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 deletion
add new | history | archives

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

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/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, 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


April 2014[edit]

Category:WC and its language subcategories[edit]

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

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

May 2014[edit]

Template:definite and plural of[edit]

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

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

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

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

  • Can we have this deleted per consensus? Result from above: Delete: CodeCat, Dan Polansky, Aɴɢʀ, -sche, Renard Migrant; Keep: Purplebackpack89, Ready Steady Yeti. Not perfectly clear: Donnanz (seems pro-deletion), Keφr (seems pro-deletion). --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Since this doesn't seem to be resolved, I would like to add that I, too, would like to Keep this template, or, alternatively, {{da-definite and plural of}} (or some other wording), if those editing Norwegian do not want to use this. This is one form which happens to be used in places that some other languages like German use different forms for. There is no reason to treat them as separate forms.__Gamren (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
These are conceptually very different forms with different roles; why should we conflate them? Simply because they are homographic? - -sche (discuss) 08:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 08:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
We should keep the template, in some form and by some name, because it represents one form! Please listen to one who speaks this language, and if you do not trust my judgment, then ask someone else. Your assessment that these are "conceptually different" is quite subjective and probably influenced by your having other languages as your reference frame. You ask me why I conflate them; I ask you why you separate them. I find your decision to be rash and ill-advised.__Gamren (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed with User:Gamren. You may not be knowledgable enough in Danish to fully understand what he and I are talking about, @User:-sche, but it is silly to put two separate definitions for one form. The -e form (or whatever else) is always the same, "definite singular and indefinite plural of", there is never a case in Danish where there are two distinct forms for definite singular and indefinite plural for adjectives. I think this should page should be revived, as it was a rash decision made by an admin who appears to have little knowledge of the language, and the people who did oppose this deletion were all fairly knowledgable of the language. The rationale was to "clear up bandwidth or search space" or whatever, but in this case it's irrational. I say we create a new, Template:da-definite and plural of and Template:da-adj-2 (as a shortcut template). In fact, I'd be willing to say that we should go back and change all of the existing entries that have two definition lines, because they're not separate definitions, they are just different ways of saying the same form. Philmonte101 (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The fact that definite singular and indefinite plural are always identical in Danish is irrelevant. They're grammatically distinct and it makes no linguistic or lexicographical sense to have a template for this random set of forms. {{inflection of}} even allows us to put disparate forms on a single line, so you can even write {{inflection of|XYZ||def|s|and|indef|p|lang=da}} and get the exact same output, without the need for a template that can only be used in one language. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
From what I gather, it's the definite form in singular and plural. Basically, there is "the" definite form, for all genders and numbers, while the indefinite forms differ by gender/number. —CodeCat 22:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • We're talking about adjectives here, not nouns. I said the wording was too vague back in 2014, which it was. I don't see any need to resurrect the template, unless the wording (which appears in the entry) is made more precise - "definite singular and plural of" a certain adjective. The definite singular and indefinite plural of nouns are never the same. DonnanZ (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Who said anything about nouns? And if it is not clear, I have no objection whatsoever to a rename.
Angr, you say that it makes no lexicographical sense, but Nudansk Ordbog, Den Danske Ordbog and Retskrivningsordbogen, to take three prominent dictionaries, all follow this convention. Different languages make different distinctions, and what makes "lexicographical sense" varies from language to language. That a template can only be used for a few languages is not a good argument that it should be deleted.__Gamren (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
It makes no sense when you can achieve exactly the same result with a cross-linguistic template we already have. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I was trying to say that the template could be restored, as long as it is made to read "definite singular and plural of" in the entry. This happens with {{neuter of}} and {{definite of}}, reading "neuter singular of" and "definite singular of" respectively. DonnanZ (talk) 11:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@ User:Angr, You ask why an extra template should be here. But the question is, why are you so paranoid about one extra template? I mean what do you think, that the entire Wiktionary site is gonna get a virus in its FTP if one extra template is added to the site? I don't think "delete all the even slightly inconvenient (for some people templates is a good argument at all. Philmonte101 (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@ User:Angr, sure I don't have any opposition to Template:inflection of, but it's not my personal preference most of the time, and to say the least, a lot of users here don't prefer it. This is exactly what I was telling you guys in the Template:neuter singular of deletion discussion. Philmonte101 (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]



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

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

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

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

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

  • Keep, and thereby make old revisions more legible. I don't object to deprecating the templates. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
You could use that reason to keep anything that's ever had a link to it. I think it's a terrible idea. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I could use that reason to keep any template that was ever very widely used. And that is a good reason. It helps keep old page revisions legible. Very widely used templates should be deprecated, not deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Just noting that Template:ttbc is still used by ~1450 pages. - -sche (discuss) 01:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Just noting that it is still used by 1292 pages. - -sche (discuss) 18:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
1213 now. —Enosh (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • For the record: Template {{trreq}} was deleted by Kephir on 10 January 2015. Per above, the deletion seems to be supported by Kephir and less explicitly by -sche, CodeCat and Renard Migrant; it is opposed by Purplebackpack89 and Dan Polansky (me). --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]





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

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

Keφr 15:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep per "No single replacement for these" Purplebackpack89 17:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    Delete. @Purplebackpack89 I think you misunderstood. There is "no single replacement" for the ugly hacks module, but the nominated templates have already been replaced by the ugly hacks module. --WikiTiki89 17:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    No, @Wikitiki89, I understood that. I've come to the position that it's a bad idea to outright delete templates, as it confuses editors who don't follow RFD/O too much. Purplebackpack89 18:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    The argument you gave in you first post contradicts that, but at least now you made a reasonable one. I still disagree because these templates are only used by expert template programmers, who will have no trouble adapting. These are not the kind of templates like {{head}} or {{context}} that everyone uses all the time. --WikiTiki89 23:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, no reason to keep if they're orphaned and not needed. —CodeCat 17:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Template:isValidPageName is a very useful template to use when authoring other templates, and not everyone who will want to author a template knows Lua. If we delete template:isValidPageName, I very strongly recommend that (a) the deletion summary indicates what can be used instead (viz module:ugly hacks) and (b) module:ugly hacks have good documentation on how to use its functions in templates. (No comment/vote on the proposed deletions.)​—msh210 (talk) 06:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep all. If you want people to stop using them, edit their documentation to point to an alternative way of achieving what they were intended to achieve. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • RFDO kept for no consensus: 3 for deletion, 2 for keeping, 1 for being careful and providing a good replacement and documentation. If new people arrive soon who want to delete this, we can reopen this discussion, otherwise it gets archived. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Not so soon but delete. —Enosh (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]


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

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

February 2015[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

  • Keep As I've said before, there's no point deleting these sorts of templates. They simply serve as redirects to reduce typing and make it easier for people to remember all the templates systematically . Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Having less of these templates makes it easier for people to remember all the templates. Right now, it's not obvious whether someone should be using {{ka-con}} or {{head|ka|conjunction}}. —CodeCat 20:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    Yes. I think we should make a ruling that dedicated templates must only be created when they require more (or language-specific) features than {{head}}. But, yeah, it's too late xD--Dixtosa (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per CodeCat. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Keep, because less typing, and because it fits with the general practice of having a template for each language/POS combination, regardless of whether extra parameters are needed. I don't agree that either way is particularly more easy to remember.__Gamren (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

April 2015[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


FIRST possible conjugational paradigm,

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

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

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

SECOND possible conjugational paradigm,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOURTH possible conjugational paradigm,

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

This template is cacophonic and ambiguous

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

FIFTH possible conjugational paradigm,

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

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

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

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

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

Optimum verbal paradigm of ABOLIR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In as much of what I have been made aware:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Performance was the entire reason for the existence of all of the l/ templates: at the time, the {{l}} template was causing serious perfomance problems in larger pages. Now that it's been switched over to Lua, that's not as much of an issue, but there are still a few huge index pages where I've swapped out l for l/ templates to fix module errors from overrunning the allowed module-execution time. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I imagine it could be removed from the main namespace and used only in appendices. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Note that these specific templates do not have all the capabilities of {{l}}. For example, they lack gloss parameter.
Also, for only few pages that are {{l}}-intensive we can use {{User:ZxxZxxZ/l-list}}--Dixtosa (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Somewhat hilariously, a lot of these templates call {{l}} directly (see {{l/ty}} for a specific example). So they now do the very thing they were created to avoid. Even worse, because they call l but don't allow all its parameters, so they're literally worse than useless. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Now unused delete. —Enosh (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2016 (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)

June 2015[edit]


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

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

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

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

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

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

Current RFDO discussions:

Older discussion:

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

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

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

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

Template:User SUL[edit]

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

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

Template:User Wikipedia[edit]

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

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

Template:User unified login[edit]

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

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


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

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

July 2015[edit]


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

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

August 2015[edit]

Index:Mandarin Pinyin/*[edit]

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

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

November 2015[edit]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Certain talk pages[edit]

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

These relatively few pages seem pretty harmless really. However, it might be good for somebody to talk to the creator next time and point out that Wiktionary is far from "complete". The more extreme case of this was when somebody was disruptively adding Etymology requests to every ety-less entry. Equinox 16:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
This same IP has been adding "can it be added" requests to a great number of Chinese character talk pages for years: try this for the more common variant. As for talking to them, I believe @Atitarev has had discussions with them on other issues (they make lots of several types of requests relating to several languages) without much cooperation. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I am annoyed with these numerous questions with no answers in talk pages and the usage of {{attention}} but what can I do? Some people just pepper entries with requests, genuine and not, ignoring if we have any resources or interest to fill them. The situation would only be slightly better if those unanswered requests were in the Tea room or similar.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I think if we delete these, we have to delete all talk pages with information in them relevant to the entry they pertain to. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree. This is part of what talk pages are meant for. Keep.​—msh210 (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Keep. --WikiTiki89 18:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Many of these cases of multiple readings is because the initial data was imported from a shitty database, and
  1. many of the entries have been cleaned up since
  2. the ones that aren't are likely to be obscure dead characters no-one cares about
  3. when someone does get around to cleaning up the page for the character no-one cares about, the wrong reading will be removed in the process if the one who cleans up the page has the common sense to check other dictionaries
FWIW there are currently 1,128 items in Category:Mandarin terms needing attention. —suzukaze (tc) 07:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete all the relevant sections. If nothing is left, delete the talk page. Wyang (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

These too[edit]

