (I belatedly see OP's post included a ping)

I left an invitation to participate in this discussion on his talk page. DCDuring (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

RFD-resolved by removing the list from the page and adding a note inviting users to look in the page history to find it. This, that and the other (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Rhymes:English/aɪtwɒʃ

Category:Rhymes:English/aɪtwɒʃ/2 syllables

Not seeing any likelihood of there being other terms that rhyme with whitewash. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. Meh. I suppose the more general question is whether we should allow rhymes categories by default, for all (or at least all 1 or 2 syllable) words regardless of whether they currently seem to rhyme with anything else. I can see some benefit to that, in that when more rhyming words are added, the category is automatically populated with all of them, in contrast to a situation where we remove the template and categorization from this entry and then someone else has to later actively notice that this entry's rhyme is suppressed and un-suppress it when they come along and create an entry for a rhyming word like lightwash (used in relation to denim) or rightwash (currently only attested online, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], but will it be used in books/magazines/newspapers in time? who knows). - -sche (discuss) 20:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@-sche: I think we should require at least two rhyming terms to already exist before allowing the creation of rhymes pages and categories. — Sgconlaw (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I think we should keep rhymes categories even when there is only one entry, for the reason set forth by -sche. Delete the Rhymes namespace page though. This, that and the other (talk) 10:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

September 2025

Template:folklore, Category:Terms with origins in folklore by language

The template generates "Folklore says" and adds 11 entries to the category; AFAICT this is not how we usually handle such etymologies, they are usually presented in other ways (often as "folk etymology"), without any special categorization (e.g. the etymology of Մարալիկ, or the etymology of Israel being "wrestles with God"). (Noticed this due to CLTR.) - -sche (discuss) 06:31, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: I agree. Folk etymologies are, by definition, not true etymologies. We shouldn't be categorizing them. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  I don't get the logic. We have "common misspellings" and obsolete terms and definitions that are categorized. The term "folk etymology" is not used systematically in etymologies, so it does not guarantee a focused result for someone looking for such things for a given language. Wouldn't we want to encourage use of such a template and associated category? The study of "error" and failures is of considerable interest in linguistics as in other fields, I thought. DCDuring (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  Hmm; interesting question. Maybe, maybe not. AFAICT we usually present correct etymologies (as best we can) without mentioning incorrect ones or folk etymologies, unless the folk etymologies are so common that we need to rebut them, like at fuck, so if someone is interested in all folk etymologies in a given language ... we exclude most of them. OTOH, (especially) when there is no accepted etymology, only a 'folk' explanation of the name as deriving from some word or phrase (as in the entries using this template, or Մարալիկ, or Montevideo), we mention that, so perhaps it would be useful to have some kind of template or category for that. What would be a good name and display-text for such a template and category? Not "Terms with origins in folklore by language", IMO. "Common folk etymologies by language"? - -sche (discuss) 15:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that the current title would not be satisfactory. Your suggestion seems good to me.

  I am uncertain about what the criteria for such a use of {{folklore}} or {{folkloreety}} should be. Would we want to include plausible, but disprovable, etymologies that are not "popular"? If we would, then {{falseety}} might be a better template title. Should at least the not-so-popular etymologies be placed on the talk page, just like RfVed and RfDed definitions, with a template located there? Even the "popular" ones could reside on the talk page with a link from the etymology section. Removing provably false etymologies might beneficially shorten some long etymology sections. I am under the impression that Anatoly Liberman's latest book suggests "origin unknown" should be more widely used. DCDuring (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@-sche @DCDuring @Sgconlaw

As the creator of the template, I would like to clarify: it is NOT talking about "folk etymology" in the glossary sense. That template denotes etymologies that are part of folklore (i.e. stories (emphasis here) passed down thru generations). This is often the case for place names (and in personal experience, most Cordilleran places have such etymologies in their native languages that are essential to be written down for cultural preservation). — 🍕 Yivan000 ^view_talk 11:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

If the objective is merely preservation, then the folkloric etymology could go on the talk page. Putting it in the etymology section is a way of promoting an aspect of the culture involved, possibly at the expense of other Wiktionary objectives. DCDuring (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

No it is not. Place name etymologies and folktales are often intertwined in (Philippine) oral history. — 🍕 Yivan000 ^view_talk 08:47, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

