Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others

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

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for deletion/Others

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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


June 2013[edit]

Lots of templates by User:Sae1962[edit]

Propose deleting the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

January 2014[edit]

{{hangulization of}}[edit]

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

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

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

Orphaned and deleted. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Template:en-ing form of[edit]

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

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

April 2014[edit]

Category:English noun forms[edit]

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

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

Category:WC and its language subcategories[edit]

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

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

May 2014[edit]

Template:definite and plural of[edit]

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

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

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

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

June 2014[edit]

July 2014[edit]

Template:dynamic list[edit]

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

August 2014[edit]





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

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

Keφr 15:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:Caucasian languages[edit]

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

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

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

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

Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries[edit]

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

Delete Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries, Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries/A and the other subpages. Note, however, that many of the discussions linked from there are not found on talk pages; e.g. macrocosmus has empty Talk:macrocosmus; curiously enough, macrocosmus is at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Archives/2007/03 anyway. If this gets deleted, remove a link to it from {{rfv-failed}}. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I see no harm in keeping it until everything from it is moved to talk pages. Though of course it should be eventually deleted. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant The harm is in increasing the entropy of the web site for very little benefit. For instance, {{rfv-failed}} currently links the reader to Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries as if this page were of any import. Having very old discussions on talk pages is inessential since they can be found in RFV and RFD page histories by looking by the date of deletion. In case of doubt, a deleted page can be restored and sent to RFD anew. Originally, I hesitated to support, but I now see immediate deletion as the best course of action. I do not think it worthwhile to wait until someone spends their resources (time, attention) to ensure that all discussions linked from Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries are copied to talk pages. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
This seems a lot like deleting the record of judicial decisions. In a common-law country such decisions certainly reflect efforts to interpret and apply laws and principles to situations not contemplated when the principles and laws are articulated and passed. Our decision-making is similar. Erasing convenient history seems to me to be a mistake, making investigation of our decision-making limited to those who can manipulate the edit history in XML dumps. I am aware of no such efforts. As it is, there is no effort to record speedy deletions and no ready means of accessing whatever record the wiki software retains.
More desirable would be a more systematic record of ALL deleted terms, at least via the RfD process, and a link to the current location of the discussion. Even better would be to make sure that there was a copy of the discussion in the talk page corresponding to the entry or definition deleted.
Accordingly, Keep until a more effective means of accessing such decisions and their rationale is implemented. DCDuring TALK 15:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand much of what you are saying. A systematic list of all terms deleted via RFD and archived using the method currently in place (placing dicussions on talk pages) can be found by looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:rfd-failed (2536 pages per AWB) and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:rfd-passed (1892 pages per AWB); ditto for RFV. This gives you an extensive history of discussions of past deletions. They are searchable using Goggle; Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries/A does not give you the text of the discussion, so it does not help searchability. As for terms deleted and not so archived, one only has to take the year and the month of the deletion, and then search in history, using the online wiki functions, no dump processing. Moreover, multiple of these links in Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries/A are broken anyway; e.g. for "adipoli" or Ábraham (never deleted). --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC) I have striken my comment that is worthless. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
At best the coverage of 'what links here' pages covers only a period for which the templates have been applied. It is likely to fall short of complete coverage even during that period due to imperfect implementation. It would not be a surprise to me if someone decided to replace these templates or change or dispense with the archiving process, further fragmenting our readily accessible historical record. I'd favor someone mining these pages to more appropriately archive the discussions of the included deleted items before the pages are deleted. If someone can do so more effectively by instead mining the XML edit history, they should do so.
I suppose it is possible, even likely, that we won't ever have the resources to actually be systematic about much of anything, let alone making sense of our actual practice in deciding to keep or delete entries and definitions. Making some of the history less available doesn't really matter if such history isn't going to be looked at. I have some hope that we will have the resources to do so and would like to preserve anything that might help. DCDuring TALK 17:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep (roughly per DCDuring). Many of the discussions linked to from the nominated pages are only in old revisions of pages (the links on the nominated pages are to oldids). There is no other way to access those.​—msh210 (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Ladino headword-line templates[edit]

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

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

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

Category:Ladino numbers[edit]

Category:Ladino terms by semantic function[edit]

Category:Ladino terms by usage[edit]

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

Kept as no one is saying to delete them.​—msh210 (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:zh:Variant pronunciations[edit]

Category:cmn:Variant pronunciations[edit]

Category:zh-cn:Variant Pronunciations[edit]

Category:zh-tw:Variant Pronunciations[edit]

Category:Mandarin variant pronunciations[edit]

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

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

Template:Unicode:Hindu-Arabic script[edit]

Template:Unicode:Katakana script[edit]

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

Category:English words prefixed with Palestino-[edit]

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

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

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

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

Template:Quercus Hypernyms/documentation[edit]

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

January 2015[edit]

Index:English and subpages[edit]

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

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

Appendix:Finnish numerals[edit]

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

Category:English vyadhikarana compounds[edit]

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Category:IPA pronunciations with repetition[edit]

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

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

February 2015[edit]

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

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

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

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


Not used. Category:English leet is enough.