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

TBH another reason I want these gone is that the formatting of pages like Talk:苦 really ticks me off. When I see that there's a talk page, I expect a thoughtful, meaningful question, not this trash. It's reminiscent of a child whining.suzukaze (tc) 07:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete all the relevant sections. If nothing is left, delete the talk page. Wyang (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

December 2015[edit]

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

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

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

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


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


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

January 2016[edit]


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

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

Category:French verbs with conjugation -er[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Column templates[edit]



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

February 2016[edit]

Template:empty line[edit]

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

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

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

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

March 2016[edit]

Category:English words prefixed with præ-[edit]

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

There might be some terms that are attested first with præ- then later with pre- (as in the original formation of the word) I have no real objection to this category but not real objection to deleting it either. Etymologies for alternative forms are generally needless reduplication but they're not banned; Old French isnel and ignel come to mind as the ig forms are under the influence of Latin and the non ig forms aren't. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
It's almost enough to make one miss Mr. Digraph himself: User:Doremitzwr. DCDuring TALK 15:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Sidenote: alternative spellings probably don't need etymologies, but there are also alternative forms that differ in morphology, and they definitely need separate etymologies (at minimum, they should be in their own suffix categories). --Tropylium (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:langrev and subtemplates[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

May 2016[edit]

Category:Vyadhikarana compounds by language[edit]

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

There would be more point to categorizing noun compounds whose head is the first element (eg, attorney-general, mother-in-law), ie a head-modifier structure. It might be useful to do case categories the normal modifier-head structure (home team (locative), boathouse (dative), railroad (genitive), etc.) With that kind of grounding one could conceivably find some sense in which vayadhikarana or other such Sanskrit-derived grammar terms might have applicability. dvandva is the only one that I know to have been assumed into English. DCDuring TALK 22:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
#Category:English vyadhikarana compounds is already nominated above with an apparent consensus to delete. I also don't know what it means especially if it's so rare it cannot be defined in English due to lack of English usage of the word. So yeah, delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I've deleted the English (and German) category per that RFD. The only category left is for Hawaiian, which I don't mind deleting. If multiple Indian languages actually used a category like this, perhaps it could exist for their sake. Category:English tatpurusa compounds and Category:English karmadharaya compounds are also suspect. - -sche (discuss) 03:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Citations:Kernikteri, Citations:Frühgeburtskernikteri[edit]

IMO the citation pages for the plural forms should be deleted as they are included on the citation page for the singular. Else, if one would differ between inflected forms, Citations:Frühgeburtskernikterus should be deleted as there is no cite for the singular. But it should make no sense to have different citations pages for inflected forms:

  • Especially for readers it should be easier to find all cites of one word on a single page. I don't think that they would visit all the inflected forms of a word to find all the different citation pages.
  • Often different inflected forms can be found in the same text. So different citation pages for inflected forms would then have redundant citations, like the cite at Citations:Kernikteri is the same as at Citations:Kernikterus.
  • Some German words can be separated like in "er fuhr weg" from wegfahren. What should be the citation page's name, Citations:fuhr weg? And how about different tenses like "er ist weggefahren" (perfect), should it be Citations:ist weggefahren? And when it's separated by other words as in "er ist nach Berlin gefahren", should it be Citations:ist ... gefahren?

Nothing would be lost, if the citation pages for the plural forms would be deleted. -Ikiaika (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I typically redirect plural citation titles to the singular, as we do with alternative spellings. bd2412 T 03:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016[edit]

Category:Politically correct terms by language[edit]

All of the entries in this category could just as easily be categorized as euphemisms, without using the inherently biased term "politically correct", which means nearly nothing. Categorizing terms in other languages than English as "politically correct" seems especially suspect. I think we could have a category for something like "proscribed gender neutral terms", but politically correct has come to have so much baggage I don't see how we can keep it. DTLHS (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it might be better to go by the difference in the type of taboo: these are basically the result of political taboos, as opposed to taboos about death/disease, sex/bodily functions, religion/the supernatural, etc. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per DTLHS. Just having the category invites bias. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
    I like Chuck's suggestion. "Politically correct" has proven hard to define in a way that doesn't offend. It is itself neither politically correct nor neutral. Taboos about 'disadvantaged' groups, such as, in the US, the poor, blacks, Latinos, women, members of the LGBT community, homeless, first peoples, debtors, people with disabilities, (religious) believers, etc make it hard to even discuss the matter, especially with examples.
I think we are under some obligation to handle these matters responsibly and accurately. That a large number of folks find some coherence to the PC concept, however ineffable, suggests that there is a real phenomenon. That it has lexical implications is also obvious. —This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talkcontribs).
I agree with DCDuring. Political correctness/incorrectness involves word choice and therefore should be handled by a dictionary. Purplebackpack89 13:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per DTLHS. What is or isn't 'politically correct' seems far too open to interpretation and enables political soapboxing on Wiktionary. — Kleio (t · c) 19:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Interesting one. Most of the words seem to be gender-neutral terms that aren't widely accepted and would sound odd (e.g. milkperson — though we don't have it yet), as opposed to widely accepted GN terms like firefighter and chairperson. That does require glossing, but "rare" might be good enough (or, for some of the non-gendered terms like underresourced for "poor", "euphemism"). I think that deleting the category outright, and leaving these "odd" words unglossed, would be a mistake. Remember that people learn from us and generally expect to learn some degree of standard or universal English. Equinox 20:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
  • keep. How does this invite bias but euphemism and euphemisms do not? PCs are euphemisms that are devised for a specific reason of having one's speech not be offensive to anyone (regardless of how dumb the end result may be). This is how I sees them.Dixtosa (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Here in the US the words "politically correct" / "politically incorrect" are basically only used by racists and homophobes. That's why it invites bias. DTLHS (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
And also because of comments like that. --WikiTiki89 21:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Gee, I didn't know I was a racist homophobe; I thought I was just too old for this kind of thing; but one learns something new every day.
I don't like the category name and doubt that there is another one that would both both communicative and well-defined enough to be reliably and uncontroversially implemented. Category:Gender-neutral terms and Category:Non-offensive terms for socio-ethnic groups seem to me to be examples of less troublesome titles, though the second is too long. We might also have Category:Organizational euphemisms. Some of these may work better as appendices with {{only used in}} redirects. DCDuring TALK 21:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I have created and populated Category:English gender-neutral terms and more terms are being added to it. This includes most of the members of the category under challenge. Many of the others use challenged.
The addition of a term like waiter and actor raises questions in my mind of how to treat terms that have been gender-specific, but have long been used in a gender-neutral way, despite objections, and despite efforts to substitute a term like server (for waiter/waitress). DCDuring TALK 22:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, there does seem to be some kind of objective difference between "terms that were always gender-neutral" and "terms that became gender-neutral at some point" (chairman, alderman?); the latter group could be subdivided into "terms that previously had a feminine form" (chairwoman) and "things that women previously just weren't allowed to do" (doctor?). Whew. Equinox 22:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
"Politically correct" is a loaded (POV) term which is used mostly (though not entirely) by those in the right wing. It is a magnet for political soapboxing, as Kleio notes, and as can already be seen from the entries that have been placed into it, such as "African American". Perhaps there are some who view "African American" as "politically correct" and prefer an older term (there were some in Sweden recently complaining that "you can't call things by their names anymore" because you are expected to call chocolate balls "chokladbollar" instead of "negerbollar"), but to more people I expect "African American" is just a regular phrase, so it doesn't AFAICS belong in the category, nor does "Ms" or "sex worker" (which is just descriptive) or several other terms. And "ethically challenged" is jocular, not "politically correct". Delete, IMO, but if the category is kept it needs to be renamed to a more descriptive name, and pruned. - -sche (discuss) 09:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


  • Keep. This template has additional functionality that the {{suffix}} template does not have:
    1. It categorizes by the last suffix only, e.g. {{hu-suffix|egyetem|leg|es|pos=adj}}
    2. It is able to categorize by the suffix even when the stem is left blank, e.g. {{hu-suffix||izmus|pos=n}}. This is used in many entries.
    3. It has a pos2 parameter for placing a word into two PoS categories. --Panda10 (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


In the 2013-2014 RFDO discussion Template talk:hu-compound (to delete: {{hu-compound}}, {{hu-suffix}} and {{hu-prefix}}), most people voted "Delete" but only hu-compound was deleted and Wonderfool closed the RFDO as "Kept as nobody's deleted it", which I find unconvincing as a reason for keeping the templates. It should have been: "RFD failed, waiting for all templates to be orphaned".

I did not participate in that discussion; I'd vote delete too.


  • Use {{suffix}} or {{prefix}} (better yet, in my opinion: {{affix}} or the shortcut {{af}}) in all cases.

