Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others

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

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for deletion/Others

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion/English
add new English request | history | archives

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

Requests for verification/English
add new English request | history | archives

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

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

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

Requests for deletion/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

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

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

Contents

2015[edit]

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/bazovъ[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)

Template:te-noun-decl[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:yi-conj-head[edit]

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)
@Wikitiki89, your yearly (or whatever it is) reminder. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Yep. Haven't forgotten. I'll get to it. --WikiTiki89 15:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: Can you please fix these two? —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@Koavf: Sorry, it's not a simple fix. I have to implement a whole new feature in Mod:yi-verb. I'll get around to it when I have time. Perhaps we should close this discussion as a keep and renominate it later? --WikiTiki89 14:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
That seems sensible to me but it would be nice if we can ensure that it's on a to-do list somewhere. What is it about these two verbs that is so tricky? —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
They are phrasal verbs, which the conjugation template does not support yet. I've been planning to add it, as it would be useful in general (not just for these two verbs). --WikiTiki89 18:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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 can see some value in keeping them, or something like them, mainly for the convenience of people learning English as a second language. Setting out a list of the main cases where a meaning isn't the obvious one from the meanings of the individual words provides a better resource than simply listing them (along with a lot of rare idioms, without the meanings beside them). Maitchy (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Double agree. The category is just fine. Or put it in a user subpage. --Cien pies 6 (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2018 (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 meaningful question or note, not this trash. It's like a child whining.suzukaze (tc) 07:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC), edited 06:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete all the relevant sections. If nothing is left, delete the talk page. Wyang (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

(I really think usage of the proper request templates should be enforced. —suzukaze (tc) 23:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC))

2016[edit]

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)


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)

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)

Template:hu-suffix[edit]

  • 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)

Template:hu-prefix[edit]

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.

Rationale:

  • 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)

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)

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]

Reasons:

  • 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)
  • Keep, though I'm late to the party. Keep the category, trash the box. Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 17:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, this looks to have passed {{rfd}}. --Victar (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2018 (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. {{der|en|und}} — 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: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)

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)
Unnecessary, delete. DonnanZ (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@Gamren: If you can't get this deleted just empty the category by moving the contents to Category:Danish noun forms. There is more chance that an empty category can be deleted. DonnanZ (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2018 (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)

Deprecate and keep, preventing further use through abuse filters. - [The]DaveRoss 12:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:es-adj form of[edit]

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

Deprecate and keep, preventing further use through abuse filters. - [The]DaveRoss 12:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Categorisation of non-lemma forms is not without use. embryomystic (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2018 (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:la-decl-4th-argo[edit]

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)

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.

The full list

—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)
IMO it is too specific for a category. It is also clumsy; sortkeys are used to display which kana each kanji gave rise to. If we want them, we can use an appendix page, like I mentioned in my original comment. —suzukaze (tc) 06:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:ja-kref[edit]

Template:JIS[edit]

Template:S-JIS[edit]

Template:EUC-JP[edit]

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)

If we really want this data we could centralize it in an Appendix. —Suzukaze-c 08:42, 17 June 2018 (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)

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)
@Mihia: -- The definitions you linked to provide senses that are indistinguishable from the more widely used descriptor, ambitransitive, or simply by stating that a given verb is both transitive and intransitive. For this sense, using the term ergative instead only invites confusion. As described by others at [[w:Talk:Ergative_verb#Not_standard_usage_in_linguistics]], this usage of ergative appears to have arisen out of confusion, and usage of this sense also appears to be limited to a narrow subset of fields that use the term (perhaps just ESL?). In light of these issues, I see no usefulness and too much potential for user confusion were we to use ergative as a label for any and all English verbs that are both transitive and intransitive, such as boil in “he boils the water” and “the water boils.
Cases where ergative actually starts to make sense for English outside of the confused ambitransitive sense are cases where the verb itself is semantically transitive, and is used in an intransitive grammatical construction where the grammatical subject of the verb is also the semantic patient of the action, and the semantic agent is left unstated. Restating from a separate thread, over at [[User_talk:Eirikr#Discussion_of_ergatives_and_perfect_tense_in_Germanic]]:

<...snip...>

... words like melt and sink and grow cannot usefully or correctly be described as ergative. For a sentence like "the boat sinks, there is no ... agent that is making this happen. The action in question "happens by itself". These words are fundamentally [semantically] intransitive, where the modern EN transitive uses have developed from a causative sense.
This is not to say that separate causative and passive constructions could not also exist. Compare:
  • The ice melts. -- intransitive
  • The ice is being melted by her. -- passive
  • She melts the ice. -- transitive
  • She makes the ice melt. -- causative
Semantically, in the kinds of environments that humans have historically found themselves, actions like melting and freezing are precisely the kinds of actions that "happen by themselves". There doesn't need to be any actor causing the action of "melting" to happen. Similarly for freeze, sink, grow, etc.
Meanwhile, the description of "ergative" could apply quite well to verbs that are semantically inherently transitive, such as cook. "Cooking" is not something that naturally happens by itself in the kinds of environments that humans have historically found themselves; this action requires an agent, an actor. This could be something inanimate, such as "heat", but the verb semantically requires someone or something to carry out the action. Note that there is no similar causative for such verbs, precisely because there is no semantically intransitive sense. When used causatively, the implication is that A causes B to do something transitively to C.
  • He cooks the eggs. -- transitive
  • *He makes the eggs cook. -- unnatural, incorrect causative
  • He makes him cook the eggs. -- causative, still transitive
  • The eggs are being cooked by him. -- passive
  • The eggs cook. -- ergative
This last instance is where the "ergative" label finally makes sense, as I've understood your [CodeCat's] description and the description in the WP article [at w:Ergative_verb]. This could also be analyzed as a kind of passive construction where the actor carrying out the transitive action is left unstated.
However, this kind of ergative usage is mostly a matter of English syntax, which would further limit the usefulness of this term as a label. Per utramque cavernam had a good breakdown regarding transitivity, intransitivity, and ergativity in an English verb context over at [[User_talk:DCDuring#parse]].
HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • 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)

Template:ll[edit]

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)
I've now replaced it with {{l}}, and it works fine. There's yet to be a compelling argument for the template. Messy HTML is not a compelling argument; have you ever seen what MediaWiki itself generates at times? —CodeCat 02:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

January 2017[edit]

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)

February 2017[edit]

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)

Could some people help with clearing it out? —CodeCat 14:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@CodeCat: I'll do some work on it. — Eru·tuon 21:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
When it's deleted, where shall we put Category:Quotation reference templates? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
What about the templates not in another category, like Template:R:Wordorigins.org! Will they become orphant-templates upon deletion of Category:Reference templates? Thx, B Lemeukx (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:grc-ipa-rows[edit]

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)

Keep until discrepancies between this and {{grc-IPA}} are ironed out. {{grc-IPA}} is currently riddled with errors. - Gilgamesh~enwiki (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

April 2017[edit]

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/biderbaną[edit]

As above. —CodeCat 21:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete --Victar (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Weak delete: supported by only a single Dutch descendant. Weak since I know no Dutch and Proto-Germanic and know of no fixed policy for quasi-attestng Proto-Germanic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

May 2017[edit]

Category:Air[edit]

The vast majority of languages have no entries in this category, it only exists to serve as a parent to Category:Wind. It's also fairly redundant to Category:Atmosphere, since the two terms are fairly synonymous. —CodeCat 22:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:ru:CIS[edit]

This passed RFDO before, despite Stephen being the only one who wanted to keep it. It seems to me that it has no value. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

June 2017[edit]

Appendix:X is a beautiful language[edit]