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

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


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

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

March 2015

Appendix:Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil[edit]

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

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


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

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


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

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

April 2015[edit]


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

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

Deleted.​—msh210 (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikisaurus:moon of Uranus[edit]

Wikisaurus:moon of Haumea[edit]

Wikisaurus:moon of Jupiter[edit]

Wikisaurus:moon of Mars[edit]

Wikisaurus:moon of Saturn[edit]

Wikisaurus:moon of Neptune[edit]

Wikisaurus:moon of Pluto[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


FIRST possible conjugational paradigm,

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

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

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

SECOND possible conjugational paradigm,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOURTH possible conjugational paradigm,

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

This template is cacophonic and ambiguous

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

FIFTH possible conjugational paradigm,

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

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

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

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

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

Optimum verbal paradigm of ABOLIR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In as much of what I have been made aware:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

May 2015[edit]

Template:short form of[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

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

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Keep. (Changing my vote again…) {{l/la}} is needed on WT:RE:la/L&S because the number of required transclusions leads to module errors when using {{l|la}} (i.e., the {{l}} template works fine up to inscriptilis, but from inscrutor onward all one gets are module-error messages). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym: If it's only for one page, we can just use normal links. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Metaknowledge. —CodeCat 03:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge, CodeCat: Not really, because I specifically changed the plain double-bracket links on that page to use {{l/la}} to make use of the OrangeLinks gadget. That's moot now, however, because Chuck Entz has moved and split the lists over subpages, so that the numbers of transclusions on each of the pages are now sufficiently small that they can be handled with {{l|la}} without generating module errors. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym But why wouldn't you just do that with normal links, as we suggested? zzxjoanw works perfectly well... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@Μετάknowledge: That's not something it was possible for me to do using the replace-all function on Notepad. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym Not anymore. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: What a good idea! (Why didn't I think of that?) Also, thanks for sorting columns on WT:RE:la/L&S/C and WT:RE:la/L&S/D. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Delete. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Appendix:Afrikaans and Dutch Swadesh lists[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Kept. No consensus to delete.​—msh210 (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

June 2015[edit]


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

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

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

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

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

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

Current RFDO discussions:

Older discussion:

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

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

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

Template:filling station[edit]

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

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

Template:User SUL[edit]

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

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

Template:User Wikipedia[edit]

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

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

Template:User unified login[edit]

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

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


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

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

July 2015[edit]


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

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

Template:inflected form of[edit]