OK, I am considering withdrawing this RFD and refiling this at RFM (to discuss possible better names for the template and category), if it seems like the concept is desired by people. Before I do that, I'd like to more fully understand what the intent of the template is. @Yivan000, can you clarify whether these etymologies are correct (scholarly sources accept that these are the actual origins of these names), or uncertain or incorrect? For comparison, in some Native American languages, some places have names that look like they are derived from the language's words for "water falls down there" or such . . . and they do derive from that, that's the actual origin of the name, so it would not make sense to use any kind of "folklore says it's from X" template, because it's not just folklore, it is the etymology. On the other hand, if these are uncertain or incorrect etymologies (the real origin of the names is something else), which seems like it might be the case given that e.g. Mankayan provides two different theories and neither seems to be a perfect phonological match (they just seem close enough to be folk etymological interpretations), then (among other things) this is not a case of "Terms with origins in folklore", it's something more like "Terms with folk etymologies" and the category needs to be renamed. - -sche (discuss) 16:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I base my {{folklore}} etymologies on published accounts of these stories, whether it is published online or when I find them while browsing the library (example: see {{R:Baguio Barangays}}). Most of the time, these are the only accounts of their etymologies, wherein the most complete story is usually from the elders of the residents, which is then written on paper. More often than not, the physical resources that I find are hard to find online, and so I deemed it fit to reference them and make that written knowledge findable online.

Since these are stories from their rich oral histories, there is guaranteed to be differing versions but will end up to the same place name. A good example would be Dacudac.

I think that Ambiong is a good example for that distinction that you are referring to between the folklore etymology and the etymology etymology. Both are important to note IMO, especially for indigenous languages.

Note that in the Philippine context, place name etymologies are one of the things that is mixed in with folktales/myths and oral history, and is an active area of research.

I have fixed the etymology Mankayan to follow official publsihed sources.

— 🍕 Yivan000 ^view_talk 08:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Could the template be applied to the etymology of volcano? Why or why not? DCDuring (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

What would you use it to say on volcano? - -sche (discuss) 21:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Template:ast-decl-adj

Duplicates information in the headword with no benefit; only 57 transclusions. Ultimateria (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Appendix:Middle English declension

While I believe a appendix on Middle English nominal declension would be greatly beneficial, the inaccuracy and incompleteness of what exists renders it worse than nothing. As a quick example, various (nominative/accusative) plural types not encompassed by the "two declensional patterns" given are easy to find (e.g. childre (“children”), eyen (“eyes”), hors (“horses”), ky (“cows”)) even in Northern Middle English, which underwent the most throughgoing simplification of the old Germanic declensional system. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 07:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete, also ancient (2009). I agree that we should just blow it up and start again (or defer to Wikipedia). This, that and the other (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

October 2025

Template:yi-prefix

Yiddish. Not useful. Thadh (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The only two uses - at אויסברעכן (oysbrekhn) and דערעסן (deresn) - generated the same output as {{prefix}}, so I replaced them. I didn't notice until checking after the fact that {{yi-prefix}} adds the (now empty) category Category:Yiddish verbs with separable prefixes. Do we need that? Separable prefixes are an aspect of grammar that Yiddish shares with German, but we seem to do fine without an equivalent category for that language. This, that and the other (talk) 06:36, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Languages with more than one grammatical gender

This page has been proposed for cleanup ages ago, and it seems like there was a general agreement in the talk page to get rid of it. As it is, I don't think there's any need to retain any of the content, and it can just be deleted wholesale. Its name is misleading, and its contents are somewhat confusing and redundant. Aamri2 (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Wiktionary:LDL/Link_Guide

The page duplicates information at Wiktionary:Tutorial (Wiktionary links), which I decided to just link to directly from the project page. It doesn't seem necessary to have a duplicated version of this information for this project, and could lead to confusion if the project version isn't maintained. There aren't any special considerations about links for the LDL project, AFAIK. Aamri2 (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Template:attestation

Seems a totally redundant quote template created by @Eiliv with only 2 uses in the three years since its creation. Was suggested by a member on the discord that this probably qualifies for Speedy Deletion. Akaibu (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete. I don't see the point, just use the quotation templates. Trooper57 (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Benwing2 (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

RFD-deleted and replaced uses with {{Q}}, which offers the same functionality This, that and the other (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