They are present at the translation section of English is a beautiful language.--2001:DA8:201:3512:BCE6:D095:55F1:36DE 12:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Your logic would be flawed if English is a beautiful language is deleted. --WikiTiki89 21:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
So maybe on hold until the discussion of the latter is closed.--115.27.203.95 10:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete. That RFD failed. I would have preferred to keep the entry, but I'm not comfortable with keeping the appendix either if the entry is unwanted. It makes it seem like the appendix namespace is a space for random trash. Either the phrase is good enough for the dictionary or it's not. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Appendix:Romance of the Three Kingdoms[edit]

I don't think it's useful as it does not introduce any new words but names of individuals (which is cleatly not dictionary material - we don't have a list of US presidents and Appendix:Harry Potter/Characters does not include a list of individual names).--115.27.203.95 10:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep or move somewhere; it is useful as a link target for this Wikisource project. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 22:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Latin/circlus[edit]

We already have circulus, so this is just an unattested alternative form. —CodeCat 17:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see no reason not to move the descendants to circulus and delete this. If we wanted to maintain a distinction between descendants from circulus and those from a syncopated form *circlus, we could do that in circulus. - -sche (discuss) 06:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Would you delete this, but keep oclus simply because it's attested? --Barytonesis (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Um... pretty much, yes. That's kinda how Wiktionary works. But the inflection table with unattested forms should be removed, and the descendants placed at the lemma. —CodeCat 13:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
About the inflection tables, I think I agree. But why do you want to move the descendants back to the Classical oculus? I thought we strived for the proximate derivation?
As for the deletion debate: it's not just a problem with this entry; the whole Vulgar Latin situation is messy right now. Why pick this particular entry? --Barytonesis (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Simple machines[edit]

Fairly limited in scope. --Barytonesis (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, just like the category for the seven deadly sins. Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017[edit]

Appendix:English words with Greek and Latin roots[edit]

The first one has already been RFM'ed, to no avail for lack of participants. --Barytonesis (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep for reasons stated in Appendix talk:English words by Latin antecedents#RFM discussion: August 2015–September 2016. Note that the nomination lacks a rationale and as such is not a contribution to a meaningful discussion about merits. If this nomination results in deletion, please move the two pages to my user space. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Dan Polansky: I'm tired of having to deal with half-baked and full of mistakes appendices (I can already see one error in these two lines!). This is subpar to the quality we're trying to achieve, and just gives a poor image of the project. At least for now, we will be better served by a CAT:English hybrid compounds or the like. Categories are much easier to fill. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
      • But the appendix namespace is specifically for very trivial or marginal content. Plus, there is no deadline on this project: it's all a work in process. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
      • For the record, User:Per utramque cavernam above is User:Barytonesis above.

        As for the deletion rationale now provided: 1) half-baked: yes, wiki pages are incomplete, and you are not required to deal with them, especially in the appendix namespace. 2) "full of mistakes appendices (I can already see one error in these two lines!)": One error does not indicate "full of mistakes"; let's correct the mistakes and move on. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:is-decl-noun[edit]

Now superseeded by {{is-decl-noun-base}}. 220.240.83.61 09:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Counters by language[edit]

Possible duplicate with Category:Classifiers by language--222.29.114.71 20:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:ast-verb-er[edit]

and Template:ast-verb-ar and Template:ast-verb-ir. Surely they can be merged into Template:ast-verb. -WF

  • This should be listed at WT:RFM, WF. --Recónditos (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily, Rec. Let's delete all of them instead. -WF
  • DeleteCodeCat 18:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, we can merge these. Delete. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱlitós[edit]

Only one descendant given, which is not enough to reconstruct a PIE form. There used to be a Germanic descendant listed, but it was dubious as the accent didn't match, so I removed it. Even two descendants is not particularly strong evidence given that the *-tós suffix is very productive. Independent innovation is very possible. —CodeCat 13:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Victar has now put back the Germanic descendants that I removed. I removed them because they violate Verner's law. Are we allowed to ignore basic linguistics just because someone's source says so? —CodeCat 15:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@JohnC5, stay or go? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: I think stay. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 11:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱlinéh₂ti[edit]

None of the formations in the descendants actually match the PIE form, so why does this exist? There was a Latin form listed before, but per De Vaan, it doesn't belong there. —CodeCat 14:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Beekes clearly cites *klin-je/o- as the root of the the Greek form, and that itself comes from an older nasal present. Kroonen cites the older original form as either *ḱli-neh₂- or *ḱli-neu-. That is what was reconstructed on this page. de Vann concurs and explains the long -ī- as being "introduced from the root aorist *klei- i *kli- (cf. cliēns)." --Victar (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
This doesn't address the main point at all, but merely confirms it. Why do we reconstruct this if there are zero forms which actually descend from it? —CodeCat 14:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The Latin form is cited in sources as an example of this original form. Source add. --Victar (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the entry is now in conflict with the (also sourced) etymology given at clīnō and *ḱley-. We clearly cannot follow the sources here, as they contradict each other. This is an issue with a lot of your editing, Victar. You blindly go with sources which often posit very bold hypotheses that don't have widespread acceptance, you don't critically examine them. You also do not seek out consensus; whenever someone reverts your questionable additions, you ignore the fact that reverting an addition means no consensus, and repeatedly reinstate. When discussions finally start, you also refuse to wait for a consensus, but reinstate your edits as soon as you think you have proven your point, as on Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/ḱlitós. You need to stop hiding behind sources and start listening to editors. —CodeCat 14:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
If we're going to bring this to personal attacks simply because you disagree with the sources, let me say that your actions are very unbecoming of an editor. I attempt to start a dialog with you, as exampled here, and your solution every time is to simply assert you are correct and delete the entry. You were stripped of your adminship because of your uncooperative behavior which you continue to this day. --Victar (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
You attempted to start a dialog, then completely ignored it and put the content back anyway. Multiple times. Without consensus. And you still haven't given a good argument for keeping this entry, and you still continue to add content without consensus. —CodeCat 15:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Ignored it? I put forth my thoughts, and your response was you're wrong, I'm deleting it again. That is not a dialog on your part. You are not one to talk at all about consensus. For example, there was a clear consensus that laryngeals existed in PII and many of its descendants, and despite that, you systematically deleted them, at which point @JohnC5 had to insist that you stop. This project is not a dictatorship for your ruling. --Victar (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
No person is correct in all decisions. CodeCat has made mistakes, as have I. Recently, Victar, you're been running roughshod across these entries, frequently ignoring language specific-considerations in favor of utopian reconstructionism. I've tried to be fairly conservative in the way I've edited on here, and CodeCat is very useful in reining in my reconstructive excesses. Similarly, sometimes she has personal opinions which need curtailing, but this is done in discussion with other editors. If there is no consensus, it is better to not add it all then to add highly speculative material. Again, I've made these mistakes many times, and indeed at one point CodeCat told me to go read a bunch of literature since I was adding so many bad reconstructions.
In this matter, I would agree with CodeCat that there seem to be several competing explanations or maybe several competing forms. This entry is at this point too speculative to merit its own entry. —JohnC5 17:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I am completely open to being wrong and absolutely crave discussions so that I might learn from them. I do ping you and CodeCat on entries that I hope either of you can look over. I probably would have done the same once I finished working on the entries, like I did here.
My objection is in CodeCat's method of simply reverting someone with no explanation other than "you're wrong", if that much, which I find in bad form. We should be encouraging editors to go through the sources and add this information to the project, and, in turn, correcting mistakes, not disregarding them with reverts and throwing the baby out with the bath water.
You both know, I'm a clean and methodical sourcer (I added |passage= to many reference templates to improve them further), and I want to get these entries done by the books as much as anyone else. Three sources, Kroonen, de Van, and Beekes all suggest a nasal verb root, but if that's too speculative, lets have a conversation and come to some less speculative alternatives. I'm happy to see that CodeCat has now added some to the root entry, but this was only after my objections to the deletion of the entry. --Victar (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I usually err on the side of caution, and I wouldn't even have created a PIE page in this instance. The descendants are too different to really pin them down onto a single form. Kroonen etc. may be right about the original -neh₂- suffix, but this is very speculative considering that it doesn't appear in that form in any language. It appears to me like they pulled it out of thin air. The nasal itself is plentifully attested, but its exact nature is too unclear. What I find especially telling is that Greek added an additional -ye- present suffix to it, as if it wasn't "present enough" in its old form. The Germanic form, with a stative formed, seemingly, from a characterised present, is even more puzzling. So my preferred option would be to just say "We don't know" and only list the forms without trying to pin a particular underlying formation on them, as Kroonen and De Vaan do. Note that Kroonen and De Vaan disagree on what they think the original form was, and I find neither of their proposals particularly compelling. De Vaan's proposal might work if the root had an additional final laryngeal, but that's ad hoc and only solves the puzzle for Latin, it makes it harder for all the others. —CodeCat 18:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Haha, "present enough" made me laugh. I can certainly see where you're coming from and Kroonen definitely phones it in at times. I think we can agree though that three independent innovations of *ḱli-n- seems highly unlikely. I've moved over the sources for to *ḱley-, so please feel free to delete *ḱlinéh₂ti. Also, please copy your comment regarding Germanic weak class 3 over, which I think is helpful. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Re CodeCat and "...personal attacks simply because you disagree with the sources...": +1 on the Uther-meter. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: That is not a helpful comment for dialog. --Victar (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