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

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

I don't mind renaming it {{de-inflected form of}}, but I do prefer having a single line saying "inflected form of rot" to 26 lines listing every possible form. Either way, the user isn't going to find what they're looking for, but with a single uninformative line at least they realize that fact quickly and can click through to rot to find the inflection table, while with 26 lines, they're going to spend 15 minutes perusing them all trying to figure out which one of those 26 forms they're looking at in their text before giving up and going to the inflection table at rot. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@Angr Kephir did get the number at roten down to 11, which is more manageable.
In any case, I've now started to rename all the German uses to {{de-inflected form of}}, which I just created. There seem to be a few other German-like languages that also use this template, like Luxembourgish and Yiddish. But there's far less entries for those. But I'm thinking, if it's too much to actually show the list of forms, what we could do at least is give them some abstract name. For example, roten would have something like "-en form" and rotes gets "-es form". That way there's a bit more information than just "inflected form of" at least. What do you think of this? —CodeCat 14:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Down to 11 is better. "-en form" and "-es form" is easy to read but not very informative since anyone can see roten ends in -en and rotes ends in -es. It's a little tautological. I suppose what would be ideal would be to repeat the inflection table at the inflected form. (I know we don't normally do that, but we could make an exception.) That way the definition line could just say "inflected form of rot (see table below)" and then the user would open up the table and all the instances of roten would be in bold face and everything else would be a link. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that "-es form" would be stupid. (It would also, AFAICT, be our own idiosyncratic invention; I can't find any references in German or English that use such a designation.) I don't like the idea of duplicating inflection tables, either. I think the idea, previously discussed, of having a line like "inflection of x" and then collapsed subsenses is probably the best balance of übersichtlich ‎(easy to look over) and yet informative. - -sche (discuss) 23:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It would have already implemented the collapsing behaviour if not for a certain editor who claims the sky is falling with everything I do. —CodeCat 23:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems to be a useful template - I don't remember using it, but it would speed up adding word forms. As Aɴɢʀ says above - a one line "form-of" puts the user one click away from an inflection table, and would speed up creating all those inflected forms! If its renamed to {{de-inflected form of}} I would, if I followed that route, have to create an {{el-inflected form of}} !   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 14:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see what it's useful for, other than if you're actually creating form-of entries by hand (why, I don't know) and feel to lazy to give a proper definition. You should use {{inflection of}} for Greek entries. —CodeCat 15:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep for a general use by the editors who prefer these sort of form-of entries that do not indicate which form it is, and merely direct the reader to the lemma with an inflection table. Do not rename to {{de-inflected form of}}. Stop removing the uses of the template. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    • This is not a matter of preference. Form-of entries should always give information about the form. This is the established practice and has been forever. If we want to start allowing editors to put {{inflected form of}} instead of the appropriate definition, whenever editors feel like it, then there should be a consensus and a vote to change the format of form-of entries. —CodeCat 23:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Providing the specific inflected form is not the sole established practice. CodeCat's removal of more than 5000 uses of the template shows otherwise. Even now, the current uses of {{de-inflected form of}} and similar show that there are two practices established. I asked before in a failed vote that CodeCat's bot is debotted, and I ask, somehow in vain I feel, again. CodeCat's bot made changes without consensus; CodeCat's suggestion that the state being changed was somehow forbidden or not supported is denied by verifiable evidence. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    As per https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/MewBot&offset=&limit=5000&target=MewBot, the template was recently used in more than 5000 entries. Now it's largely gone. --Dan Polansky (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep but discourage. It is better to show specific information about an inflected form, but this information is not always known by the editor and there may be other scenarios where it would make sense. --WikiTiki89 11:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Maybe the use of this template could put the entry in a cleanup category alerting editors to the fact that a more specific template is needed. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep per Wikitiki.​—msh210 (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, and I like Angr's idea of doing so with a cleanup category. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Purplebackpack89 23:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Isn't "inflected form of" far too vague in most cases, and use should be discouraged? Is it the lazy way out? Donnanz (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This is a !vote on what should be done with this template. The question of whether or not a !vote that just says "this is a !vote" but doesn't say "delete" or "keep" is a useful !vote can perhaps be answered in the same way as the question of whether or not a template that just says "inflected form of" but doesn't say "dative", "plural", "definite", etc is a useful template. - -sche (discuss) 16:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    @-sche: Umm... what? --WikiTiki89 21:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:English terms spelled with ‐[edit]

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

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


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

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

Keep. It provides a window into slang usage that cannot be achieved otherwise. It is not a substitute for attestation, of course. Some of the definitions are good and some of those rise to the top by user vote. Judgment is required in the deployment of the template, but that's true of most content: definitions, usage examples, lists of synonyms, derived and related terms, templates, lists of cognates, etc. DCDuring TALK 17:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Keep but Urban dictionary is, I believe, user-editable like a wiki. Reference links would only make sense if we can link to a specific revision. Otherwise, the content that has been referenced might well have disappeared in the meantime. So if permalinks are not available, then delete. —CodeCat 17:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
"Like a wiki" is misleading. Anyone can add a new definition of a word (which becomes its own little packet, shown under the headword, with all the others, and pushed up or down by user votes — which of course aren't based on lexico merit but on general popularity or trolling); it's not wiki-like in the real sense, i.e. one person can edit and improve another person's writing. Equinox 22:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, largely per -sche. The above-linked previous discussion features User:JohnC5, User:I'm so meta even this acronym, User:SemperBlotto, User:Dixtosa, and User:DCDuring. AFAIK, Equinox is correct that Urban dictionary posts are not edited by other users or proposed for deletion; they are upvoted and downvoted, with zero use of lexicographical evidence. For the record, the template has currently 0 entries using it in the mainspace (was it depopulated?), and was created on 3 July 2013‎. From what I have seen, Urban dictionary is so full of low-grade content that it is not even worthwhile as an external link AKA "where else would you send me to look at?". Mining Urban dictionary for attestable content is fine (rephrasing needed!), but once we succeed in adding attested content based on UD, we become higher authority than UD via our attesting quotations, and our linking to UD gets superfluous. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete; not a good source for understanding slang usage. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay. As previously stated, I would be fine with this template's deletion as long as it was accompanied by a disallowance of UD as a source. This template should be removed only if we agree that UD should not be cited. Alternatively it could be used for something else than citation (example usage, perhaps?), but it would need to be explicitly removed from the R: namespace. —JohnC5 04:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @John: I don't understand what you mean by disallowing UD as a source. For English, we are not using sources as references to support our definitions. Instead, we require attesting quotations showing terms in use, as per WT:ATTEST and long-term practice. I don't see how an item from UD could be used for attestation given most of it would be mention, not use, in accordance with the current policy and practice. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Currently, we have two clear votes in favour of keeping and two in favour of deleting (three, if we count the nominator). I am not clear on the votes of the following editors involved in the discussions, so I'm pinging them in hopes that they'll make their positions known: @Equinox, JohnC5, I'm so meta even this acronym, SemperBlotto, DixtosaΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: Delete per Dan Polansky and with JohnC5's prerequisite that UD be disallowed as a source. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Re counting the nominator: when I've closed RFDs, I've counted the nominator's position along with the other commenters' positions, since they are after all one of the people saying they think the item is unsuitable. - -sche (discuss) 08:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete, funny but still delete. See also Wiktionary:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense#Urban Dictionary. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210 (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Spanish nouns suffixed with -idad[edit]