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete. I'd also note that this template is used to provide etymologies for inflected forms, such uses should be removed. See for example kapok. —CodeCat 23:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep. What's the reason {{fi-suffix}}, {{fi-prefix}}, {{hi-suffix}}, {{hi-prefix}} etc. are allowed but the Hungarian templates are not? Also, I want to keep using hu-suffix for inflected forms, I think the etymology section is useful for agglutinative languages, users might want to click on the suffix to check it out. I do not understand what's the harm in this. --Panda10 (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The Finnish and Hindi templates you gave are headword-line templates for prefix/suffix entries. Not at all equivalent. —CodeCat 14:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
How about {{fa-prefix}}, {{fa-suffix}}, and {{rom-suffix}}? --Panda10 (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I speedied {{rom-suffix}} (it was created in 2011 and was being used only in 6 entries: melalo, samtalo, baxtalo, shilalo, rupuno and rupalo)
Correct me if I'm wrong: it seems Persian affixes don't have a hyphen and we can't use {{affix}} for this language (except for compounds: سیلاب); so, there's an actual need for {{fa-suffix}} and {{fa-prefix}}. If we can replace these two by {{affix}}, I'm for deleting them.
For the record, a cursory search reveals that some (or all?) entries for Persian suffixes like گاه and prefixes like بی are using {{head|fa|suffix}} and {{head|fa|prefix}}, respectively. It's a bit confusing if some languages have the format Template:xx-suffix for actual suffix entries and other use that format for etymologies involving suffixes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Concerning inflected forms with etymologies: do you mean something like adding "lion +‎ -s" in the entry lions? I don't think we should do that, but in any case {{affix}} can do this as well, so that's not a good reason for keeping {{hu-suffix}}, in my opinion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I will delete them after I reworked the entries. I have already started using {{af}}. This may take some time, though. {{hu-prefix}} has about 900 entries, {{hu-suffix}} has about 17,000. Re inflected forms: Adding an etymology section to English forms may have less practical value, since English is not an agglutinative language. It is different in Hungarian where nouns, adjectives, pronouns, and numerals can have more than 34 different inflected forms, verbs much much more. If a Hungarian editor is willing to add this information using {{affix}}, what's the harm in it? --Panda10 (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Fair enough, I don't mind Hungarian entries having the etymologies for inflected forms, per the reasons you mentioned.
Maybe the change from hu-suffix/hu-prefix to affix can be done by bot? I believe these would be the search+replace rules:
  • "{{hu-suffix|" → "{{af|hu|"; and adding the "-" in all unnamed parameters starting from 2= (in diff, parameters 2= and 3= have the hyphen added)
  • "{{hu-prefix|" → "{{af|hu|"; and adding the "-" in all unnamed parameters except the last
@CodeCat: Would you be so kind as to use MewBot to do that?
@Panda10: Did I make any mistake in the rules above? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
What about the categorization? The two templates don't work the same in that regard, {{hu-suffix}} ignores all suffixes except for the last one. Also, {{hu-suffix}} has a pos2= parameter that {{suffix}} lacks (well, it's there, but it does something else). Finally, I disagree with putting etymologies in inflections. We don't do it for other languages, agglutinative or not. Compare Finnish. In fact, a non-agglutinative language has more use for such etymologies than an agglutinative one, because the affixes are much less obvious and harder to tell apart in a word. —CodeCat 00:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Let's separate the three issues:
  • 1) {{hu-suffix}}: If {{suffix}} does not have the functionality of {{hu-suffix}}, then we will have to keep {{hu-suffix}}, just like we keep {{fa-prefix}} and {{fa-suffix}}.
  • 2) {{hu-prefix}}: I can deal with it manually. Those entries need other standardization, so I'll do them at the same time and I will delete the orphaned template. No need for a bot.
  • 3) Etymology in inflected forms: This needs a separate discussion. It is not part of this deletion request. I suspect that it would be useful for every language but it is time-consuming and editors simply do not want to spend time with it. --Panda10 (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Hold on. Why does {{hu-suffix}} categorise that way? Surely if the word is suffixed with several suffixes, we'd want categories for all of them, not just the last? And I consider the pos= parameter to be deprecated, since we now have id2= that gives finer control and better disambiguation (i.e. by sense of the suffix rather than part of speech of the thus-formed word). The pos2= parameter is puzzling, as it essentially causes the entry to be categorised twice in two different suffix categories. —CodeCat 14:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing puzzling about pos2. A word can be both adjective and noun, e.g. akadémikus. Pos adds the entry to the first category, while pos2 in the second. By the way, you say pos is deprecated, then how come it is used by {{affix}}? It makes sense to categorize Hungarian entries by part of speech. About categorizing by the last suffix: sometimes there is no Hungarian word with the middle suffix. E.g.: egyetemleges, there is no *egyetemleg. --Panda10 (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
One more thing: If the template name is not up to the current standards of this wiki, then why not just simply rename {{hu-suffix}} to something else, run the renaming bot, keep all the current functionality and be done with it. --Panda10 (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
What is the reason that {{hu-suffix}} only categorizes by the last suffix? Words like egyetemleges should probably be in both suffix categories (at least if we don't want to start creating entries for "compound" suffixes like -leges). Words derived from an intermediate derivation should by contrast IMO only show the immediate base word, e.g. kérdéses from kérdés, not from kérd or from kér (though those could be of course mentioned in prose in the etymology). --Tropylium (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Please see if this thread answers your question: [1]. Also, how would you handle fickó, helyesbít, javasol, jövedelem, költözik, lassacskán, nyilatkozat, piszkozat, etc. --Panda10 (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
There are huge numbers of languages all over the world that have complex morphologies like this- not just suffixes, but prefixes, infixes and circumfixes. We really need to work on getting our general templates to be able to handle such issues, so someone working on, say, some obscure American Indian or African or Southeast Asian language doesn't have to come up with their own custom templates. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────: Maybe {{af}} could have built-in language-specific rules, like "for Hungarian, categorize only the last suffix". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Like Tropylium (a linguist who works with agglutinative languages), I have my doubts that categorizing only the last suffix is a good idea, but it's an extremely complex issue. When you can have a single word that means "I saw those two women walk this way out of the water", you need a more systematic approach to categorization of the components. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Deleted {{hu-prefix}}. --Panda10 (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

July 2016[edit]

Category:bo:Iconography and Category:bo:Dharmic iconography[edit]

I am fairly sure that these non-standard categories should not exist, but I am not so sure how best to categorise the handful of words currently contained in them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

August 2016[edit]

Template:neuter singular of and Template:neuter of[edit]

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

Okay, so I'm doing this in lieu of User:Embryomystic. He may have gotten tired or something, or didn't check his talk page yet. He stopped editing today about 15 minutes after I messaged him about this.

Please forgive me, I'm not trying to be mean, just being honest with you, but it pains me to see a user removing a template that I've been using for quite some time and changing it to another with all the pages he/she can find. The user is an experienced user, so I understand he/she may have a valuable reason for this. However, I think before a user starts doing this, they should bring it up here or somewhere similar first, which is what I'm doing now.

Embryomystic seems to have some reason why he/she doesn't like the neuter of and neuter singular of templates, and is replacing them with Template:inflection of, along with the parameters n and s. Although I don't agree that Template:neuter singular of should be deleted, I am going to bring it up here so that this can get resolved and so that, if the community decides the template should be deleted, then we can run a bot through and have it change all the templates for us (or whatever other consensus decision we come up with) rather than having one user do it all manually. Philmonte101 (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep. I personally disagree that Template:neuter singular of should be deleted, since it seems to be literally no different at all from what Template:inflection of does. I feel like a lot of people here care a whole lot about the inner code formatting of entries, such as which template which does exactly the same thing should we use?, and will change it even when there's an intricate detail that they don't like. Personally, I never felt this way. The formatting is of very minor importance to me. It is of course important to some degree, as you don't want a bogged together entry with no spacing, even though it looks exactly the same on the outside as it would if there were spaces. But I'm just more focused on what's on the outside, what people who come here to read the dictionary to get linguistic knowledge, come to see. Most regular everyday lurkers probably could care less which template is being used, and honestly probably wouldn't even understand wiki templates at all.
However, that's not my only reason that I want to keep this. Another is that Template:neuter of and Template:neuter singular of are easier for people to use than Template:inflection of. I see inflection of as a template to be used for inflections of verbs or nouns that have to be explained in many words. That's where it gets convenient; so users don't have to type all of that out, so it makes it shorter. But in this case, it actually makes it longer. People actually have to type out "inflection of|n|s|[...]". This also implies that newcomers will have to have the same template knowledge as users who've been here 7 years like Embryo, and when they try entering {{neuter of|[...]|lang=da}}, then they will be disappointed that it isn't so simple. Sure, I have no problem with people using "inflection of" when they create neuter inflection entries, since that just seems like a personal preference thing, and like I said I care about the formatting of the code to some degree, but it's not all that important, especially not as important as some here make it out to be. After all, the three templates all do exactly the same thing, so it makes no difference. Philmonte101 (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Embryomystic has a habit of editing everyone's entries, not only yours. Some edits are good, others are totally pointless. So it's not only you that's on the receiving end. DonnanZ (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Indeed, Embryomystic very often changes more specific form-of templates to {{inflection of}}. I'm not terribly fond of that, but I figure it's not worth arguing about, so I let him do as he pleases, even while I myself continue to use the more specific templates. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:PIE root[edit]


  • Duplicates information that is already in the etymology. (In the etymology, it would be simply written like: "from Proto-Indo-European *swep-".)
  • Annoying little ugly box. (to be fair, that's just my opinion)

I'm not too sure we need this template. Anyone has reasons to keep it?

Wiktionary:Votes/2016-07/Adding PIE root box failed. It's worth repeating that the vote was not about having the template, it was about adding it to a large number of entries (through automatic and semi-automatic edits). Still, the vote failed almost unanimously and some opposers gave reasons not to have the template at all.

In addition to displaying the small blue box, the template populates categories like Category:Czech terms derived from the PIE root *swep-.

Suggestion: Edit {{der}} and {{inh}} to make them able to categorize the entries into PIE root categories. This way, we would be able to delete {{PIE root}} while keeping the categories populated.