September 2017[edit]

Reconstruction:Latin/avere[edit]

Redundant to habeō. —Rua (mew) 21:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not redundant. And some redundancy could be removed by giving VL *avere/*aveō as descendant of habere/habeō and putting (some, not necessary all) Romance words in the VL entry only, as e.g.: Latin habere -> VL *avere -> Old Italian avere -> (New) Italian avere, and Latin habere -> VL *avere -> Old French [...] -> Middle French avoir -> (New) French avoir. -84.161.5.32 03:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:SOP[edit]

Long unused, and hence marked for speedy deletion by WF. I thought I'd bring it here, instead — it does seem to have some promise as an improvement over {{no entry}}. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@DCDuring, this might interest you. If not, it looks like it'll go. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Indeed it does. Let's leave it here for, say, two or four more weeks. If we can't find real uses for it in that time, we can delete it. I think real examples of use would help focus discussion. DCDuring (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@DCDuring: How about fringe science? Try sticking it on there and see what you think. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
[[fringe science]] would be better addressed by {{translation only}} or by a redirect to WP (unless that is forbidden). DCDuring (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

October 2017[edit]

Category:English four-letter abbreviations[edit]

There are only two pages that are in this category right now and all of the edits of this page were by the same person, so it should probably either start being used or be deleted. 24.13.226.156 18:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The page isn't showing up for some reason it's https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_four-letter_abbreviations never mind I figured it out 24.13.226.156 19:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Frequency lists/top 2000 German Wikipedia words[edit]

  1. It's not reliable and not correct and not helpful as it includes
    • English non-German words (the, of, by, with, and, is, University, World)
    • Latin or French non-German words (de, et)
    • Italian non-German words (di, del)
    • Dutch or Low German non-High-German words (van)
    • proscribed terms (z.B., u.a., d.h.)
    • inflected forms (amerikanische, amerikanischen, Weltkrieg, Weltkrieges, Weltkriegs)
    • miscapitalised forms (Obwohl, Später, Und)
      -- neuter substantivations of particles do exist, but that's obviously not what's meant here. What's given here are particles as they are written at the beginning of a sentence
    • other questionable terms (m, San, Santa)
      -- The letter m? Maybe a misabbreviation of maskulin or männlich (cp. m.). "San" as in "San Francisco", "San Marino" etc.? It's not the Greek letter known in English as san.
  2. It's from an old and unreliable source as it's
    • "From the 09.02.2005 dump. Copied straight from de:Wiktionary:Fehlende Einträge/Top2000 Wörter"
  3. Compared with old versions and something is wrong. Old versions and French wiktionary have for example "Die" and "Weblinks". "Weblinks" was removed in English Wiktionary in September 2011. So the given source isn't correct anymore as it was altered in English Wiktionary, and the number might be wrong now too. That is at the very least it has to be correctly restored or updated somehow.

-84.161.23.112 17:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Delete, it has served its purpose. If we want frequency lists, the corpus shouldn't be Wikipedia. --Barytonesis (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete indeed. When Wonderfool made it back in 2006, it was to look for common words. Now it's pretty pointless. --P5Nd2 (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: I find the rationale overall irrelevant, especially "unreliable": the reader knows it is from Wikipedia and it is from an old dump; we could note that certain kinds of edits were made. As for "inflected froms", en wikt frequency lists often include them; as for "proscribed terms", en wikt is a descriptivist dictionary. Wiktionary:Frequency_lists#German has links to frequency lists from "TV and movie subtitle"; these are no more relevant, correct or curated than the present list. I don't see why "corpus shouldn't be Wikipedia"; for English, we have a frequency list from Gutenberg, which for the purpose of frequency list is no better. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
    • We might want to delete that frequency list from Gutenberg as well, then. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dʰéwbus[edit]

Not attested outside of Baltic. Should probably merge back to root page. Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 16:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean? Germanic has *deupaz listed right there. 68.175.135.161 16:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @JohnC5, can you figure this one out? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge: I've fiddled around with this root long enough. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 06:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    I looked up the details a while ago: even per Ringe, who has been cited as a source, Germanic *deupaz is only related in being from the same root (*dʰewb-nó- as per Kroonen etc.), not in descending from this formation. Merge. --Tropylium (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    Delete and Merge, whatever one can take the responsibility for. Palaestrator verborum 🎢 sis loquier 🗣 08:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

November 2017[edit]

Wiktionary:About Spanish/Todo/missing n-s[edit]

And

List of missing Spanish entries. Hasn't been updated for 10 years. Yeah, we could update it instead.--P5Nd2 (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@P5Nd2: Wiktionary:Requested entries (Spanish) gets updated, tho. Seems like these two overlap. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, still a source of redlinks. (Could be made more useful by purging the ones with Spanish sections already or containing ellipses; you might ask DTLHS to do that.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Latin/paraulo[edit]

Redundant to parabolō. —Rua (mew) 15:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably delete, but parabolo is currently labelled as Medieval Latin only; is it attested earlier than that? --Barytonesis (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:seeSynonyms[edit]

I think it better to reference the thesaurus without a template, using a short phrase like "See also Thesaurus:cat". This template produces e.g. "(marijuana): For semantic relationships of this sense, see marijuana in the Thesaurus" when placed to Synonyms section, which to my taste is too wordy, and does not fit nicely as a last item in a synonym list on a bullet, e.g. "puss, pussy, malkin, kitty, pussy-cat, grimalkin; see also Thesaurus:cat" or even "puss, pussy, malkin, kitty, pussy-cat, grimalkin; see also Thes:cat" if Thes ever becomes a namespace redirect. A similar template was deleted years ago; see Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-01/Removing Wikisaurus-link template. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Let me ping AdamBMorgan, who created the template and is a formidable contributor to the Thesaurus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

As for a rationale, I'd say, in general, let's be brief. In etymologies, let's write "from X (Y)" rather than "which comes from noun X meaning Y". I admit that a new user will not immediately know what "Thesaurus:cat" is unless they have seen a thesaurus outside of Wiktionary before, but they can figure it out by exploring the thesaurus, and by navigating to Wiktionary:Thesaurus which is linked from the header in every thesaurus entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to deleting the template and replacing it with a short phrase. It was just an idea, based on a comment in the beer parlour, and the wording is just an adaptation of Template:seeCites. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I shortened the text displayed by the template. I think we can treat this as resolved. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:table:days of the week/documentation[edit]