November 2025

Template:R:grc:LSJ.gr

I don't think this makes sense as a reference template in its current form. The LSJ wiki is a fantastic resource for Ancient Greek and Latin dictionaries, because it collates them all together, but we should still be citing those dictionaries. Right now, using this template is a bit like citing Perseus on its own, without giving any info about the specific text. Pinging (Notifying Mahagaja, Sartma, Saltmarsh, Sarri.greek, Rossyxan, FocalPoint, Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, Benwing2, Lambiam, Mnemosientje, Nicodene, Sartma, Al-Muqanna, SinaSabet28, Imbricitor, Urszag; errors): . Theknightwho (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete. To quote @Vahagn Petrosyan on the creator's talk page: May I suggest creating a reference template for www.google.com next? Or, perhaps, {{template:R:Internet}}, outputting: “ἀγκυλίς”, on The Internet (overall work mostly in English), 1983-present. Fay Freak (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Vahag (talk) 10:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep (Further reading only). This is not useful as a reference, sure, but it seems eminently useful for "Further reading" sections. WT:EL says this section is for "simple recommendations of further places to look", and LSJ.gr, as an aggregator of multiple dictionaries, seems to me to be a very logical and highly recommendable "further place to look". Compare the widely used and useful {{R:OneLook}} for English. This, that and the other (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

“Google Books Search”

Is there any reason to keep {{R:GBK}}? Could be not too lazy for talk pages, but then it is not where it is used. It has not been eyed yet because the abbreviation is tellingly weird and one was busy and scared enough by its creator Dan Polansky being combative. If not then delete this too. Fay Freak (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete {{R:GBK}}. There is {{b.g.c.}} for talk pages. This, that and the other (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

The idea behind it seems good, but helpful online corpus searches usually need restriction by collocation. We also have {{googles}}, which would need updating to reflect Google deopping Usenet search capability. DCDuring (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

A template like that is helpful in speeding the closure of RfVs when formatting citations is too time-consuming for the value of the entry. It probably was intended to shame the RfVer for something frivolous. DCDuring (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

December 2025

Template:R:eo:LSV

Esperanto. The website used by this template is another web interface for ReVo, which we already have a template for. TranqyPoo (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:R:eo:Guterman:1932

Esperanto. Pinging creator: @Vininn126. This template refers to a Polish-Esperanto, bilingual dictionary. I propose to delete it because

1. No usage since its creation (~2 years ago)

2. I don't see how a non-English, bilingual dictionary is useful for references on the English Wiktionary.

TranqyPoo (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't really care if it's deleted or kept. Let the Esperanto editors decide if it's useful. Vininn126 (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@TranqyPoo Bilingual dictionaries between a major non-English language and a less major language are definitely useful for the English Wiktionary because they may be the best sources for documenting the less-major language. Many dictionaries and grammars of minority languages in Russia (or the former Soviet Union more generally) are only found in Russian, for example. Benwing2 (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

This can be true, some of the largest Kashubian or Slovincian dictionaries are not based on English. Vininn126 (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Category:Fula usage templates

The usage notes in this category all act as stand-ins for {{tlb}} describing where a term is used. Example of cleanup: diff. Pinging creator @A12n. Ultimateria (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I've taken care of the most straightforward uses of these templates. There are about 50 more complicated pages left. Ultimateria (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Module:ko-link

Orphaned module. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 14:07, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Category:Dutch terms spelled with Ë

The autocat description of this and all similar cats literally reads: "[C]ategories of the form LANG terms spelled with CHAR are intended for characters not part of the standard repertoire of a language". The diaeresis is in fact part of Dutch spelling. It is required to prevent digraphs, and ë in particular is common in both geographical names (including België, a country with Dutch as its official language!) and native Dutch words. As I see it, this category has no right to exist. Steinbach (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Steinbach strictly this should go at WT:CLTR, but I think it's a pretty open and shut case. I assume the situation is identical to that of Category talk:Galician terms spelled with Ï? This, that and the other (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Dealt with at CLTR. This, that and the other (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Rhymes:Spanish/ando

This page is obsolete, since there's already another one with the same purpose (Rhymes:Spanish/ando). It also contains a single word, which itself is obsolete: "quando" (obsolete spelling of "cuando"). Afmein78 (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

What you put in paranthesis above "Rhymes:Spanish/ando" is identical to what you are suggesting that we delete as redundant. You seem confused. You are correct that this page needs to be built out, which is true of literally 99% of the rhyming dictionary here. Deleting this page will not help advance the dictionary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:06, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

You're right. I didn't notice this situacion was this common. My statement was based on the fact that some rhyme pages don't exist in spanish but have their corresponding category (such as -aldo and -ebro), so I thought it should be the case here as well. However, in the case of this page remaining, which words should be put on it? The word "quando" can't be the only word on this page, perhaps it should be removed. Afmein78 (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