If there's any problem with the suggestion above or if it takes time to make the necessary changes, we can also consider keeping {{PIE root}} for some time but only as a categorization template, without showing the box at all. Although I consider this a poor workaround if we can do the same work using {{der}} and {{inh}}. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep. We also have other boxes similar to it for other languages, like {{HE root}}. —CodeCat 13:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Not a reason to keep, IMO. I don't think any similar boxes should be kept either. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The main difference is that the others are for roots in the same language- the PIE root box would be analogous to a Proto-Semitic root box in Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Akkadian, Maltese, etc. Also, the ones I've seen are in languages such as Hebrew where roots are part of the morphology of the language in question, and knowing the roots helps in understanding those languages in ways having nothing to do with etymology. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete, but as suggested, use a different template for categorization, so that that is not lost. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete in accordance with the positions expressed by the voters in Wiktionary:Votes/2016-07/Adding PIE root box . --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep and consider modifying it to function only for categorization purposes and not display a box. Benwing2 (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, but I'd like it if {{der}} and {{inh}} had the ability to categorize, i.e. if {{der|cs|ine-pro|*swep-}} and {{inh|cs|ine-pro|*swep-}} categorized a page into Category:Czech terms derived from the PIE root *swep- without any other template. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    • What about cases where {{der}} or {{inh}} are not desirable, since the etymology would become too elaborate and duplicative? Consider witty; do we want to trace it all the way back to *weyd- just so that we can write {{der|en|ine-pro|*weyd-}} and get the category, even though the current etymology is still perfectly fine? The PIE box bypasses this issue. —CodeCat 17:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Whatever gives you that idea? Let's say that we decide to use {{der}} to give the PIE root. Then the etymology would necessarily become the horribly convoluted
From {{inh|en|ang|wittiġ}}, from {{affix|ang|witt|-iġ|nocat=1}}, equivalent to modern {{affix|en|wit|-y}}. The former term derives from {{der|en|gem-pro|*witją}}, from {{der|en|ine-pro|*weyd-}}, while the latter derives from {{der|en|gem-pro|*-gaz}}, from {{der|en|ine-pro|*-ḱos}}.
This is way more than is needed, and what's more, the majority of it is a duplication of the etymologies of wit and -y. —CodeCat 19:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I know we usually don't do this for words formed from a suffix (in this case, a suffix in the Old English word). This also means that a word like unbelievable shouldn't mention in the etymology all the Middle English, Old English, Proto-Germanic and the like, that are ancestors of believe, and it also means that unbelievable won't be placed in categories like "English derived from Proto-Germanic".
With that in mind, {{PIE root}} looks like a case of special pleading to me. Either we do mention all those ancestors, or we don't. Why aren't we adding boxes for Middle English, Old English, Proto-Germanic and other ancestor languages? I'm not really convinced that we need a box for PIE and keep the etymology small, without most ancestors in the "main" text, as suggested. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Probably keep per Benwing and convert to categorization only. The problem is the box, not the the categorization. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done (the categorization part, I mean). I made it so {{der}}, {{inh}} and {{bor}} now place entries in categories like Category:Czech terms derived from the PIE root *swep-.
A few notes:
  1. To keep current categorization, I used the word "derived" (and not "borrowed", "inherited") in all the PIE root category names. It would be overkill to start populating categories like "Category:Czech terms inherited from the PIE root *swep-" and "Category:Czech terms borrowed from the PIE root *swep-".
  2. Probably Module:etymology can be edited to allow categories for languages other than PIE if people want.
  3. There are exactly 2 entries marked as explicitly "borrowed" from PIE instead of derived ir inherited: უღელი and Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/mete.
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete unless its functionality is reduced to solely categorisation, and there is no better solution. I'm not sure I agree with Daniel when he says that every ultimately PIE-derived word should trace its roots directly back to PIE in the etymology section. For example, swiftly is ultimately from PIE but the etymology swift + ly is surely sufficient; anything more than that would be overkill. This template could be handy as an invisible categorisation tool, if such categorisation is what we want. This, that and the other (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
If Daniel Carrero has indeed made {{der}}, {{inh}} and {{bor}} do the categorization automatically, then my vote can simply be a delete rather than a categorization only. It is entirely duplicative apart from the box, which nobody seems to like. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
He hasn't. He tried, and posted about it, but I reverted, explaining that it doesn't work. The difficulty is in getting {{der}} to recognise whether a term is a root, which is pretty much impossible. —CodeCat 23:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: Not all etymologies mention the PIE root, so categorization using {{der}} would not include all terms from a root; for instance, τελέω(teléō) mentions derivation from τέλος(télos), whose etymology section in turn mentions *kʷel-. — Eru·tuon 20:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:English derived terms[edit]

Pretty horribly named, and it contains almost nothing but empty categories. —CodeCat 22:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I think DCDuring started this hoping other people would join in, and they didn't. And it's too big to be managed by just one person. While potentially interesting instead of categorization I'd sooner see good lists of derived terms in one of the entry. That is, put all the derived terms at cat and not at catlike, catless, cattish (etc.). Categorization requires a lot more effort and really just duplicates good listing. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Do you mean that derived terms sections should show terms derived indirectly as well, where there is an intermediate step in the derivation? That would turn derived terms sections into trees, while also duplicating the information from the derived terms sections of its derived terms. —CodeCat 22:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
No I mean in general, and I suppose I mean related and not derived terms, put everything at cat/dog/chair whatever and nothing at cattish, doglike or chairless. We do tend to duplicate and of course duplicate partially, not wholly. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't really like that idea. —CodeCat 23:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
In the past, someone proposed that {{compound}} should categorize all terms (like "doghouse") which are compounds containing "dog", etc. (Possibly the affix templates would also put "doggish" etc in the same category.) That seems like a more workable idea than manual categorization like this. - -sche (discuss) 23:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
As I conceived them I thought they would have been more inclusive than what would result from categorizing based on {{compound}}. I attempted to demonstrate using special template and these categories. The system would have required broad support, but instead the templates were removed from template space by vote. I doubt that there is any support now and don't want to exert myself to test that belief.
We have more fundamental problems, like definition and gloss quality, the systematic correction of which also has no indication of support. DCDuring TALK 23:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:English terms with alpha privatives[edit]

We're not in the habit of indicating which morphological elements are present in a term. Rather, we have categories based on the etymological construction of a term. We tried to make categories for words containing smaller words, but that never really got off the ground. —CodeCat 22:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No preference. Given a- has multiple etymologies, I wouldn't object to the categorization being split if someone wanted to. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
We have infrastructure now that lets {{prefix}} etc more narrowly categorize terms which use only one of several possibly homographic prefixes, right? That infrastructure didn't exist when this category was created, but now, this category seems redundant to Category:English words prefixed with a- (not). (Am I mistaken; is there a different between them?) I suggest that someone could go through the entries in this category and update their etymology sections with whatever code is necessary to move them to the latter category, at which point this category can be deleted. - -sche (discuss) 23:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a difference. The prefixation category is for terms prefixed within English. But there's also terms that were borrowed with the prefix already attached. Indeed, that's probably how it became a prefix in English in the first place. —CodeCat 23:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:English words which may have multiple etymologies[edit]

Do we really need a category for this? This seems more like something for WT:ES to sort out. —CodeCat 22:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the lone entry in the cat, it's not even a word wich multiple possible etymologies (disputed), but a word with an Etym 1 and Etym 2 header (i.e. 2 diff words), so yeah, that's going to catch about 90% of all words, I ween... Leasnam (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Well I think the idea was to indicate that etymology 1 and 2 may actually be the same. Hence, something for WT:ES. —CodeCat 22:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Yep. I thought the same too Leasnam (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree, delete as this sort of thing does not need to be categorized. Discussion instead of categorization. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I can't see a use for categorizing "words which may have multiple etymologies". As CodeCat says, start a discussion on WT:ES to determine whether they actually have multiple etymologies or not. If they have multiple etymologies, i.e. two words are on the same page, it might be useful to categorize that. I suppose there are several ways we could feasibly do that: have a bot periodically check database dumps for pages with Etymology 1 headers and categorize them, or (harder) arrange for an update to the site software that would automatically categorize any page (in certain namespaces) with an Etymology 1 header. - -sche (discuss) 23:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
ES is not going to resolve everything, though. It would probably be useful to have a category for "X terms with disputed etymologies" (but, on the other hand, it should not mean "editor McDoubtface disputes this", it should mean "there is actual scholarly dispute on the etymology", or at least "ES agrees that there are multiple possibilities"). I have a recollection that we used to have Category:English terms with undetermined etymologies etc., populateable by e.g. {{etyl|und|en}} — but perhaps I am misremembering.
The restriction on disputes over the number of distinct etymologies seems patently useless, though.--Tropylium (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Fanciful 19th century American coinages[edit]

Eh? What is this, I don't even... A very fanciful category for sure, but it seems silly and rather subjective. And if this is kept, for some reason, it should be renamed to include the language name "English". —CodeCat 22:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It's necessarily subjective. I would move the appendix to the user namespace because the red links might prove useful. Straightforward delete. Not sure what else to say. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
It's kind of a high-falutin' handle for some of the items Mencken has recorded in The American Language. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, as stated and referenced at Appendix:Fanciful 19th century American coinages, these are largely recorded in the Dictionary of Americanisms (1848), by John Russell Bartlett, some surviving until The American Language (1919) by Mencken. I appreciate that the category discombobulated CodeCat, but I think the multiple reliable references are quite a sockdolager. I don't mean to hornswoggle anyone into anything contrary to our policy and norms, and keep bloviation in check. I just hope this group isn't forced to skedaddle ;(
Move the appendix to userspace per Renard, or incorporate its redlinks into WT:RE. Delete the category. - -sche (discuss) 23:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep in some form; is appendix appropriate/sufficient?
This is a distinct group of words, and are of interest to readers: someone reading about bloviate may reasonably be interested in skedaddle, as a contemporary American coinage of the same, fanciful type.
Appendix:Fanciful 19th century American coinages is well-referenced, and demonstrates this exact group is of linguistic interest; most dramatically, the etymology and usage of sockdologizing and its context is of historical interest for understanding the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
This certainly deserves some grouping in Wiktionary, though I don't know which form: I created a category as standard grouping mechanism, but perhaps an appendix with a list and links to the appendix is more sufficient and appropriate.
To emphasize, this is not a personal list (I'm at best vaguely familiar with the words), and should not be relegated to a user page: it's a referenced collection based on multiple, reputable sources by professional linguists.
Quoting World Wide Words: "Absquatulate":
The 1830s — a period of great vigour and expansiveness in the US — was also a decade of inventiveness in language, featuring a fashion for word play, obscure abbreviations, fanciful coinages, and puns. Only a few inventions of that period have survived to our times, such as sockdologer, skedaddle and hornswoggle. Among those that haven’t lasted the distance were blustrification (the action of celebrating boisterously), goshbustified (excessively pleased and gratified), and dumfungled (used up).
Absquatulate, meaning to make off, decamp, or abscond, has had a good run and is still to be found in modern American dictionaries.
To summarize: this is of interest to casual readers, this is of interest to linguists, and this is well-referenced. It deserves to exist in some form, to help these users.
—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
What are the criteria for inclusion in this category? 19th century and coinage are clear enough, but what does 'fanciful' mean in this context? Hw fanciful does something have to be to be included? What happens when you think something is fanciful and I think that it isn't? What next Category:Interesting 20th century English coinages? Renard Migrant (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, of course, because this is as silly as it is subjective, and really is more of a personal logophilic project than under a dictionary's purview. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:yue-adj, Template:yue-noun, Template:yue-pron, Template:yue-proper noun, Template:yue-verb[edit]

  1. Hanzi entries must use the ==Chinese== header, making these largely obsolete
  2. If a headword template for Cantonese is found to be necessary at any time, {{head}} is sufficient anyway
    1. The role of showing Jyutping romanization has been moved to the pronunciation section
    2. The role of showing traditional/simplified has been moved to {{zh-forms}}

suzukaze (tc) 04:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Delete per nom. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Also Mandarin templates[edit]

for essentially the same reasons:

suzukaze (tc) 03:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Appendix:Place names[edit]

This appendix, and all its subpages (which have not been individually tagged, but are included in this RFD) are the result of historical confusion about how CFI should treat place names. We are now in a longstanding stable position of handling place names in the normal entries, just like any other words, and these appendices no longer have a purpose for Wiktionary (as for general informational content, if someone needs such lists, Wikipedia is the place that should supply them). Refer to #Appendix:Place names/Greater Manchester, which will be archived at Appendix talk:Place names/Greater Manchester, for more. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete, but should we create entries for the red links first? Equinox 00:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes and {{toponym}} which is nominated below as these should be in the main namespace. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete —Enosh (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