{{table:days of the week}} is redundant with {{list:days of the week/en}}, which is used by far more languages. One of the two has to go, but I'd rather keep {{table:days of the week}} to be honest. --Barytonesis (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

{{list:days of the week/nb}}is in use. DonnanZ (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Jonteemil, Daniel Carrero, who worked on {{table:days of the week}} --Barytonesis (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

btw, this might be a good usecase for Wikidata, e.g. Q105 (Monday). – Jberkel (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Meh, I've just found out about {{list:seasons/el}} vs. {{table:seasons/el}}... Seriously? --Barytonesis (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks for the ping. I claim credit for inventing the system of "list:" and "table:"-prefixed templates that are repeated the same way over many languages. As a subjective, arguable rule of thumb, I usually prefer tables everywhere and would suggest deleting the lists. That's just my opinion, feel free to disagree.
    As suggested above, I would love to use Wikidata for all that stuff eventually. But I wonder if maybe using Wikidata here would be actually impossible because, say, we want to use some specific words and Wikidata would use other words. Maybe some language has a lot of synonyms for "Monday" and Wikidata would list them all but we wouldn't, or some other situation like this. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    @Daniel Carrero: I prefer the table as well, but I didn't feel like switching everything manually; the switch to list was out of convenience only. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    @Daniel Carrero: yes, there could be some cases where wikidata returns something incorrect, which we could either fix there (preferably), or override it locally (for that language). For most languages it should work fine. I checked a few samples (Ukrainian, Tagalog, Marathi) and the label data in WD for the language looked fine. Jberkel (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose merger as the usage depends on the layout of the page. One could use one table on one place and the other in an Appendix, and in an other appendix the first one again. Except of course there is a more intelligent way like having one template with a parameter for layout switch. Or even one template for all languages where one has to specify the lang and the layout, the data being held elsewhere. Possibly something with Wikidata which I cannot imagine because I have not yet found out what Wikidata is for. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 02:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    @Palaestrator verborum: "the usage depends on the layout of the page": if you're suggesting that we use one template for the main space, and another for the appendix space, I'm not opposed to it; if you're suggesting that one language can use the list template, and another language the table template because of different layouts, I disagree: we should aim at a consistent layout for all languages. I agree with the rest of your message. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    @Barytonesis:: Lol, actually I did not suggest one language can use the list template, and another language the table template because of different layouts. We surely aim at consistent layouts, though I cannot exclude the possibility that for some weird technical or aesthetical reason one has to deviate on one page. I mainly pointed out that there are all kinds of appendices, and these can indeed have varying layouts depending on what appendix it is.
Something with Appendix:Days of the week could be done too, so it does not have its data in cleartext but elsewhence. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 15:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:el-phrasebook[edit]

This is a Greek-specific template whose purpose is to hang a notice in the upper right-hand corner of the entry informing readers that it belongs to a certain phrasebook. This seems like where {{phrasebook}} should be used, if anything. We should cut down on language-specific versions of things that should be the same for all languages anyway. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 21:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Redundant to the generic template. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just edited {{phrasebook}} because it was too huge and yellow and distracting. It also repeated twice that the entry is part of the "(language) phrasebook", the second time inside a collapsible div. I made {{phrasebook}} shorter now, more or less inspired by {{el-phrasebook}}, which was already short, right-floating and arguably inconspicuous when I found it. Yes, in my opinion we can delete {{el-phrasebook}} now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep (for the time being) — @Daniel Carrero: thanks for noticing why I created this template, the generic one was very intrusive. But have a look at "I love you", isn't more work needed on {{phrasebook}}? — Saltmarsh. 07:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I daresay it's a little too subtle--a background color would probably help. But I also agree that the old template was a bit garish and intrusive. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the generic template is too garish, then forking a language-specific template is not the solution. Fixing the generic template is the solution. —Rua (mew) 12:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    I agree. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    I couldn't agree more — however (see above) — can't face the interminable bloody discussion :) — Saltmarsh. 06:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    I agree. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, per others' arguments above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017[edit]

Template:el-future-form[edit]

This template is used for definitions that should not exist, as they are simply showing how the particle θα (tha) can be used with verb forms to create other forms. It would be like having a template for showing a definition at come for will come. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

  • @Metaknowledge: It isn't so much a definition as an example of usage - isn't that a useful thing for someone new to a language to find — "κάνει" illustrates — Saltmarsh. 06:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, it is a definition, because that's just how Wiktionary works. But it obviously doesn't deserve to be one. And I don't think it's that useful, because learners will have to apply a little grammar in order to conjugate, that's just how it is. Our job is just to provide and document the words, which these are not. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Now modified to give usage example - rfd removed. — Saltmarsh. 18:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
That's a lot better, but I still think we'd be best off removing it altogether. I'm willing to accept this, but I'm reinstating the RFD because I'd prefer to let it run its course. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@Saltmarsh: I don't mean to hassle you, but why do you feel this is different from {{el-dep}}, which you agreed to see removed (as per the template talkpage linked above)? --Barytonesis (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@Barytonesis:My purpose was to illustrate a usage and its a shorter way of achieving this with resorting to {{ux}} which requires a translation. — Saltmarsh. 06:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Not necessarily, you can use {{ux|el|xxx|t=-}} --Barytonesis (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:el-model-page[edit]

No other language has model pages, especially not with labels in the upper right-hand corner advertising them. I raised this before at Template talk:el-model-page, but now I'd like to see what others think. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

  • keep — I would suggest that other languages should consider having model pages. (1) New editors find them a useful guide. (2) They form the basis for any discussions about page format. Does an unobtrusive note do any harm? — Saltmarsh. 07:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, you know my stance on this. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of "model pages", I'm just opposed to any kind of notice in the main space: this piece of information concerns the editors, not the viewers/readers. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:el-big-link[edit]

Used in one appendix. What's the point? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

But it is used more than 100 times there — Saltmarsh. 18:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm still not sure what the point of it is. Can't you just apply whatever formatting you want directly on that appendix? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Palaestrator verborum 🎢 sis loquier 🗣 08:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Transwiki:Abbreviations listed in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica[edit]

Probably not wanted here --Lirafafrod (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@User:Lirafafrod I moved this discussion from RFDE to RFDO. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Keep while there are still valid redlinks to be created. We could move it to a request subpage or something, though. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:English terms spelled with -[edit]

Previously deleted; manually re-introduced. —suzukaze (tc) 08:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep How is this any different than anything else in Category:English terms by their individual characters? —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete As I understand it, these "terms by their individual characters" are for categorizing terms using characters that are unusual in the given language. For English, that would be e.g. letters with diacritical marks, like é and ç, but there is nothing unusual about terms using a hyphen. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 09:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I am curious as to the intended use case for such categories. Equinox 09:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I think some people like the idea of using a dictionary to find lexicographical/orthographic oddities. We keep a category of English terms spelled with Ç for the same reason we list anagrams or keep a category of English palindromes. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
The anagrams and palindromes are at least useful in solving word puzzles. Equinox 10:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - We have a category for all even though most plurals are not at all unusual - I can't see why we cannot have a category for hyphenated terms. I do appreciate the point that hyphens are not unusual (hence the 'weak') but the use of punctuation within a word is somehow less standard than the use of the letters A to Z. John Cross (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
If it's kept please edit Module:languages/data2 so people don't waste their time adding it manually. DTLHS (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
It's a category that potentially has some use for less experienced users who are trying to search for a term beginning with "-". What would be more useful would be a category for terms beginning with "-". The problem that is addressed is the impossibility of finding such terms without using the relatively advanced "insource" feature of CirrusSearch. DCDuring (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Are there any English entries beginning with "-" that aren't in CAT:English suffixes or CAT:English suffix forms? —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 16:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Isn't that easy to determine using CirrusSearch, with "insource"? DCDuring (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete, useless crap. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
If this is kept, the code that prevents it from being added by automatically by the headword templates needs to be removed again. Please don't close this discussion (at least, in a way that keeps this) without fixing that. Weak keep, IMO. I sometimes want to check for words spelled with a certain character, and it's easier to check a category than to go to the bother of performing my own database dump search. - -sche (discuss) 16:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete per Mahāgaja. – Julia (talk• formerly Gormflaith • 18:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:index/Ancient Greek[edit]