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

August 2015[edit]


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

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

Deleted.​—msh210 (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


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

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

Kept.​—msh210 (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Czech entries with audio links[edit]

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

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

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

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

Some Cantonese topic categories[edit]

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


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

  • Delete. It wouldn't even work in its current state, it uses templates we've replaced long ago. —CodeCat 19:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    And yet it was created only 5 months ago. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I wonder why DCDuring did it, then? Was it a migration thing, migrating from an old to a new template, and was intended to be deleted when no longer used? It doesn't matter of course, delete either way. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Ping.​—msh210 (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I was, have been, and remain concerned about the arbitrary revision of our infrastructure to little good end. I foolishly thought that it would be possible and useful to retain the vestiges of older and IMHO more accessible methods in the face of a headlong rush to remove most infrastructure from influence by more or less normal contributors. It seems like the forces of evil have won. DCDuring TALK 00:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

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

September 2015[edit]


This was something User:Daniel Carrero was tinkering with back in 2010, in the days before Lua. A couple of months ago, he deleted it, but then decided to redo it, instead. He's only put it in two entries, but that created 4 useless redlinked categories: Category:English place names, Category:en:Municipalities of São Paulo, Brazil, Category:Portuguese place names, and Category:pt:Municipalities of São Paulo, Brazi. I'd like to kill it before it does any further damage.

The main problem with this template (aside from the hideous rat's-nest of unreadable code inside it), is that it makes it easy to create categories we don't want, and can't use catboiler templates on: if you say "Al's Eat and Get Gas" is a "minimart" in "Bedbug's Elbow" "Kentucky", this combination of parameters will add the category Category:Minimarts of Bedbug's Elbow, Kentucky. Of course, this is an exaggerated example, but this approach basically takes every member of topical categories and makes them into topical categories of their own. This has the potential to create a virtually exponential increase in topical categories, all of which would have to be entered in the same data module as continents, countries, states and provinces. Not only that, but most of these will have very few members, with more complexity but no corresponding increase in usefulness.