Tagged for speedy, but I'm moving it here. Reason stated is "too dubious, no actual descendants". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


Tagged for speedy, but I'm moving it here. Reason stated is "too dubious, no descendants given". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Or, you know, ask me what the descendants are. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Why did you not put them in the entry? Please do so now. —CodeCat 22:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
We shouldn't have to ask you. You should list them before you hit "Save page" the first time when creating a new reconstruction entry. Matasovic's Addenda et Corrigenda gives a *genetos but not a *genatos. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


Tagged for speedy, but I'm moving it here. Reason stated is "too dubious". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Matasović doesn't mention this word, but the Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru does reconstruct a Proto-Brythonic *ak-ino- (in our transcription, *ėgin), which would have to come from a Proto-Celtic *akīno-, and derives it from Proto-Indo-European *h₂eḱ-(sharp). I'm leaning towards keep, or at least move to Reconstruction:Proto-Brythonic/ėgin since it doesn't seem to have cognates outside Brythonic. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Matasović quite LITERALLY mentions the word on one of the first damn pages. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Which page? —CodeCat 22:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
First page of the CORRECTED Matasovic dictionary.
  • akino- ‘shooot, sprout’ [Noun] W: MW egin [p] ‘shoots, sprouts, blades’ BRET: egin PIE: *h2eḱ- ‘be sharp’ (IEW 19ff.) COGN: Lat. acus ‘needle’, OCS osъtъ ‘thistle’ ETYM: The Brittonic words have the exact cognate in Lat. acinus ‘grape or other berry’, which may point to PIE *h2eḱ-ino-. REF: GPC I: 1175.

UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "the corrected Matasovic dictionary". Is there a second edition? The publisher's website mentions only the 2009 edition, which is the one I have. Same ISBN and everything. I can't find *akino- on the first page or in its expected alphabetical order. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The text you quoted shows "akino-", with a following hyphen, indicating that a case ending is to be attached. This is very different from the form "akino" that you gave, which is a fully formed word. Also, I don't see any mention of a gender in the quote, and Proto-Brythonic lost the neuter gender as far as I know, so why did you say it's neuter on the Proto-Celtic page? What is that based on? —CodeCat 22:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I found it: you're talking about the Addenda et Corrigenda released two years later. Yes, *akino- is there, but there's a vowel discrepancy. If Proto-Celtic had *akino- with a short i, then the Welsh would have to be *egyn and the Breton (I believe) *egen. The i of attested egin in both languages suggests a pre-form *akīno-. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat: Welsh lost the distinction between masculine and neuter, and I think Breton and Cornish did too, suggesting it was probably already lost in Proto-Brythonic, or at least is not recoverable. The word was probably more likely to be masculine, but it's difficult to prove. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure "akino-" just indicates that the case is an o-stem but that the author didn't want to put any specific declension. Not that there's a declension missing. What would it be? "akinoo"? "akinoa"? It's akinos, probably. I've redirected it to akīnos. UtherPendrogn (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
@Angr, UtherPendrogn: Ok, but why the long ī? As far as I can tell, this can only really be reconstructed to PB and not to PC proper. —JohnC5 14:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I have John Koch's comtact info, shall I ask him? UtherPendrogn (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
If that will provide a more satisfactory answer... —JohnC5 15:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)






I'm nominating all five of the Lepontic declension tables for deletion. Lepontic is a barely attested language whose declension patterns have to be cobbled together on the basis of a small number of words. The attested endings are listed at [2], and that information has been added to WT:AXLP. But very few if any words are attested in more than one case, meaning that (almost) all the forms in such tables, apart from the lemma itself, will be hypothetical, not attested. In addition, many of the tables contain false information. (For example, the table for the o-stems includes endings proper to the n-stems.) The mistakes are fixable, of course, but given the futility of providing declension tables for words that are attested in only one case-form, it seems simpler to just delete the tables. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Support. —JohnC5 19:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Why remove it? The language HAD declensions, to remove them would just make it pointless to even host it here. UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
You might want to note that this is a discussion about deleting dedicated templates for declension tables; no one is suggesting deleting the declensions themselves. The amount of attested data does not seem to be large enough to require a template of its own to format. --Tropylium (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I lean toward delete per Tropylium. With so little known about the language having declension tables based on a small number of attested forms is extrapolation beyond what is reasonable and therefore I think, misleading. Our declensions might be spot on or they might be completely wrong. We just don't know, that's the point. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


I disagree. In the corrected Matasovic Proto-Celtic dictionary:

  • akino- ‘shooot, sprout’ [Noun]

W: MW egin [p] ‘shoots, sprouts, blades’
BRET: egin
PIE: *h2eḱ- ‘be sharp’ (IEW 19ff.)
COGN: Lat. acus ‘needle’, OCS osъtъ ‘thistle’
ETYM: The Brittonic words have the exact cognate in Lat. acinus ‘grape or other berry’, which may point to PIE *h2eḱ-ino-.
REF: GPC I: 1175.
UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you want WT:RFM as you don't seem to be proposing this redirect for deletion. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Key press, Template:Linear-gradient, Template:Box-shadow, Template:Border-Radius[edit]

Created by User:Thehotwheelsguy99 for unclear reasons. Maybe also delete Template:Unicode but it seems to be in use. —suzukaze (tc) 23:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

He copied them from Wikipedia apparently, perhaps to make his user page look fancy?! Delete. Equinox 18:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Template:Key press would actually be useful. Delete the others, but keep and improve and perhaps move Template:Key press. --WikiTiki89 21:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Japanese terms using characters outside JIS X 0208[edit]

JIS is a character encoding. Why should we care what JIS includes? —suzukaze (tc) 09:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@suzukaze-c: Is there any harm to this category's existence, or does it require manual application? If it can be added automatically, I see no reason for the category not to exist, even if it's almost never useful. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


Unused, and essentially redirects to Template:zh-hanzi-box. —suzukaze (tc) 11:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Danish noun plural forms[edit]

This would apply to four out of eight recognized forms of each noun. In practice, application is sparse and seemingly random. I see no merit in this category.__Gamren (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there interest in doing something like "XYZ definite ablative plural forms"? (We seem to have the makings of this kind of a system for at least a few languages, including Bulgarian, Cornish and Hebrew.) If yes, it might be possible to sort these forms down to that level, and perhaps also to cat-tag non-lemma forms by a bot. This category could then remain as a parent category for the four typical plural form categories. However it does seem rather arbitrary to have just a plural forms category, while not having a definite forms category, possessive forms category, etc. --Tropylium (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Categories for each inflection form (as seen on {{da-noun-infl}}) might be interesting to some, and should be easy to do. I completely agree that number seems like an arbitrary choice.__Gamren (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:ca-adj form of[edit]

Seems completely pointless to me. Our general templates can handle Catalan adjectives just fine. —CodeCat 19:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:es-adj form of[edit]

As above. No point in it. —CodeCat 19:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


Absolutely pointless, doesn't do anything {{head}} doesn't already do. —CodeCat 19:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


Again, nothing that is not already done by {{head}}. —CodeCat 20:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


Does nothing that {{head}} doesn't do, and its documentation even says so. —CodeCat 20:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd happily delete this and {{fr-adj-form}} but when I nominated them, they both passed. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Wonderfool unilaterally passed them. I wouldn't put too much thought into that. —CodeCat 13:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
He certainly did. I think he was running a bot at the time, and didn't want to change his offline bot code. These days, Wonderfool couldn't care less about it, and would be happy to see them deleted. --Derrib9 (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:kanji readings tab[edit]

Unused, and essentially redirects to Template:ja-kanjitab. —suzukaze (tc) 05:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Japanese terms uncategorized by reading pattern[edit]

Seems to belong to Template:kanji readings tab. Does not seem to be populated by Template:ja-kanjitab. —suzukaze (tc) 05:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


Not sure why this exists. Not used in any entries, thankfully, but it never should be, either. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It's used in pretty much every Middle Low German entry, but substituted. I use to to spare me typing work. Please remove the RFD. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Userfy (keep the redirect for simplicity's sake) which as you'll realize is a de facto keep. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Compare User:Renard Migrant/n with the same function. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
So effectively I can run substituted templates from my userpage? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Yep. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
For some reason I always assumed Wiki's architecture only allowed this from the template namespace. Objection withdrawn. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if (hypothetically) it works for other namespaces. If you want to copy an entry verbatim there is {{subst::cevals}} (say you wanted a verbatim copy of cevals at cevaus or something). Note the double colon is not a mistake. I sometimes use this but not very often. Like a few times a year. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
For something in the user namespace the double colon isn't necessary. {{subst:User:Renard Migrant/n}} will subst in the contents of that page. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Ideographic description characters[edit]

Redundant to Category:Ideographic Description Characters block. —suzukaze (tc) 19:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


Unused. —suzukaze (tc) 19:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


Unused (orphaned in diff diff diff diff diff diff diff). —suzukaze (tc) 04:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Kangxi radicals[edit]

Redundant to Category:Kangxi Radicals block. Has a table that might be worth keeping. —suzukaze (tc) 07:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:CJKV radicals[edit]

Redundant to Category:Han character radicals. —suzukaze (tc) 07:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Han rad sup[edit]

Redundant to Category:CJK Radicals Supplement block. Also it has a terrible name. Has a table that might be worth keeping. —suzukaze (tc) 07:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Han rad ext[edit]

Empty. —suzukaze (tc) 10:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:fr-conj-*, except Template:fr-conj-auto[edit]

I have converted all usages of almost all the old French conjugation templates to use Template:fr-conj-auto, and will shortly be done with the few remaining usages. I did this by bot, checking to make sure that no conjugated forms changed in the process (and doing it that way, caught some bugs both in the old templates and new module code). One of the big advantages of the new module code is that it provides pronunciations of all the forms, which the old templates didn't do. It's also generally easier to add new verb types, or at least it is a few lines of code vs. having to manually enter all the forms into a template. I would like to delete all the old templates since they have become lots of hard-to-maintain cruft. When working on similar conversions to Russian noun, verb and adjective inflection templates I just went ahead and deleted the old templates but I know that Dan prefers keeping old templates so I want to make sure there is consensus to delete them.