Unused, and obsolete? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Unused?? It's transcluded on 55 pages. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 08:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete if and only if we also delete Index:Ancient Greek and all its subpages, which range from horribly incomplete to awfully non-Ancient Greek. (To be clear, I think we should delete both, but we can't delete this template unless the index goes too.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Meh, I hadn't even noticed it was a template; I thought it was a random page with a bunch of red links in it. Delete all, then. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018[edit]

Reconstruction:Latin/agurium[edit]

Reconstruction:Latin/asculto[edit]

augurium and ausculto are attested, and the loss of u in that context is apparently a regular phenomenon (see also *agustus from augustus), so there's no good reason to have these. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 22:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:pos a[edit]

Template:pos n[edit]

Template:pos v[edit]

Template:pos adv[edit]

Obsolete, the usual link templates have had pos parameters for a long time. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep. I use these all the time when I'm lazy. --Gente como tú (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
This makes no sense, it would go just as fast to type ''noun'' or ''adverb''. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete. —Rua (mew) 18:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 22:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Wiktionary:About Ainu[edit]

Wiktionary:Ainu Project[edit]

Wiktionary:Ainu Project/grammar[edit]

About pages have been deleted that had more text, and of the presented three pages here the former two have absolutely no content and the third abuses Wiktionary as a data warehouse for work BenjaminBarrett12 (talkcontribs) had to do on his own disk, while for what he has left I see no use. We can of course make great translation appendices for grammar terms but this is very far from it, and I do not know what purpose it would serve were it completed that could justify its presence. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 00:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Palaestrator verborum: Don't forget that you have to tag the pages first with {{rfd}}, and only from there should you create a section here (by using the + sign of that template). --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam Yes, I consider using the template on the pages, but the links on the templates were incorrect, because I collect all in one title, for they are supposed to be covered jointly, or is such never the case? So maybe I am supposed to use L3 for all? Then also, sometimes nobody cares and we have these templates for two years on the pages which makes Wiktionary look bad. By itself, the use of the template is minute. Sometimes it prevents people from making too many vain contributions to a thing, but this won’t happen here. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 10:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Palaestrator verborum: Given how the template linking works, I don't think it's possible to cover several rfd in a single header, so yes, you have to create L3 headers.
Btw, I appreciate your efforts to clean up other pages (Wiktionary:About..., etc.) and streamlining it all. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:ca-num-ord-note[edit]

I object to this kind of grammatical usage notes being repeated on dozen of entries. It's distracting, and belongs in an Appendix, not in individual entries. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Some templatised usage notes can be good; this one is simply so poorly written that it really reduces the quality of the entries. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:oed1923[edit]

Used on exactly one entry: apologism. I believe we have {{R:OED}} for that now? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It probably is intended to indicate use of the out-of-copyright earlier volumes of the OED. Arguably it should be more widely used, not deleted. DCDuring (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
No, no, we should not be copying content from the OED. The template should be deleted after apologism is reworded so it no longer copies the OED, if indeed it still does. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Why should we not copy out-of-copyright works, like MW 1911, Century 1913, and OED 1923? If it weren't for such copying our coverage and even quality would be much worse than it is. It's hard enough to update older definitions without acting as if we could surpass these past lexicographers starting from a clean slate. We should have our creative hands full working on on new words and new definitions of old words. DCDuring (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
When I see your "creative hands" doing any substantial work improving English entries, I'll try to remember to take you seriously. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I mostly work in Translingual and English vernacular names. I found working on basic English words too hard. What do you work on? DCDuring (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: Do you have any substantive response to my question above? Corrections to my statements above? DCDuring (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
You of all people are complaining about non-substantive responses? We can and should define based on the evidence, and despite being the best we have, the OED is not really that wonderful of a dictionary. We are on track to be able to exceed them in coverage and quality for English etymology, scientific vocabulary, and more, while avoiding their penchant for dated, poorly written definitions and dictionary-only words. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I repeat my request that you address the actual issues at hand. Perhaps you can vent your spleen at me in some other forum. It might help to consider, just for English:
  1. how many contributors you would deem capable of generating acceptable definitions variously:
    1. from scratch
    2. from out-of-copyright works
    3. from the typical definition that we now have.
  2. how many definitions of each such origin or lack a contributor is willing to produce on average in a year.
  3. how much work of each type for these contributors to do:
    1. how many definitions we lack
    2. how many unacceptable definitions we have from out-of-copyright works
    3. how many other "poorly written definitions".
It's then just simple arithmetic to determine how long it will take to finish a dictionary of 2018 English that met your standard of quality and purity of origin. This ignores other kinds of work needed to bring English L2 sections to a uniformly acceptable standard.
The same kind of analysis might be applied to other languages. It would be particularly appropriate to consider the output we could manage in dead languages without copying from reference works. Presumably we don't copy from in-copyright works (eg, Oxford Latin Dictionary) in any language. Do we dispense entirely with copy-and-paste from Lewis and Short? We certainly don't spend much effort on preventing COPYVIO, let alone copying from out-of-copyright sources. Perhaps you might encourage such policing. DCDuring (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete or (my weak preference) move to Template:R:OED1923 and reformat to be like Template:R:Webster 1913 rather than like Template:Webster 1913. We should indeed not just copy information from the OED or Webster without checking the information for correctness, and when we're adding information that we've checked for correctness, the entry shouldn't use this template but rather a "R:" template (just like with the two Webster templates). But a "R:OED1923" could be useful if we want to source an etymological detail that's supported by that dictionary and either it isn't in the modern OED anymore (maybe we're sourcing a line like "until the earl 1900s, it was thougth to derive from XOED1923 but it is now thought to derive from Y"), or the adding editor simply doesn't have access to the modern OED but can indeed cite the older OED. - -sche (discuss) 18:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:rfc-inflection[edit]

Practically unused, useless; {{rfc}} will work just as well. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I think this might still be applied by a bot. (Or was that only in the past?) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:script note[edit]

Do we really need that? See its use at the top of the page at ја. {{also}} seems sufficient to me. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Abstain. Unlikely that someone would land on that page and get confused, but it might invite well-meaning vandalism if someone got linked to it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Latin/urulo[edit]

This is just one dissimilation away from the Classical ululō. We can do without it. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, on PIE pages we also list variant roots and extensions. Delete. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 15:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Latin/assimulo[edit]

Per Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2017/December § French assembler. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Latin/padule[edit]

I think I agree with Rua that we shouldn't have reconstruction pages for mere alternative forms (in a broad sense) of attested terms: see this thread. We could just as well put the metathesised descendants in a subsubsection at palūs.

It'd be better to use the reconstruction namespace solely for truly unattested terms, such as *linguaticum.