If you want a good place to start, you can go to Special:WhatLinksHere/Rhymes:Spanish/ando and if you want to add any of those almost 700 entries, I would be much obliged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

@Koavf: for a language such as Spanish that has a predominantly regular accent and inflectional morphology, there's a lot of overlap between grammatical forms and rhymes. Most of the terms in Category:Spanish verbs ending in -ar have a gerund ending in "-ando", and we tend to concentrate on lemmas to avoid clutter. The English equivalent, "-ing" doesn't have much representation in rhymes categories (even allowing for the accent being outside the ending) because we usually don't have pronunciation in nonlemma entries. It would be better to start with the search for incategory:"Rhymes:Spanish/ando" incategory:"Spanish lemmas", which finds lemmas with the rhyme. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:25, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:script note

third time's the charm. this template should not have been able to survive two RfD's. in the past decade it has not been used anywhere else besides two pages. disregarding the potential usefullness of being able to tell apart homographs (which should be done in {{also}} anyway), this is just a plain old hatnote. in any other circumstance, I would have just speedied this request. Juwan (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:nn-pronu-note

Norwegian Nynorsk.

Content:

<small>([[WT:ANO#Pronunciation|example{{#if:{{{1|}}}|s}}]] of pronunciation)</small>

Usage:

* {{IPA|nn|/²moː.ɳɪŋ/}} {{nn-pronu-note}}

Used on ~1,800 pages. Made hidden by @Eiliv in 2023: Making the template invisible. There’s no reason why Nynorsk in particular should have such a notice. All pronunciations in all languages are examples of pronunciations; it’s not a unique occurrence in Norwegian.

If this template is not wanted, the correct treatment should probably be removal from entries.

—Fish bowl (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete, there's no reason why Nynorsk needs special treatment here. This, that and the other (talk) 09:50, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete. I have been removing the template in any entry I’ve edited so far. It was a strange addition to begin with and it’d be good to have it gone. Eiliv (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:linkify

Translingual. Only used on c. 150 pages in a couple of languages. Does very little and seems to mostly work around buggily written template code. Can easily be replaced with bare links. Benwing2 (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Benwing2 I thought the same too, but I wasn't able to think of an alternative solution (short of full Luafication) in the templates where it's used. Since inflection tables are often written in wikitext, I feel this template has a useful role.

You'll see I expanded the documentation with an example - do you have a wikitext-based alternative for this? This, that and the other (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

What is the benefit of {{linkify}} over just using {{l-self}} directly? Benwing2 (talk) 06:22, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

{{cim-decl-adj/pos}} has {{l-self|cim|is ist [[{{{1}}}]]}} in one of the cells. They want {{{1}}} to be linked, but not "is ist". If {{{1}}} is something like [[one]], [[two]] to try to make the constituent words individually linked, you end up with

is ist [[one, two]]

Eugh! The workaround is to pass one]], [[two as the parameter, which is downright ugly, and risks break things elsewhere in the template if {{l-self|cim|{{{1}}}}} appears in another cell. Using {{linkify}} solves the problem.

Regarding low use, I seem to remember coming across at least one template that would have benefitted from this functionality when cleaning up inflection tables earlier this year, though I can't recall which one it was. This, that and the other (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I see, makes sense. We should clarify in the docs that it's only useful for cases when you use some other text in the call to {{l-self}} along with the {{linkify}} call; your examples show this but we don't state this explicitly. Benwing2 (talk) 07:18, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Just FYI, this is used directly in exactly two places: Template:cim-decl-adj-table and Template:gmw-cfr-decl-adj-table-krj. All the other pages are either templates built from those two (maybe 9 of them), or transclude those secondary templates. If anything is done with this template, it will only require editing the two templates to implement it. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Benwing2: It turns out I was mistaken about one thing: Template:gmw-cfr-decl-adj-table-krj is used directly in a few pages, so those now have module errors from whatever change you just made. The rest of what I said still holds as far as I can tell (I did an "insource" search in the Template and Module namespaces for "linkify" and, aside from comments and variable/function names, those two templates are the only ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Wait- it's actually Template:gmw-cfr-decl-adj-krj1, not Template:gmw-cfr-decl-adj-table-krj. I'm confused... Chuck Entz (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Fixed. {{tcat}} needs to be inside of a <noinclude>..</noinclude> block if it's on a template page, so it doesn't get transcluded into a mainspace page; if it's on a documentation page, that isn't necessary because the doc page is already surrounded by a <noinclude>..</noinclude> block in the template that invokes it. Benwing2 (talk) 08:45, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Previewing the old version of the template in one of the entries shows the reference-template category at the bottom- it was there all along and no one noticed it. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Sobreira/PIE roots g, et al