The full list is here: Category:French verb inflection-table templates Benwing2 (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Support, but not to be done hastily, only when the module is ready. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
BTW currently absolutely everything is converted except for copier-coller. Benwing2 (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Any objection to me removing everything except for Template:fr-conj-copier-coller? Benwing2 (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
No, feel free to do away with obsoleted templates if you're sure everything is as it should be. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to delete them. Benwing2 (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't actually delete them. I'll have to recheck them before deleting to make sure new verbs haven't been snuck in. Benwing2 (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


Unused (orphaned in diff diff). —suzukaze (tc) 02:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


Template redirect to {{zh-l}}: a redirect from a longer name to a shorter name. —suzukaze (tc) 05:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


Unused redirect, and there is module code that relies on the existence of {{zh-forms}}, not -box. —suzukaze (tc) 05:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


Reasons for deletion:

  1. Argō is a third-declension noun, not a fourth-declension one.
  2. As L&S note, the “dat[ive] and abl[ative are] prob[ably] not used”.
  3. The accusative can also be Argōn.
  4. The table's title states “Only the genitive and accusative are attested. The remaining forms have been reconstructed based on the Greek inflection.” However, if the dative and vocative were unattested and therefore "reconstructed based on the Greek inflection", they would both be *Argoe (from the Greek Ἀργοῖ), and not (respectively) *Arguī and *Argō.
  5. The template is hyperspecialised. Argō is one of a sizeable number of feminine proper nouns that are similarly declined (see User:I'm so meta even this acronym/Latin feminine proper nouns of a peculiar Greek-type third declension).

(I recognise that only point 5 is an argument for deleting the template, rather than correcting it.) IMO, this template should be deleted until the paradigm is better worked out and attested, whereupon it can be superseded by a more general template for this whole subclass of nouns. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

See User:I'm so meta even this acronym/Latin feminine proper nouns of a peculiar Greek-type third declension for that work-in-progress. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

October 2016[edit]

Template:grc-cite-* templates[edit]

There are at least 146 of these (I found them here), but {{grc-cite}} is deprecated and now just a fancy redirect to {{Q}} which is based on a data module so they are all unneeded as far as I can tell.

—Enosh (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Japanese-only CJKV Characters[edit]

Category:Japanese-coined CJKV characters used outside Japanese[edit]

Category:Korean-only CJKV Characters[edit]

Was this created to distinguish "exclusively" Japanese and Korean inventions from Chinese characters? The Chinese will use it anyway. —suzukaze (tc) 04:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I note that Japanese has Category:Japanese-coined CJKV characters is fine, but there is no Category:Korean-coined CJKV characters. As such, I propose moving Category:Korean-only CJKV Characters to Category:Korean-coined CJKV characters if this RFD fails. —suzukaze (tc)

Category:Han characters from which kana were derived[edit]

Category:Han characters from which hiragana were derived[edit]

Category:Han characters from which katakana were derived[edit]

Trivia befitting of an appendix page. —suzukaze (tc) 04:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I see no harm to these categories. Can you advance any reason to delete them? If not, keep. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)





Not used as often as it theoretically could be. But why would anyone want this? Surely these dictionaries have their own indexes? And the encoding information is probably only useful to programmers (if at all in this Unicode-dominated day and age), who definitely wouldn't come to Wiktionary to find out. —suzukaze (tc) 05:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Japanese Asahi characters[edit]

Underused with only two entries, and may be difficult to define, as some of them seem to have become unofficial "standard" forms according to Wikipedia. Maybe befitting of an appendix? —suzukaze (tc) 06:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


This template is barely used. It's not surprising as it doesn't really do anything useful, we already have interwiki links on the left. —CodeCat 19:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete--Dixtosa (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:nonstandard spelling of[edit]

Let's get the discussion started and let us have it on record that I disagree with the existence of this template. I do not know of any discussion that clarifies what "nonstandard" is supposed to mean. And I think our readers are better off without this template, but I may be wrong.

To clarify, I propose to deprecate the template and remove it from all entries, not to physically delete it. Let us keep page histories legible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

nonstandard is supposed to mean proscribed. --Dixtosa (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd be fine with a merger into proscribed (both the categories and the labels). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
That would be better than nothing, but "proscribed" seems a bit too prescriptivist to me, as well. A somewhat relevant discussion: Template talk:proscribed. In that discussion, some people draw a distinction between nonstandard and proscribed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
True descriptivism must include prescriptivism. If we really want to document how language is used, we must also document how people of a certain level of education will avoid using snuck in certain formal situations, because they know it is "wrong", but they may still use ain't because it can be seen as humorous and is used in many set phrases in American English. This is all due to prescriptivism, but it our job to cover it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree with these formulations, especially that true descriptivism must include prescriptivism. But I think I see what you're getting at. Nonetheless, snuck is not labeled nonstandard, and it says "snuck was originally limited to a few dialects, but is now very widespread (especially in American English) and is recognized by most dictionaries". I would have expected that if anything were labeled nonstandard, ain't would be it, but there we go, you think that it is not nonstandard. Again, I don't even know what "nonstandard" is supposed to mean; I know what "informal" and "slang" is supposed to mean. As for avoidance of something in formal situations, that's what informal is for, right? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster does not label "snuck" nonstandard[3], while they label irregardless nonstandard[4]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep in the absence of any suggestion of what it should be replaced with or how nonstandard spellings should be indicated. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
    My request would be that you clarify what "nonstandard spelling" means in the first place. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
    Since our definition of "standard" isn't adequate, I'll adapt Merriam-Webster's and say it is spelling that is not "well established by usage in the [...] writing of the educated and widely recognized as acceptable". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
    Okay, thanks. Now, is ain't widely recognized as acceptable? One American-German lady reprimanded me for saying "ain't". And is zumindestens widely recognized as acceptable? Duden does not have it and my German teacher told me that it is bad German, while I heard my German colleagues use the word. The teacher also told me that "der Daniel" is bad German because of the definite article, but the real speakers obviously did not heed that prescription, and said "der Daniel" without restraint. Finally, what sort of objective evidence could we use to find out whether a spelling is "widely recognized as acceptable"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Occurs in certain fixed phrases and quotations ("it ain't over till..."); may be used humorously; not even remotely acceptable in a school essay; (at least in the UK) bears a strong stigma of lower "class" or lesser education, in general use. Equinox 09:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
    ain't isn't really relevant to this discussion since it isn't just a nonstandard spelling; it's nonstandard in spoken English as well. If you want to delete {{nonstandard form of}} and remove "nonstandard" from Module:labels/data and from Appendix:Glossary#nonstandard, those are different discussions. As for evidence to find out whether a spelling is widely recognized as acceptable, I'd say we should see whether it gets significant use in professionally edited and proofread materials. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep. If there's no 'discussion that clarifies what "nonstandard" is supposed to mean' then let's have such a discussion! That's not a reason to delete the template. If we deleted every template where a word is open to interpretation, we'd have to delete every single template. You think 'rare' and 'idiomatic' aren't open to interpretation? For what it's worth, looks to me, Dan, like you're not even sure if you want to delete this template, more like you're putting it out there to see what other people think. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
My understanding is that proscribed means that some authoritative source says it's wrong and/or it's recognized as not "proper", while nonstandard means that any fluent speaker would recognize it as not just against the rules, but wrong. In languages with strong prescriptive traditions the overlap is pretty large, but the distinction is still useful as a whole. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
That's not my understanding of "nonstandard" at all. For me, a nonstandard form is one that is fully correct in some variety (dialect, register, etc.) of a language but which is not used in the prestige variety (the only typically used for education, mass media, etc.). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
If it's fully correct in a variety then we only need to gloss appropriately (e.g. Indian English). Equinox 17:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Not if we don't know the variety, or if it's in so many varieties it would be absurd to list them all. For example, there's probably no variety of English in which a form like goin' isn't encountered, but it's nonstandard in all of them. And even within Indian English there is a prestige variety and non-prestige varieties, so there are Indian English terms that are standard and terms that are not, so "Indian English" would have to be used in addition to "nonstandard", not instead of it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
It's been my understanding that proscribed terms were those that were very widespread, but not considered "proper English," while nonstandard terms were more localized or less common, and likely to be thought of as incorrect by the vast majority of English speakers. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
In my experience (not necessarily of Wiktionary), "nonstandard" is typically used as a euphemism for "incorrect". Mihia (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Proscribed makes no sense unless you say who proscribes it. Nonstandard does not mean 'regional' per Angr because some nonstandard things aren't regional and aren't standard in any region. "Incorrect", well I can't even attempt to define that because who would decide what's correct and what's isn't? That's essentially the same as proscribed because unless you say who calls it incorrect it's meaningless. Nonstandard things can be 'correct' depending on what you mean by correct. Goin' seems to tick all the boxes here as it's not regional, not standard in any dialect and not actually proscribed by any source I can think of. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
"Who would decide" is a consensus of educated and knowledgable native or native-level speakers of the relevant language. One would hope that the editors or compilers of a dictionary would be such people. Mihia (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
But what if they don't want to be, do you have a plan to force them? Renard Migrant (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Even if it doesn't make sense in languages that don't have clear standards, in some languages there are clear standards for the language and "non-standard" would refer to something outside those standards. --WikiTiki89 20:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
By a standard, do you mean an authoritative word list by a regulatory body unelected by the people? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
The way I see it, something is nonstandard if speakers think it's nonstandard. Nothing to do with quangos. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
No speaker of any dialect would think that goin' is standard, and we can document that. Not only that, if we don't document it somehow the entry goin' becomes misleading. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep per Renard. As noted above, there is a difference between "proscribed" and "nonstandard". "Proscribed" is for when an authority (on good days, we specify which authority in the usage notes) says not to use the term, form, or spelling. As Jack Lynch said, "a good descriptivist should tell you [...] not only how many people use [a word], but in what circumstances and to what effect", including if the word is proscribed. There has been discussion in the past of changing "proscribed" to "sometimes proscribed" (or "often proscribed" in cases of widespread proscription; etc), or finding a clearer label; I disagree with the person who in a prior discussion claimed that e.g. "condemned" would express that we weren't the ones condemning it more clearly than "proscribed" expresses that we aren't the ones proscribing it, but still I am not necessarily opposed to such a change. "Nonstandard" is unsurprisingly for when the term is not standard, i.e. (per [[nonstandard]]) "not conforming to the language as used by the majority of its speakers" or perhaps (in e.g. French) not conforming to the standard. For the distinction between that and "rare", see also Wiktionary:Information_desk/2014/July#Difference_between_.22disputed_terms.22_.28proscribed.29_and_.22nonstandard_terms.22.3F. Sometimes, but not always, other labels may be more informative than "nonstandard", like "eye dialect of" in "goin'", "internet [slang]" in "u", etc. - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


Module:zh/data/dial-pron should only have single character subpages. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:floatright-top & Template:floatright-bottom[edit]

I am baffled why these even exist.