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, Word dewd544, what do you think? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

No opinion. What would the descendants of *padule link to? — Ungoliant (falai) 14:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
paúl: "From Vulgar Latin *padule, metathesised form of the classical Latin palūdem, palūs"? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually, never mind. Keep. Alternative forms that do not represent regular changes (like *circlus does) are worth having. People interested in Vulgar Latin benefit from these words being in Category:Vulgar Latin, even if their descendants are listed in the main entry. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
DeleteRua (mew) 15:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete – we can add the word metathesis in the Latin page, similarly to the additions in *ṣ́abuʿ-. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 15:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm more or less indifferent to it; leaning toward keep. But as long as the information from the reconstruction entry is still preserved and presented effectively in some way, it's okay. Word dewd544 (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete. My initial reaction was to lean keep, but as long as the information is retained (meaning, I think we should spell out that some things derive "from a metathesized form *padule", and not just say "from metathesis" and leave people to guess how exactly the consonants of palus switched position so hard that one of them became a d — yes, I know how), I see the benefit to not segregating the descendants onto two separate pages, and hence the benefit to deleting this entry. I could foresee either following each descendant with a qualifier like {{q|from a metathesized form *padule}} or, especially if there are many such descendants, splitting the descendants like
from palus, palude(m)
* Friulian: palût, palûd
from a metathesized form *padule
* Emilian: padóll
We could in the same way put descendants of *linguaticum on lingua and say "from a compound form *linguaticum", though, i.e. the line between *palude and *linguaticum seems indistinct... - -sche (discuss) 17:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@-sche: About palus I agree with you; I'd already done that in another entry (can't remember which), and I've done it again at palus. I think *linguaticum is a different case though: there's suffixation involved, so the existence of that page is truly warranted, in my view.
But really, I wish we had a thorough discussion about how "Descendants" sections should look like. We have two templates already ({{descendants tree}} and {{etymtree}}), there's the problem of etymological twins, of borrowings vs. inheritances, of descendant vs. non-descendant languages... If you wish, you can join the feast at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2017/October#Section_"Descendants"! --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:missing template and all redirects to the page[edit]

I don't think how this template is useful. Module:category_tree already checks whether the template exists. —This unsigned comment was added by Zcreator (talkcontribs).

If used comprehensively, it could eliminate missing templates from inclusion in Special:WantedPages. For example: Template:Jpan‏‎ Template:ase-prod‏‎, Template:cardinal‏‎, Template:hbo‏‎, Template:italbrac-colon, Template:ordinal‏‎, Template:pluralonly‏‎, Template:zh-ts‏‎, all with 15 links. Removing items that will not be created from Special:WantedPages would make room for items that are truly "wanted". Another way, much better way would be to have Special:WantedPages count only links from principal namespace. And finally, best of all would be actually adding some of those "wanted" pages and not creating templates and modules that create spurious "wants". DCDuring (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Special:PrefixIndex/Module:Unicode_data/yue-jyutping/[edit]

Unused.--Zcreator (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, if you're talking about those data modules listed there, I can see how these can be useful for characters not already included in MOD:zh/data/yue-pron, but then again, Unicode data is riddled with errors. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Appendix:Greek articles[edit]

Entirely dispensable. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:soplink[edit]

Not maintained, very few usages (~100), template is a spaghetti mess. – Jberkel 11:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete. This template links to a multi-word/multi-morpheme entry if its page exists, and to the individual elements if it doesn’t. It seems therefore that the template has two unsolvable flaws: it works assuming that if a page exists, an entry in any language exists in that page, and it serves to disguise the lack of entries. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:Polar question translations[edit]

This template is being used to add translation sections to foreign-language entries. We don't do that. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Although this is not normally done here, such particle exists in a lot of languages besides English; therefore I believe it is important to link all of them together even if an English entry does not exist to act as a medium as is normally the case. --KoveytBud (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
If we're going to do this it sets a pretty big precedent with big implications for how we handle translations. Stuff like this simply needs a consensus through discussion and/or voting first. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 21:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
The appendix namespace is a better fit for this kind of information. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Move to an appendix and delete. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep as a translation hub but move to an appropriate main namespace entry. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I have converted the template to yes-no#English - a translation hub for question particles. The definition may need tweaking. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Iranian/HaĉwastaHnas[edit]

Only attested in Avestan with a new formation or borrowing in MP. --Victar (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Calak, AryamanA What are your thoughts on this one? --Victar (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Victar: I can tell you Sanskrit अश्वस्थान (aśvasthāna, stable) is a word. I think though that the Avestan could have possibly been an independent formation. (Isn't aspō- nom. sg.? It doesn't match with the reconstruction.) —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 22:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@AryamanA, yeah, I was thinking about that too, that the Avestan looks like a new formation, like the MP. --Victar (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
On a larger note, I think we really need to stay away from these compounds words unless it can be proven with specific morphology or can be traced it back to PIE. Sanskrit and Iranian just have too many common productive suffixes. --Victar (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@Victar, AryamanA: "Sometimes ō appears as the usual composition vowel: parō.kauuīẟəm, drəguuō.dəbīš, etc. it is typical to substitute the vowel a of the first element with ō: drəguuō.dəbiiō < drəguua°" (read "Introduction to Avestan" by Michiel de Vaan, Alexander Lubotsky, §5.4 and §7.13. 1). The reconstruction is clear. Why should we delete it? You guys can create PIIr reconstruction and merge PIIr reconstruction to it. Thanks.--Calak (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Calak, we understand the origin of -ō- from the nom.sg., but this is commonly found in new formations, not ones inherited from PIr. Therefore, this entry does not represent a word that existed in Pir, and should be deleted. --Victar (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@JohnC5 can you please comment on this item, as well as the one above. --Victar (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Victar: Eh, since the MP and Armenian both seem to be borrowed from Avestan, they don't necessarily plead in favor of this PIr construction. Indeed, it is telling that the MP doesn't have an inherited *asa- form. As to Sanskrit अश्वस्थान (aśvasthāna), it is first attested in Yājñavalkya and Pāṇini, who are not late but are also not the earliest. The analogical aspiration from *stāna- > sthāna- had occurred by Vedic, so that's neither here nor there. So really the only question is whether aspō.stāna can be reconciled with aśvasthāna. Assuming there was an active process of first member -ō- compounding in Avestan, then a compound *aspa.stāna could have been “renewed” to form aspō.stāna since the compound was probably still apparent. I'm curious whether Armenian aspastan points to *aspa.stāna or aspō.stāna. @Vahagn Petrosyan, any notion? —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 08:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Armenian ասպաստան (aspastan) is not useful in this case. Whatever the underlying Iranian form, the Armenian word would have been reshaped as a quasi-native compound with the interfix -ա- (-a-), as if *ասպ (*asp) + -ա- (-a-) + -ստան (-stan). Compare ասպարէզ (asparēz). And in any case, there are probably no direct Avestan borrowings in Armenian.
Hinz on page 45 reconstructs Median *aspastāna- based on an Aramaic personal name. --Vahag (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@JohnC5, Vahagn Petrosyan: The Armenian is all but certainly borrowed from the Middle Persian, and this Aramaic personal name could be from an unattested Old Persian new formation using 𐎠𐎿𐎱 (aspa). A Median compound isn't required, and this is the more likely scenario. --Victar (talk) 06:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Vahagn Petrosyan: I think that ասպարէզ (asparēz) morphology is not like ասպաստան (aspastan), compare Kurdish village name ئەسپەرێز (asparēz) [2].--Calak (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Calak: Could be, the other borrowings too have a vowel there. --Vahag (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Template:ase-rfp[edit]

Given that it now links to a deleted category (Category:Requests for production photographs (American Sign Language)), this should be replaced with {{rfi|ase}}. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Todo/phrases not linked to from components[edit]

This Cleanup page is probably so outdated it's no longer useful --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Where is the code by which User:Visviva, of blessed memory, did this? (He's not really dead) DCDuring (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Languages of the Caucasus[edit]

Another one of these regional, rather than national, holding categories. See Category talk:Languages of the Middle East. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: Couldn't you just speedy delete them at this point? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps. I think they deserve due process. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Unlike the Middle East, the Caucasus is close-knit linguistic area with many shared traits. This is why one hardly ever hears about the “Middle Eastern languages”, but the Caucasian languages are very often referred to as such in linguistic literature. Guldrelokk (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Topics[edit]

Obsolete, useless. Has been RFD'd before, kept for lack of consensus. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

March 2018[edit]

Category:Languages of Tibet[edit]

Small category with little potential to grow as we already unified most languages of Tibet.--Zcreator alt (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Keep. This is generated automatically by {{langcatboiler}} from manually-entered parameters, and there are lots of small categories- why delete just this one? Besides: even though the vast majority speak Tibetan, I would be very surprised if there weren't a fair number of small Tibeto-Burman languages scattered here and there. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:cs-conj-stát-se[edit]

This template, founded by Jan Růžička, is redundant for two reasons:

  • It tries to present the conjugation of the reflexive verb stát se, but reflexive verbs should have entries without the pronoun se according to Wiktionary:About Czech#Reflexive verbs.
  • The format of the conjugation table has been deprecated because
    • it is incomplete and does not provide all forms of the verb
    • instead of providing just forms of the verb it presents their combinations with auxiliaries. New format of Czech conjugation tables has been agreed at Wiktionary talk:About Czech#Conjugation tables.

--Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:en:Business law[edit]

There are only two entries in this category. I suggest merging with Category:en:Corporate_law which has 11 (also a relatively small number). John Cross (talk) 10:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I’d say that “Business Law” is the broader category. “Corporate law” means the law relating to corporations, but business can be carried on by other entities, including individuals (sole proprietors), associations and partnerships. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't really mind which gets removed but having both seems over the top. Perhaps we should merge both into 'commercial law'. John Cross (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
That seems fine to me. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
It seems to be that the categories are just underpopulated, not inherently having few members. Is that a reason to delete with prejudice against creating it in the future. DCDuring (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Appendix:English/my hovercraft is full of eels[edit]

Don't think how this phrase is useful.--Zcreator alt (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete. It's a joke. Equinox 19:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep, it is OK to have some lighthearted appendices, as long as they don't become overly common. - TheDaveRoss 12:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:English appendix-only phrases[edit]

Category:Re-verlan[edit]

What is this meant to be? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It's double verlan (mère > reum > meureu; arabe > beur > rebeu). These are pretty rare and can go in the main category though, so delete. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
And it's a badly worded category name anyway. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
This was created by a Thai IP who's been leaving a trail of bad edits in a wide variety of language. They have an unhealthy fascination with automated inflection and pronunciation templates, and routinely add them where they don't belong. I hope they're not branching out into unnecessary categories, too ... Chuck Entz (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. It made me check his other edits, and I found yévairé, which is unattested. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:table:colors/ine-pro[edit]

This strikes me as a misuse of this template series. Unlike modern languages the color templates were mainly created for, Proto-Indo-European is unattested and there's no direct evidence as to which colors were called by which name. When you have different branches of Indo-European using descendants of the same PIE word for completely different colors (compare English blue and Latin flavus (yellow, golden), for instance), any color terminology reconstructed tends to be rather vague. By contrast, this template shows precise colors, with the visual message of certainty overriding any caveats/weasel wording that may be in the text. If this is kept, it will need to be cleaned up. I sincerely doubt there will ever be a name reconstructed for magenta, cyan, or mint green, so they shouldn't be displayed. Even when there are descendants, we should remove uncertain/vague ones like the aforementioned blue/flavus ancestor (if it was even truly a color name in PIE) and stick to a few relatively solid identifications like white, black, red, and possibly brown. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete. I agree, this template should not be applied to protolanguages. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Mh, while this one seems too speculative, I'm not sure I'd want to delete Template:table:colors/sla-pro, if only because it's pretty complete. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Nevermind, Vorziblix has convinced me that that Proto-Slavic template should be done away with as well. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep, because [[Category:ine-pro:Colors]] is not empty. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom: 'When you have different branches of Indo-European using descendants of the same PIE word for completely different colors (compare English blue and Latin flavus (“yellow, golden”), for instance), any color terminology reconstructed tends to be rather vague.' --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:tracking[edit]

There are literally thousands of templates in Special:WantedTemplates that are subpages of this. The category and, I assume, the system was developed and administered by User:Kephir, who has not contributed since September, 2016. I doubt that it was ever a good idea to use redlinked templates (or redlinked categories) in this way. Can we eliminate this entire template/module system? DCDuring (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It's ugly but I guess it's the only way to keep track of things when it is technically undesirable to use categories. —Suzukaze-c 22:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Appendix:Lingwa de Planeta Swadesh list[edit]

Do we want this and Appendix:Lidepla? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason to delete it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I edited this list and it looks better now, doesn't it? Don't think this language is used often, but it is interesting, with some Mandarin and Sanskrit derived words. HansRompel (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

April 2018[edit]

Template:list:degrees of comparison/lt[edit]

We don't need a template for that. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Category:Serbo-Croatian concrete verbs and Category:Serbo-Croatian abstract verbs[edit]

The distinction doesn’t seem to make sense for the language. Guldrelokk (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Vorziblix, Crom daba --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
If it helps, here is an explanation of what these mean with example pairs below. Guldrelokk (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, this is not a thing in Serbo-Croatian. Crom daba (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
+1 to what Crom Daba says. It would be good to know if the same holds for other Slavic languages with these categories. (I don’t think any South Slavic language other than OCS makes this distinction.) — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 23:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Before we delete them, are we absolutely sure that there is no such distinction between the pairs e.g. ići / hoditi and nesti / nositi? Maybe the name for this phenomenon is different in Serbo-Croatian or it's much less prominent than in East Slavic languages? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
This sort of meaning is expressed by verbs with durative/habitual aktionsart, but it's basically aspectual which I understand is not the case with Russian?
It's certainly not a part of our native grammar tradition, and I have never heard of using it in a SCr context.
hoditi is perhaps best described as poetic or archaic or something like that. The difference between hodati and hoditi is pragmatical rather than grammatical in any case.
nesti only means to bear eggs according to HJP and it's not even a part of my idiolect (maybe it's only used in Croatian?), I would say nositi, when I saw the word I expected a Kajkavism. Crom daba (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@Crom daba: Thanks. The difference between ići and (hoditi or hodati) is certainly not aspectual, they are both imperfective. I don't know about the non-grammatical, such as poetic but your use of "durative/habitual aktionsart" tells me that there is something about the abstract/concrete concept. It IS grammatical, even though it is about the senses/usage of these pairs. Can you describe me the usage difference between "ja idem" and "ja hodim", please? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
By "aspectual" I mean aktionsart rather than the binary categorization. Instead of "durative" I should have said "iterative", but I can't think of any movement verb pairs which aren't diminutives trčkarati/trčati, skakutati/skakati or suppletive hodati/šetati.
"Ja idem" is "I'm going", "Ja hodam" is "I'm walking" and "Ja hodim" would only be said (where I come from) as a quote from the Bible or a song or otherwise in affectation. Crom daba (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@Crom daba: Thanks. Someone else in this discussion says that there is no such distinction in South Slavic languages: WR: East and West Slavic languages - verbs of motion. There are some Russian and Czech examples in the topic. (Iterative is not the same as abstract). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
There is in Slovene and Bulgarian (ходя на училище and отивам на училище seem to have the expected meaning), but both хожу в школу and иду в школу are truly idem u školu in BCMS, CMIIW. Guldrelokk (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Never mind, I found this (in Russian). There is a single relic in Bulgarian, none in Macedonian, and its usage doesn’t seem to be very consistent. I don’t think there is a point in having two categories each for one verb. Guldrelokk (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@Guldrelokk: Thanks, and as per my previous link to WR forum, Slovene examples:
Hodim v šolo. = I go to school (regularly). - abstract
Grem v šolo. = I'm going to school (at the moment). - concrete
I had trouble finding sufficient examples of abstract/concrete for Serbo-Croatian (ie. BCMS) and Macedonian, so these (sh and mk) don't have this concept in modern languages? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
They don’t. Bulgarian seems to have one pair, so I don’t think there is a need for categories too. Slovene alone preserves most pairs intact, compare this and this. Guldrelokk (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I somehow managed to pass over the Slovene pairs; sorry. Some more Slovene examples are on the first page here. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 07:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete, as two native speakers agree that it's not a relevant distinction in Serbo-Croatian. @Fay Freak, another opinion? Per utramque cavernam 19:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Why aren’t they deleted already as empty categories? (Because there are 4,000 empty categories and nobody goes through them …) Fay Freak (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Appendix:Fiction/Live-action series[edit]