I'm not sure if it's a good idea to create categories like Category:English place names, but at least it will take only one addition to a data module to allow {{poscatboiler}} to be used when creating them. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Are going to/should we subdivide placenames by the location of the place as well as the language? DCDuring TALK 14:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz "I'd like to kill it before it does any further damage." It's true that I used that template on Osasco and Guarulhos. I removed it after seeing this conversation. If possible, I would like to keep the template, though. It's largely experimental and after removing it from these entries, I didn't use it anywhere. Using a new template in a couple of entries is just an easily reversible test. Though I admit I left the unfinished template in these two entries for a few months without improving the unfinished template itself. Sorry about that.
(replying to @DCDuring's "Are going to/should we subdivide placenames by the location of the place as well as the language?") For that test, I tried the name Category:en:Municipalities of São Paulo, Brazil. It is a long name. Personally, I kind of like this long name for consistency and clarity purposes. I chose it among a number of possible options, unilaterally, without further discussions, because I had to have something to test. But, by all means, please let's discuss this and see what is actually the best name to use, if any. Points to be considered:
  • We have categories for states of US, like Category:en:Kentucky.
  • Kentucky is a state of US, while São Paulo is a state of Brazil.
  • I didn't count, but apparently there are categories for all states of US, while there are no categories for states of Brazil.
  • Apparently our coverage of entries for cities and towns in each state of the US is comprehensive enough, while maybe entries for cities or municipalities in each state of Brazil are not up to that level of coverage yet. Perhaps that would explain why there are no categories for individual states of Brazil today.
  • I think it is important, for consistency, having either categories for all states of all countries, (if that's feasible) or conversely, having no categories for states of any country.
  • If we have categories for states of both US and Brazil, (and other countries) I think it is important adding the country to the name, so I'd prefer Category:en:Kentucky, USA and Category:en:São Paulo, Brazil, not just Category:en:Kentucky and Category:en:São Paulo.
I've been thinking of maybe adding "Municipalities" or "Cities" like Wikipedia does (w:Category:Cities_in_Kentucky). I've also thought of the possibility "Category:en:Cities and towns of Kentucky, USA" but I understand if that's too much. Maybe just "Category:en:Kentucky, USA" is the best of all, at least in my view.
I really am very interested in the idea of making a template for place names for consistency in entries and categories, so I have spent a lot of time thinking and keeping notes to myself (I only had time to do it in my physical notebook in my spare time, also I'm still bad at Lua and I've been trying to learn it first, that's why I didn't share much of this project until today) about what could possibly be a good system for that, so feel free to ask anything and give any suggestions or criticism. Which leads me to the next point:
"all of which would have to be entered in the same data module as continents, countries, states and provinces." No. I planned using a separate template for categories (possibly named {{place cat}}, which I did not create as of today), so it could recognize the standard format of "Category:xx:Place, Place" or "Category:xx:Places of Place, Place" with minimal code, without the need to have a big module list of every specific category name. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I think that the creation of subcategories should be determined by the extent to which categories get overpopulated with heterogeneous members. To take examples from what I know, The states (and territories etc) of the US seem to constitute a category of acceptable, if somewhat small, size. Counties of New York State would be about the same size, but should not be created IMO until someone actually creates most of the entries the entries, the future members of that category remaining in some category such as Places in New York State. We already suffer from having a large number of categories that have little content, but do contribute to the clutter in Special:WantedPages and, to a much lesser extent Special:WantedTemplates.
That said, the naming conventions for such categories should be established and made to reflect the terms actually used in the countries in which the places are located. That these terms may change from time to time (eg, from shire to county in the UK, or parts thereof) and may not be consistent even contemporaneously (eg, Commonwealth of Virginia, State of New York, District of Columbia, the several territories of the US, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) is tough luck for our category naming, though Category:en:States and Territories of the United States is probably good enough. It would obviously be nice to find some transnational standard system for structuring placenames, but I don't think there is one, as even postal addresses differ significantly by nation (and yet the mail often gets through).
A similar problem exists in "higher" taxonomic names, but there has recently been published a standard hierarchy of names down to the order level, which is a great relief to me, though it does not eliminate the need to define taxonomic names in use, but not in the hierarchy. DCDuring TALK 23:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I've been thinking: I know that with topic categories like Category:en:Communication and and all categories that use {{topic cat}}, new subcategories are created case-by-case. This includes the many geographical categories that are already listed in Module:category tree/topic cat/data/Earth and Module:category tree/topic cat/data/Place names. I don't like the fact that these modules are very messy about country subdivisions; for that reason, I think this system can be improved:
  • It may come off as a bit of nitpicking, but one detail I'd also like to fix is the inconsistency of prepositions of "cities IN Burma" versus "counties OF Norway" in one of the modules. I'd suggest using "OF" in all category names. I'm also calling attention to the fact that a system of place names already exists and is in an untidy situation. I would like to clean it up, if it's possible, that's all. Maybe it's my fault for not explaining it before when I had the chance, but I feel a little hurt by Chuck Entz's statement "I'd like to kill it before it does any further damage." as if I were trying to intentionally break something with a pointless template.
  • "It would obviously be nice to find some transnational standard system for structuring placenames, but I don't think there is one, as even postal addresses differ significantly by nation (and yet the mail often gets through)." Wikipedia uses the following system. I don't think of using this exactly, but using it as a guideline. What do you think? (see w:Category:First-level administrative country subdivisions)
    Category:First-level administrative country subdivisions
    Category:Provinces of Argentina
    Category:States of Austria
    Category:States of Brazil
    Category:Provinces and territories of Canada
    Category:Regions of Italy
    Category:States of Mexico
    Category:States of the United States
    Category:Second-level administrative country subdivisions
    Category:Municipalities of Brazil (since there are hundreds of those, I would rather have "Category:Municipalities of São Paulo, Brazil" and others)
    Category:Counties of the United States
    Category:Municipalities of Uruguay‎
  • "I think that the creation of subcategories should be determined by the extent to which categories get overpopulated with heterogeneous members." About that, I would like to make that call based on groups of categories sharing the same relationship. That is, I support the existence of the whole group of individual categories for individual states of the US in order to make the whole system navigable by separating hundreds of entries for cities and towns, etc. into their proper places. I would not even call into question the possibility of deleting Category:en:Kentucky individually just because it has 98 entries, it does not matter if 98 is a large or small number so long as it is part of the system. For comparison, we have "Category:X nouns" for any language, even in the many cases where the category has only 1 entry. I take your point that we have "a large number of categories that have little content, but do contribute to the clutter in Special:WantedPages and, to a much lesser extent Special:WantedTemplates". I just think that if some categories can be planned to follow a useful and consistent system as a whole, they are useful categories nonetheless, even if there are many cases when the system makes a lot of categories have few entries — particularly in those unavoidable cases where we just have to have many of the same categories for different FLs.
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree with creating categories in advance of need: the existence of a significant population of items that would populate them. First let us categorize what we have at a high, natural level, such as countries. Then the initial subcategories should be created by someone who has an intuitive feel for which categories would add value in accordance with some naming convention, preferably one that has been agree to after a BP (not RFDO) discussion. Folks can categorize into non-existent categories and we can add the categories as needed, based on Special:WantedCategories. If items are categorized into misnamed categories, then that same list will help us find them. We obviously now have created many categories in advance of significant demand, given that only ten categories are wanted by more than ten members and several of those are under discussion aimed at their renaming. Contrast this with Special:WantedPages for which the 5,000th page is wanted by 12 other pages (probably mostly user pages, though often category pages). DCDuring TALK 02:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
@Daniel Carrero: I'm not accusing you of malevolence- you obviously believe in what you're doing, and want to improve things. The problem is that you come up with "solutions" without having a real feel for the actual needs that the solutions are supposed to address. Having a template that's designed to go in every place-name entry which automatically adds categories based on information specific to the entry basically skews everything toward the largest number of categories with the smallest number of members. The result is a whole lot of wasted clicks as people are forced to traverse up the tree to the level that has a meaningful number of branches, and then down again to get from umbrella categories to actual entries again. This is the exact opposite of what categories should be: categories in Wikimedia-based sites are a navigational device, not a classification scheme. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
You are interpreting the template in your own way. I never said: "Hey guys! You know what we needed right now? A template that generates categories like Category:Minimarts of Bedbug's Elbow, Kentucky!" (which is an example of category name you gave) Sorry, but that's ridiculous. And even worse that you are making assumptions about my capacity as a creator of templates and categories based on this. The template is largely unfinished and undocumented, as I said, but if you try to use "type=minimart" even today, it won't generate a category. There are geographical categories that we want (if Module:category tree/topic cat/data/Earth and Module:category tree/topic cat/data/Place names are any indication) and categories that we don't want. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
We are interpreting it in the light of our prior and continuing bad experience with top-down categorization and the suppression of hard categories and bottom-up approaches which are (were in the case of bottom-up categorization) flexible in their wiki-like ability to crowd-source categories. DCDuring TALK 11:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I moved Template:place to User:Daniel Carrero/place. There's no need to RFDO an unused experimental template. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
For the record, we do have Category:en:Place names rather than Category:English place names. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. I am closing this discussion as "deleted"/"failed" for the following reason:

I was creating Template:place, it was unfinished and experimental, and now I've moved the stub to User:Daniel Carrero/place. Also, this RFDO started with erroneous assumptions, i. e., that this template would deliberately be able to create pointless categories like Category:Minimarts of Bedbug's Elbow, Kentucky.

Separately, there's been an effort to create a place name module (Module talk:User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV) which seems to be fully working and does not seem able to create unwanted categories like Category:Minimarts of Bedbug's Elbow, Kentucky.

I'd like to consider the name Template:place up for grabs. If the module uses the name Template:place, I'd like to make it clear the current RFDO discussion is about the old template and not the new template. But the template name for that module has not been decided yet, could be another name.

That said, I am aware that the new module uses the category name system Category:pt:Municipalities of São Paulo, Brazil, a category which I created and populated, so the new template is similar in funcionality to the old template, only revised and finished. Again, if people want the module deleted for some reason, nothing stops you from creating a separate RFD discussion for it. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Index:Mandarin Pinyin/*[edit]

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

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

Template:Pinyin-n, Template:pinyin of[edit]

Unused. 05:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


Unused. This is how all other entries display erhua forms. 05:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Hakka zhuyin and Category:Min Nan zhuyin[edit]

Such things exist, but at this point in time these categories are worthless; the only members are Appendix:Zhuyin script. —suzukaze (tc) 00:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


Barely used, if specific translations are needed {{t-needed}} can be used. DTLHS (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

And maybe Template:treq , which kinda does the same thing --Zo3rWer (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:zh-diacritical mark[edit]

Mandarin has pinyin tones and Min Nan has POJ tones but Chinese characters have no diacritics. —suzukaze (tc) 08:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It could be used for pinyin tones I suppose. Not that I advocate it in particular. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I created this template. I don't speak Chinese; that was just a general effort to standardize and clean up accents in all languages. For that reason, I am willing to cater to actual editors of Chinese and what they think is best.
First of all, IMO deleting this template is a secondary question. The most important question is: Can we have entries for pinyin and POJ tones regardless? Could we keep the Mandarin section, with {{cmn-diacritical mark}} and the entry ¯#Mandarin (compare ¯#Japanese in the same page)? I just ask that we keep information like this, about tidbits of romanization and writing, in their logical places. If we can do that, I'm fine with deleting {{zh-diacritical mark}} as proposed. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I understand that the unified Chinese vote only applies to Han script terms, so keeping {{cmn-diacritical mark}} is fine with me. —suzukaze (tc) 02:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Penutian languages[edit]

Category:Terms derived from Penutian languages[edit]

Category:English terms derived from Penutian languages[edit]

A still-disputed macrofamily. These were apparently created solely for (the etymology of) Yosemite, which I've recategorised under Category:English terms derived from Yok-Utian languages. (We appear to lack a category for w:Miwok languages w:Utian languages specifically.) --Tropylium (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: There are people who consider Penutian to be a language family; and Yosemite is hardly the only word that could have gone into that category. There should be something at this title. Are you arguing that Penutian and Yok-Utian are the same thing? If you are, Penutian should be a soft redirect to Yok-Utian. If you're not, Penutian should be kept. Purplebackpack89 21:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Words are not derived from families, they're derived from particular languages; we use the family-category fallback only in the case of when a word could have been loaned from any of several closely related languages, but the details are not known. "Penutian", however, is such a wide concept (compareable to "Nostratic") that anything that could conceivably go under "terms derived from Penutian" should be primarily categorized under a specific language, and further under a specific established family. At most, the only thing under "Penutian" should be the individual language families the hypothesis encompasses (perhaps as a disambiguation page of sorts).--Tropylium (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
      • @Tropylium, I think you should familiarize yourself further with the way terms are categorized before you continue in your current vein. While you may be establishing why words should not be categorized directly under Category:Terms derived from Penutian languages, you haven't made a case as to why other categories shouldn't be that way. After all, we do have Category:Terms derived from West Germanic languages, Category:Terms derived from West Slavic languages, and Category:Terms derived from Japonic languages, just to name a few really broad ones. Purplebackpack89 22:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
        • In case my point was not made sufficiently clear: we do not categorize anything at all in disputed or hypothetical language family categories. Unlike West Germanic, West Slavic or Japonic (which are all actually fairly narrow language groups, not "really broad"), the Penutian hypothesis (which groups together dozens of language families of western North America) is not at a level of being generally accepted, and therefore should not be present at all in our category system. --Tropylium (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) There's some mainstream agreement that some of the parts are probably valid, but not about the whole. Yok-Utian is the highest-level node containing Miwok that mainstream linguists would probably be comfortable with- though even that is far from proven. The problem with Penutian is that there have been so many configurations set forth over the years that it's hard to say what it is, exactly.
        • As for things like West Slavic and West Germanic, those are sub-nodes of well-accepted trees, so they at least provide the benefit of dividing them up into more manageable pieces. Penutian is a top node (except for proposals from those who claim everything is related), so it needs to have some validity. Japonic is a top node (though Altaicists would disagree), but it's a pretty solid one.
        • While we're lecturing people about the way terms are categorized, I should point out that redirects (soft or hard) aren't a very useful concept as far as categories go. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
          • They seem to be useful enough for Wikipedia and Commons to use them (though I know we have a habit of ignoring best practices of other projects). You saying they aren't useful is coming at it from people getting to categories from entries. If people type in the name of a category directly, it does make sense to have soft redirects there. (Right now, you may be thinking,"but why would anybody type in the name of a category?" In this case, it would be to answer the question "How many words in LANGUAGE X are derived from LANGUAGE Y", or "Which words in LANGUAGE X are derived from LANGUAGE Y?") Purplebackpack89 15:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
            Wikipedia does not "use" Penutian as a regular language family. It has an article w:Penutian languages discussing the hypothesis, and a corresponding category w:Category:Penutian languages, but all the component families are categorized as independent units under w:Category:Language families, while Penutian itself is rather found under w:Category:Proposed language families. I suppose we could do something similar, though.
            I am regardless quite skeptical about a question like "what words (in English/whatever) derive from Penutian?" even coming up commonly, and given that "Penutian" is not even a concept with an agreed-upon definition, I do not see it as our business to attempt answering such a question. --Tropylium (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
            It most certainly is our business to answer questions such as those! If it wasn't, we might as well delete ALL "terms derived from" categories. Purplebackpack89 15:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
            I keep repeating myself, but since this does not seem to be getting thru to you: there is no agreement on what languages even are "Penutian", which is a fundamental obstacle to categorizing things as "Penutian" or "derived from Penutian". You cannot ask that we accept it by-default, since there is no default view that could possibly be accepted. If you want to keep around a Penutian category, at the absolute least you will have to argue what exactly you want it to encompass. --Tropylium (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
            @Tropylium For one, you've been making such specious other arguments, I've been so busy responding to them that I haven't had time to get to that. Secondly, since you're the one claiming that the category needs to be defining, maybe you should be the one burning oil to define it. Since you've found the Wikipedia category for Penutian languages, the least you could have done is looked in that category to see what languages are in it. That being said, potential languages for this category include: Chinook, Coosan, Klamath, Konkow, Maidu, Miluk, Miwok, Molala, Nez Perce, Ohlone, Sahaptin, Siuslaw, Utian, Wintuan and Yokuts. Purplebackpack89 18:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - -sche (discuss) 20:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Really? The nominator's "argument" has been pretty well discounted above. Purplebackpack89 21:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
In your opinion. I would say your arguments have been discounted above. You're much more vehement and full of sure of yourself, but conviction and vehemence don't win arguments, logic and facts do. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz@-sche The main argument for deletion is the OP believes that the language family is not legitimate or definable. He asked me, when the category is kept, what languages should be included in it. I gave a list of languages that could be included, so that's that argument gone. The OP has yet to provide a policy reason that disputed language families should be deleted; a few have been created and kept. Purplebackpack89 01:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Giving a list of languages that could be included does nothing to address the uncertainty that he was alluding to: if I were to invent a category of "things that have sgrelm", and say that fish, brass nozzles and sand could all be included, that isn't a defense against the argument that my category is nebulous. Oh, and by the way: Utian isn't a language. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, should be uncontroversial, because it should be kept without people like you saying it should be deleted. Purplebackpack89 02:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]