The "top" one is just:

<div style = "float: right">

The "bottom" one is just:


Using these instead of the HTML increases server load (albeit only slightly), and especially for the "bottom" one, the wikicode is longer than the HTML. They also make it harder to understand what's going on with the page. This looks like a net negative to me, both technically and in terms of usability.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

They exist because the majority here prefers templates over HTML and no better solution was ever found for the problem it solves. Ideally, we should get rid of all the wrapper-style templates (including {{trans-top}} and {{trans-bottom}}). So, I like to think these templates are temporary.
They are better than HTML because
  1. templates can have documentations (these do not, mea culpa) explaining why and when it is necessary to use them in an entry.
  2. it is easier to remember for non technical people.
  3. you can use autocomplete for templates.
They are not worse than HTML because of server load. WM servers are OK, you do not need to worry about them. --Dixtosa (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm seeing very little real use for these templates (and some cases, e.g. over at dog in the manger, seem to be obsolete anyway). Do these actually solve some kind of a problem? There is no default use case where arbitrary content needs to be right-floated, and individual templates (e.g. {{was WOTD}}) that call for this can and do have the feature built into them. --Tropylium (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Without this styling in the entry you mentioned you get the etymology section in a little lower place than it should ideally be leaving an ugly gap above it. see. --Dixtosa (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Renders perfectly well over here (on Firefox 48.0.1 for Mac). --Tropylium (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


啤 is not in Middle Chinese, since it is a recent borrowing from English or German. The only ancient dictionary that I'm aware of having this character is 龍龕手鑑, which gives an obsolete meaning. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 12:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


Created six years ago, never used. Benwing2 (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a preload template so it's not intended to have any transclusions. But yes, delete, we use the New Entry Creator for things like this now. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete. The creator probably substed it when using it, which is why it appears unused, but the creator was indefinitely blocked over 6 years ago, so if no one else is using it, it can go. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete as creator. I didn't ever use it either. --Derrib9 (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary:About Spanish/Todo/Spanish nouns without inflection templates[edit]

Looks like it's been cleaned up, and is thus rendered worthless --Derrib9 (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:False cognates and false friends in English[edit]

Category:False cognates and false friends in Czech[edit]

Category:False cognates and false friends in French[edit]

Category:False cognates and false friends in Scottish Gaelic[edit]

Category:False cognates and false friends in Serbo-Croatian[edit]

Apparently for words that have a false friend in any other language, which is pointless and hardly used. We could make categories for each language-pair like fr.wikt (e.g. fr:Catégorie:Faux-amis_en_anglais_d’un_mot_en_espagnol), but I would be more inclined to make appendices as the ones in Category:False cognates and false friends.__Gamren (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)




Unused. (@Haplology, Eirikr) —suzukaze (tc) 11:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm fine with these templates going bye-bye.  :)
(FWIW, I never got the ping...) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


Empty -- can be recreated or restored when needed. - 19:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Various ergative-related pages for English[edit]

Appendix:English ergative verbs, Category:English ergative verbs - confusion with ambitransitive verbs (verbs that have both transitive and intransitive senses)[edit]

The explanation in the appendix of what an "English ergative verb" is doesn't jive with other explanations of ergativity, such as at w:Ergative–absolutive language. In the sentence, “The boat sank,” the boat is definitely not the PATIENT as the example at Appendix:English ergative verbs currently indicates -- it is instead the agent or actor doing the sinking, and sank in this instance is just a plain old intransitive verb. In the sentence, “This book reads well,” or in “These eggs eat well,” the book or the eggs are clearly not the actors -- semantically, they can't be, outside of very strange and possibly drug-induced circumstances. This is the closest to an actual ergative construction in English, where a semantic object is used in the syntactic subject position (and, when using pronouns that make case explicit like he - him or she - her, the pronoun would be in the nominative case). This matches the definition we currently give in our entry at ergative. This also appears to match what is described in the w:Ergative–absolutive language article, where the semantic object is treated grammatically with the same case and syntax as a subject. This is notably different from the content of the flawed and unsourced w:Ergative verb article, which appears to be rehashing a description of patientive ambitransitive verbs that is presented more clearly and with citations at w:Ambitransitive verb#Patientive.

Moreover, although ergative constructions would seem to exist in English, “ergative” as a label is just not very useful in describing English verbs: although generally only useful for describing the qualities of how the noun verbs, as in the examples above with books and eggs, basically any semantically transitive verb can be used in an ergative construction just by putting the object of the verb's action into the subject slot in the syntax of the sentence. Ergativity is not a feature of English verbs, so much as English syntax.

As such, I propose that we delete both Appendix:English ergative verbs and Category:English ergative verbs. We should probably also delete Category:Old English ergative verbs as well.

Looking at some of the other ergative categories, like Category:Low_German_ergative_verbs or Category:Mandarin ergative verbs, I find that they mostly have descriptions like [LANGUAGE] intransitive verbs that become causatives when used transitively.” This does not agree with the sense of ergative that I'm familiar with, nor does it even always agree with the entries so labeled, giving me serious doubts about the validity of these categories. However, I will leave that to the respective editing communities. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Gee, I thought the problem with the ergative label was just that normal users don't understand the word. Apparently some contributors who add the label to definitions don't either. DCDuring TALK 01:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Ergative verbs are a useful category, and can't simply be replaced by "transitive and intransitive" because they're not the same. Ergative verbs are passive or middle voice when used intransitively, but when used transitively the meaning flips to that of a causative, to make the object undergo the intransitive sense. For example, "the boat sinks" is intransitive and does not have a clear agent. But when you say "the storm sinks the boat", then the storm is acting as an agent on the boat. In Dutch, the intransitive use has a passive/stative perfect construction too, whereas the transitive use has an active construction. —CodeCat 18:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with ergative as a label for other languages, provided those editors have a use for it.
My primary concerns are that 1) I don't see this as a useful label for English, and 2) this use of ergative to refer to a special kind of intransitive-and-causative verb usage does not agree with either our definitions at ergative, or the way the term is employed in other linguistic contexts (viz. the w:Ergative–absolutive language article). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I think the single definition at ergative is meant to encompass both the ergative case and the ergative verb, though it is really not very clear. The specific meanings of the term when applied to nominals and when applied to verbs should be elaborated more. — Eru·tuon 03:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I always thought that ergative verbs (in English) were as defined here and here, which, as far as I have observed, is how the label is used (or intended to be used) at Wiktionary. Therefore, I don't see a problem, unless the label is seen as too technical for readers. I don't understand the comment above that "any semantically transitive verb can be used in an ergative construction just by putting the object of the verb's action into the subject slot in the syntax of the sentence". That would mean that "John loves Mary" should mean the same as "Mary loves (John)", wouldn't it? Mihia (talk)
  • I object to the label, as it is not part of any US education other than some formal education in FLs and linguistics. If we had different labels for users of different preferences, I'd be down with "ergative" as a label, as long as it was not the default.
As to the category and appendices, I personally don't care, but they are probably useful to some. DCDuring TALK 22:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016


This is unused and very much redundant to {{l}}, which does the same thing but includes the proper formatting. —CodeCat 18:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep. See the previous discussion at User talk:Wikitiki89/2014#Template:ll for my opinion on this. Nothing's changed since then. --WikiTiki89 18:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
And your argument is as convincing now as it was then. I still see no added benefit of this template, it provides no extra functions that {{l}} doesn't already. —CodeCat 18:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
That's not true. As I've already said in the discussion I linked, it provides the option of not including formatting, such as if the formatting is already provided outside of the template. --WikiTiki89 18:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The number of transclusions of the template shows how useful that is, I suppose. —CodeCat 19:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Because you keep removing them. --WikiTiki89 19:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The fact that I am able to, is evidence that the template is not necessary. —CodeCat 20:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I've read the discussion linked to above and I still don't see the point of this template. What formatting does {{l}} provide that {{ll}} doesn't, that one might want to exclude? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
    All of the language and script formatting. Look carefully at the examples in the linked discussion for why that formatting might need to be excluded. --WikiTiki89 21:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, or keep and rename. (I'm not sure what "ll" stands for here.) I wasn't aware there was a template to simply link to a language's section of an entry on a word (or a {{senseid}} anchor) without adding spans with language attributes and transliteration. I thought this function would be useful in quotes that use unusual terms (or terms that have several meanings, and you want to link to the particular one that is relevant). It is unsatisfactory to use {{l}}, which adds a lot of unnecessary formatting.
If you are linking an Arabic term in an Arabic quote or example phrase or sentence, you do not want to add a whole nother <span lang="ar" xml:lang="ar"></span> to every one of the words that you want to link, when the text already has that formatting applied to the entire quote or example. It makes the HTML terribly messy. So there needs to be a template that just links and does nothing else.
A simple wikilink would work in many cases, but not those in which the term has several meanings. In that case, having the |id= parameter allows you to link to the applicable meaning of the word in the quote or example. You can't do that unless you want to manually type #langname-senseid after the pagename. It is far easier to have a template with an |id= parameter that can be used in the middle of a quote or example. — Eru·tuon 05:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure that the practice of linking terms in quotations is discouraged. —CodeCat 14:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so that is not an acceptable use of the template. However, I have just found a use for the template in the headword of عَبْد(ʿabd), where the feminine form أَمَة(ʾama) needs an id to direct it to the correct vowelization. Using {{l}} gives bad output. Only {{ll}} works. — Eru·tuon 02:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Books/Greek Anatomy Terms[edit]

What's this? For Wikibooks? --Derrib9 (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


What's this? Wikibooks? --Derrib9 (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete (both) - just somebody's word list page. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Delete from this location; move it to the creating user's userspace perhaps. Equinox 14:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:English words suffixed with -st[edit]

These are all non-lemmas, and we don't categorise inflections by their suffix. —CodeCat 01:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I think some of them are not inflections, like against, amongst and whilst. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep, but clean it out by removing the etymologies from all of the verb forms in it. I've left a message for the IP who's been creating inflected-form entries with etymologies in them, so we shouldn't have to worry about having them added back. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done the cleanup myself- it was easier than I thought. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep as cleaned up - excellent work! bd2412 T 18:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Appendix:Harry Potter[edit]