• User:Sobreira/PIE roots g
• User:Sobreira/PIE roots H
• User:Sobreira/PIE roots h1
• User:Sobreira/PIE roots h2
• User:Sobreira/PIE roots h3
• User:Sobreira/PIE roots pr
• User:Sobreira/PIE roots twy

Full of module errors and misdirect users Googling for these PIE terms. --{{victar|talk}} 22:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

If the pages turning up in Google searches is an issue, they can be marked __NOINDEX__. Module errors in userspace are a non-issue, as the pages do not get placed in CAT:E. This, that and the other (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm always coming across them on Google. __NOINDEX__ works too. --{{victar|talk}} 04:10, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@Sobreira would you consider marking these pages as __NOINDEX__? This, that and the other (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:Photo montage

Template:Image frame

These were copied from Wikipedia in 2024 by @Photosynthetic430. I'm partly to blame for this, as I actually encouraged the user to make the copy (see this GP discussion) - perhaps I didn't know at the time that {{multiple images}} existed.

• {{Photo montage}}, used in 3 entries, is described as being for "grouping several images in an infobox". But we don't have infoboxes. Can this do anything useful that {{multiple images}} can't?
• {{Image frame}}, used in 5 entries, does ... well, I'm not quite sure what. It seems to be a subtemplate of the other one.

Let's stick to a single composite image template, which should be the longstanding and widely-used {{multiple images}}. This, that and the other (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Appendix:Lidepla/Lingwa de Planeta

Parent appendix failed RFD a few years back but subpage survived. Also Appendix:Lidepla/lingwa and Appendix:Lidepla/planeta. —⁠Desacc̱oinṯier 07:29, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete all - no use This, that and the other (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:grc-cite

A simple wrapper for {{Q|grc}}. Can be substituted and deleted. This, that and the other (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:supplementary

This box lists what is, as far as I can tell, a completely random selection of templates. I can't see any possible use in grouping them together. The template categories under Cat:Templates provide a more logical grouping structure. This, that and the other (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Appendix:English dictionary-only terms/zzxjoanw

An entry for English zzxjoanw now exists. —⁠Desacc̱oinṯier 19:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Desaccointier: Why? All the quotes are either mentions or used as a sort of stunt to show off outlandish nonsense from dictionaries and word lists. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that the entry does not qualify per CFI? The quotes on Citations:zzxjoanw appear to pass WT:FICTION to me. —⁠Desacc̱oinṯier 13:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

It's an interesting interpretation to WT:FICTION to consider a dictionary of musical terms a "fictional universe". I suspect @Chuck Entz was merely wondering whether these are genuine uses for CFI purposes.

Here's my view:

• The 1965 cite is utterly borderline. Viewing the sentence alone, the word is arguably used for its meaning - but in the broader context it is functionally a mention of the word itself.
• The 1980 cite is a clear mention.
• I can't find the 2003 cite. It's evidently contrived, but it's not in the same league as Letters to Squire Pedant.
• The 2011 cite - the author spends a whole section discussing zzxjoanw in detail earlier in the book, but since the quoted use of the word is in a totally different section later on, I don't see a reason not to accept it as a use.
• I also can't locate the 2012 cite. It looks to be the clearest use of them all, but it may not be durably archived. @Desaccointier can you provide a URL?

Overall I would be inclined to call it cited on this evidence, but it would be good to verify the 2012 cite first so we can at least make up our minds about whether it's durably archived. This, that and the other (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@This,_that_and_the_other thanks for your input, I’ve now added the IA URL for the 2012 cite. As for the 2003 one, if you look up the ISBN on the Open Library you can find a digital copy to borrow. —⁠Desacc̱oinṯier 18:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I'm not sure that something that just barely squeaks by WT:CFI and has almost all usage pointing to the dictionary entries is grounds for deleting the appendix- for one thing, I doubt anyone could read those passages out loud without looking the word up in a dictionary. I also doubt anyone would use it in a sentence without reference to the dictionary entry. Better to just add a note mentioning and explaining the usage. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

User talk:79.73.179.78/meaning of life

Someone's dumb userpage. Probably Wonderfool's when they were just a cis-man living in Stoke-on-Trent. Vealhurl (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)