Appendix:List of unattested Irish words[edit]

This list is empty since Irish was made an LDL needing just a single mention of a word to qualify for inclusion. In the unlikely event this list is needed later, it can be re-created, but in the meantime it isn't doing anything useful. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Speedied. It was just an empty appendix. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


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

Note: According to [[template talk:defn]], we've kept this twice as "no consensus".​—msh210 (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep for the reasons covered in the earlier discussions.​—msh210 (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, my initial reaction is to say: delete per nom. But merging it into {{rfdef}} would flood the category that rfdef places entries into (rfdef seems to be deployed only on entries people specifically want defined, whereas defn was apparently deployed semi-automatically on a huge set of Chinese characters). - -sche (discuss) 00:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
They already categorise the same way. —CodeCat 00:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I think as they stand they're near-identical. During past rfd's they had different parameters and categorization so a redirect wouldn't work whereas it would now. I'd honestly just delete this. The Han characters already have Category:Han characters needing common meanings which rfdef supports, so fears of an inundation of Han characters are unfounded. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


Redundant to Wikisaurus:juoppo, which I created based on Wikisaurus:drunkard/translations back in 2009‎. The convention of having non-English entries in Wikisaurus under the language-specific headwords has now been used by many Portuguese and multiple Polish entries and seems well established. This page, using an alternative convention, can be deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

November 2015[edit]

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

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

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

Category:Autonomous oblasts of Russia[edit]

Overly specific. This and subcategory Category:en:Autonomous oblasts of Russia should be upmerged to Category:Oblasts of Russia and Category:en:Oblasts of Russia, respectively. Purplebackpack89 21:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. --WikiTiki89 22:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support (and I'm not averse to further merging as Ungoliant has suggested in the BP). - -sche (discuss) 22:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


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

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