...and subpages. I don't think we should have appendices for fiction when the individual listed words would fail WT:FICTION. I see this as a vanity project by a fan who didn't really think about its relevance to Wiktionary. Most of these were deleted as a result of Appendix talk:Roger Rabbit, but User:-sche, at least, voted to keep this one. We also have links to the appendix from mainspace (e.g. expelliarmus), which to me seems like a sneaky way to get HP words into mainspace even when they shouldn't be there. Equinox 20:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep. Harmless. Might be helpful to someone who really doesn't know which words are coinages from the books. bd2412 T 03:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Delete this and other appendices of fictional universes; any moderately-sizable fandom will inevitably make their own wiki. Yes, I know CFI does not disallow these appendices.__Gamren (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
These appendices also prevent endless debates as to whether the vocabulary of these fictional worlds meets CFI, when those fandoms try to make mainspace entries from them. bd2412 T 18:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is fansite material. It is not appropriate for a dictionary. Any terms coined in HP that can be shown to have escaped that Universe and entered general use should have dictionary entries. The rest should be deleted. Mihia (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • As it stands, Delete. I could see some value in this if it gave the etymologies of the words along the lines of Appendix:A Clockwork Orange (For example, pointing that Crucio is from the Latin crucio, that Pensieve is a pun on pensive and sieve), but there's no lexicographical info here as it stands. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I created most of that stuff. This is false: "who didn't really think about its relevance to Wiktionary". Fandom stuff was one of my first large projects here, therefore I thought about it. Fandom terms are nice. If other people don't want fandom terms here, I'll respect their right to govern Wiktionary too, and based on their judgement (not my judgement) we can delete these pages. However, I personally support having these pages. There are still thousands of other series, cartoons, comics, books and movies without appendices here. If people decide it's OK to create these appendices, I think it would be great. Naturally, I'm only talking about those works of fiction that have terms specific to them, like "lightsaber". (there are probably other thousands of works of fiction that didn't invent any new words) On the other hand, I'd also support limiting fiction appendices to terms that are used in 3 durably-archived quotations, and therefore I probably wouldn't want to create appendices just because the term appeared in the original book or film. Wikipedia, Wikiquote, and apparently Wikibooks (b:Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter) have pages about works of fiction. Wiktionary should too, at least as appendices. That is, at least, my opinion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    Addendum: If we decide to keep appendices for a great number of words invented in fiction, we have some naming options like 1) one appendix per work, like the current Appendix:Harry Potter, 2) a few appendices containing many titles at once, probably organized alphabetically, like Appendix:Fictional words/H including Harry Potter, 3) probably other variations are possible instead of those, like by author, country, type of work (book, video game, movie). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per BD2412 and Daniel Carrero. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:ja-kanjitab-top, Template:ja-kanjitab-bottom, Template:ja-kanatab, Template:kanji readings tab[edit]

Totally not needed anymore. —suzukaze (tc) 18:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Languages by country[edit]

Upmerge If all of these subcategories were emptied, the parent category would only have a little over 200 entries, which is very navigable and also what one would expect from the name of the category itself. Categorizing by continent isn't really necessary (where does Russia go? Is France in five categories?) —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, straightforward enough. --Tropylium (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Finnish words suffixed with -tekoinen[edit]

-tekoinen is not a true suffix just like "-made" is not an English suffix. I'm going to create a page for adjective tekoinen. No pages link currently to -tekoinen. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


Superseded by Template:ja-categoryTOC? Only used in one category. —suzukaze (tc) 08:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep unless orphaned. @suzukaze-c, why should we delete this while it's still in use? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
It is functionally identical to Template:ja-categoryTOC and is only used in one category orphaned. —suzukaze (tc) 07:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017[edit]

Category:Arabic elatives[edit]

I created the category of "elative adjectives" and "irregular elative adjectives" in Module:category tree/poscatboiler/data/lemmas, and moved all entries in Category:Arabic elatives to Category:Arabic elative adjectives by changing the category transcluded by {{ar-elative}}. Titling the category "elatives" and not "elative adjectives" is inconsistent with Category:Comparative adjectives by language and Category:Superlative adjectives by language. — Eru·tuon 06:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


Conflict with PIE root teh₂- ("to melt").

  • That's no reason to delete. If you want to add an entry for the "melt" word, just edit it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Angr: Edit what, the steh₂- page it redirects to? It wouldn't belong there. --Victar (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Victar: No, edit Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/teh₂-. Just replace the redirect notice with the content you want it to say. It's probably good to add an ===Etymology 2=== with "Alternative form of steh₂-", though, since some incoming links may refer to the "be" word. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Angr: OK, done. --Victar (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


Redundant to t:U:ja:biology. Unused. —suzukaze (tc) 07:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Is katakana ever used thus for anything in science that's not an organism? If not, delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

FWIW the template was used on the page for a species of plant. —suzukaze (tc) 06:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


Creates a bunch of nonsense syllables? Only used in the User: namespace of one person who left over ten years ago. (maybe move the template instead?) —suzukaze (tc) 07:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


Unused. The {{kanji}} mentioned in the documentation hasn't existed for ten years. —suzukaze (tc) 07:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


Replaced by {{zh-l}}. Not used in the mainspace anymore. Still used in some talk/discussion pages. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Ideally, it's better to leave those legible. Can we convert those uses? If not, we can always mark this template as deprecated, and prevent it from being transcluded in mainspace. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Like this? —suzukaze (tc) 06:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure, that works. While you're at it, a bunch of categories you posted on this page have still not been deleted because they haven't been orphaned; if you can deal with those, I'll delete them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I've removed it from most pages. There are four more pages still using it, one of which is Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2006/August (a protected page). The other three would be confusing if changed to {{zh-l}}. Any suggestions on how we should deal with those? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


{{la-decl-1st-er|lut}} is just like {{la-decl-1st|lut}} and the template is not used in any entry.
There are Latin words in -er in the second declension like ager, and there are indeclinable feminines ending with er like Esther. But I'm not aware of any first declension noun in -er, and even if there were any, Template:la-decl-1st-er would require a correction. -Slœtel (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Category:Reference templates[edit]

These should be placed in the appropriate language-specific categories. —CodeCat 15:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the category shouldn't be deleted, as the lang-specific catgs should be kept here. Perhaps rename Cat:Reference templates by language if necessary. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Never mind, I didn't realize that's already a separate catg. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I presume that such templates are categorized by the target language, not the language in which they are written. Do we not care about the language in which the reference is written? What about a multilingual dictionary? (There are at least two such templates.) DCDuring TALK 16:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
They're placed in whichever language they're relevant to as a reference. So the language it's written in is not taken into account, but they can be placed into more than one language category. —CodeCat 16:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't this category be kept as a parent category for "Category:Reference templates by language"? Also, there may be translingual templates such as {{R:Reference-meta}} which I have been working on. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Why should Category:Reference templates by language be placed in this category? It already has its own parent category. And translingual reference templates naturally go in Category:Translingual reference templates. —CodeCat 18:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know "Category:Translingual reference templates" existed. However, isn't it usually the case that when there is a category in the form "X by Y", "X" exists as a parent category as well? At least that's what happens at the Wikimedia Commons. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Not on Wiktionary. I can't imagine Category:Nouns being very useful as a parent of Category:Nouns by language. —CodeCat 19:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In that case, delete according to the reason provided by the nominator. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


Frankish is an early form of Old Dutch/Old High German, and there doesn't seem to be a particular point to having this extra layer in between. WT:AGEM says "As a special exception, it's preferred not to include Frankish reconstructions unless a language other than Dutch has a term derived from it (for example French or Medieval Latin)." —CodeCat 22:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The solution isn't to delete the entry, but move it to a new Old Dutch entry. --Victar (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Solution to what? —CodeCat 22:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The solution to what do with the entry, obviously. --Victar (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
As to your citing of WT:AGEM, I think there are many legitimate reasons to create a reconstruction with only one descendant, and such examples are easy to find. For instance, reconstructions from published works. I also find it poor form to cite one's own words as if they're Ten Commandments. --Victar (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Yep, that's been my recommendation twice now. --Victar (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


Discontinued template replaced by Template:lb. It is not used in main namespace anymore. –dMoberg 19:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


I may have missed this, but since when were we adding Vulgar Latin entries for attested Latin terms? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe see also Wiktionary:Tea room/2017/February#Reconstruction:Latin/amare. -Slœtel (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. It seems that there is indeed no reason to keep this entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tea Room discussion. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


We can put this to rest now that {{grc-IPA}} exists. The only issue is replacing it in all the entries that use it, and I don't know whether that can be automated, since ambiguous vowel length will have to be marked. Note to the closer of this discussion: there are a bunch of subtemplates that need to be deleted as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete on the condition that the new template is made to display like the old, keep otherwise. —CodeCat 02:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
It already does display like the old. Maybe you didn't click 'Show more'. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I prefer it to be expanded by default. The collapsed display tells you so little, it's almost useless. If I'm looking for the Byzantine pronunciation, it doesn't help me at all. —CodeCat 02:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
That's a perfectly valid personal preference, and you can make it show automatically for you by going to 'Visibility' at the lower left of your screen, on the sidebar, and clicking 'Show pronunciations'. In order to save space, the template autocollapses by default, but as you now can see, it displays just like the old one did. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
{{grc-ipa-rows}} doesn't really have ambiguous vowel length, because |a|, |i|, |u| are always short, while |aa|, |ii|, |uu| are always long. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Before we completely eliminate {{grc-ipa-rows}}, though, I do hope someone will address the point I brought up last year at Template talk:grc-IPA#Possible fixes. As far as I know, the discrepancies still exist. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


I stumbled upon this template while trying to follow SMUconlaw's request in GP to document a different project link template. Anyway, it's an old template made with HTML and wikicode that's hardly used (5 times in the main namespace) and redundant to others (basically half of what's in Category:Interwiki templates). Module:wikipedia already implements this functionality and more and I think we should eventually standardise on one set of templates made with it. So delete. —Enosh (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems to have the speedy deletion template on it, but cannot be deleted yet because it is still in use. I think it should have an RFDO template instead. The page is a big mass of brackety code and I can't tell what to change. Equinox 19:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the code a bit, hopefully that helps. —CodeCat 19:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the uses in main namespace, mostly using {{wikipedia|[PAGENAME]|dab=[PAGENAME] (dismbiguation)}}, to achieve the same result as {{sister}} or better. DCDuring TALK 20:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)