Doesn't seem useful for us. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 08:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
(@Daniel CarreroSuzukaze-c 20:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC))
Keep. It meets WT:FICTION. My opinion is this: in most or all cases, it's best to have catch-all appendices for terms of fiction like that one than having individual appendices for each universe like Appendix:Star Wars. I see Appendix:Star Trek was deleted after a mere 2-people RFDO, so I moved most (not all) of the terms there to Appendix:Fiction/Live-action series now. (I would have voted "delete" Appendix:Star Trek too, for the reason I just said.)
See also this discussion above: #Appendix:Fiction/Films, to be archived at Appendix talk:Fiction/Films. Suzukaze-c, thank you for the ping. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
What is "Doesn't seem useful for us" supposed to mean? That's a pretty bad rationale for deletion. This, that and the other (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Delete, I don't think we should host fiction terms anywhere (unless they've been integrated to the language, in which case they belong in the main space). Per utramque cavernam 12:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam: Why not? As I said, the appendix meets WT:FICTION. Other Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedia, Wikiquote and apparently Wikibooks (b:Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter) have pages about works of fiction too. Why should Wiktionary be different? These terms are even in the appendix namespace. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

June 2018[edit]

Category:Cold weapons[edit]

Unsurprisingly barely used. The category in and of itself is not a terrible idea, but it's not something that I (or, it seems, most other native speakers) would think of as a natural conceptual category, and this we don't look to use it as a category on Wiktionary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Not to sound like an idiot but I've never heard of "cold weapon" before seeing this. And Category:Spears, Category:Swords seem to cover them. – Julia (talk• formerly Gormflaith • 18:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete. I expected this to cover freeze-ray guns, and would not have considered spears to belong here. - -sche (discuss) 20:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Just commenting: it does appear to be a term in use. If we had more non-firearm weapons in the category overall, it might be useful. Equinox 20:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Manx genitives[edit]

It's the only category like this, and is added manually rather than by a template. Is there anything special about Manx genitive forms that they deserve a category? – Julia (talk• formerly Gormflaith • 01:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Bizarre category that could always be populated automatically if desired. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 10:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Terms transliterated from other languages[edit]

Per Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/May § unadapted borrowings. I'll quote myself:

"We've been saying of English words such as Petrozavodsk or Manasseh that they're "transliterations". But in this discussion, Mahagaja explains that "When used as English words, they're not transliterations. A transliteration is when you write (for example) a Hindi word in the Latin alphabet. But if someone says "I added some methi to the aloos", they aren't speaking Hindi, they're speaking English and using Hindi loanwords. A transliteration can only be found in writing, for one thing, while a loanword can be found in speech. It doesn't make sense to say "transliteration of Hindi जीरा (jīrā)" in the etymology section of an English word."

Based on that, it is my opinion that we should abandon the use of {{translit}} as an etymology template."

Per utramque cavernam 19:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete per that discussion. - -sche (discuss) 20:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:it-stress[edit]

I think this template is now pretty redundant if we consider that stress can be easily added like this: {{hyphenation|buò|no|lang=it}} (which is what I usually do). @GianWiki, since you use it regularly, what is your opinion? [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] (parla con me) 16:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I think {{hyphenation}} is better used to show the hyphenation of the lemma form of a word; that is why I find {{it-stress}} to be useful in indicating accents where they are not explicit. — GianWiki (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I see… but in the end most Italian dictionaries that show hyphenation show stress in the same instance; I mean, I think it’s just more practical to have both things together. Let’s hear some other opinion. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] (parla con me) 19:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. I concur with Ivan. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - didn't know it existed. Italian stress is pretty uniform anyway. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
    That is very untrue. Italian stress is not predictable from orthography, and our entries should ideally indicate the stress with IPA and maybe the hyphenation template too. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thesaurus:musical instrument[edit]

Seems pointless, we already have Appendix:Musical instruments. Per utramque cavernam 18:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/(h₂)moldus[edit]

Unsourced and grossly incorrect. --Victar (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:zh-lookup[edit]

Only used in a set of appendix pages that links to Special:PrefixIndex/<character> instead of <character> for some reason. —Suzukaze-c 05:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Redundant or superseded Albanian declension templates[edit]

Template:sq-noun-m-ë-drop[edit]

Redundant to Template:sq-noun-m in the first place, specifically the existence of the |pl= and |def= parameters. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 11:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:sq-noun-m-të[edit]

All this one does is add a schwa to the definite plural ending depending on whether the syllable preceding -t(ë) was stressed or not. I've superseded this with an extra parameter for Template:sq-noun-m. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 11:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:sq-noun-f-ë[edit]

Redundant: Template:sq-noun-f does the exact same thing in the first place. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 11:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Appendix:English words with diacritics[edit]

Hard to say why this very incomplete list would be of use to anyone. For each possible diacritic, we have more complete categories at Category:English terms by their individual characters. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete. —Suzukaze-c 04:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose: It's a dynamic list and regularly expanding. It's absolutely of use. 110.142.225.47 09:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, this is a list of words in common usage, as opposed to the various quasi-English words listed under those separate categories. 110.142.225.47 08:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Delete. DTLHS (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Per utramque cavernam 19:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock[edit]

I don't see the point of this category. We should just modify the template so it doesn't categorise. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

{{unblock}} has a |nocat= parameter that can be used when a request is declined. —Suzukaze-c 04:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
But that parameter is rarely used, and I understand why — it's a waste of time to go around adding that when nobody looks at the category in the first place. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Appendix:Menus/French[edit]

Made by Wonderfool, probably when (s)he was studying International Food Science at university. I'm sure we have a category that trumps this page, and the red links may be shitty. Some could get moved to WT:RE:FR perhaps. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Category:fr:Food and drink is probably better; there are a few red links in this appendix worth looking at, though. Equinox 19:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018[edit]

Template:iso2country[edit]

Unused, and it is hard to see why we would ever want it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:blank[edit]

Seemingly unused. See Template talk:empty template. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Appendix:Fightings[edit]

This was sent to RFC, but I honestly don't see a reason to keep it around at all. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:categ[edit]

This template was sent to RFDO before, where it was kept solely due to msh210's claim that it was useful (presumably for him alone). The template doesn't even work any more, so I can't imagine anyone has tried to use it for a long time. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Templates using ParserFunctions[edit]

Lots and lots of templates use parser functions. This category only has two templates in it, but even if it were complete, why would we want it? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018[edit]

Vandalic reconstructions[edit]

These reconstructions are unsourced and use a Gothic orthography for Vandalic words, which I do not think has a scholarly precedent (at least there are no cited sources indicating it, which I think should be a requirement) nor is it consistent with the rest of Category:Vandalic lemmas, which are (probably somewhat latinized) parts of a single cited sentence in a Latin text. (Which is problematic for other reasons to do with CFI, but if we are to have Vandalic on Wiktionary at all that text will have to do as a source).

But these reconstructions, and -riks (which I have also RFD'd at WT:RFDN) have no clear precedent or source pointing to that specific form. (See also User talk:BlackEagle78 and some of the last remarks at Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English#antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribrationes.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Gothic/𐌸𐌻𐌹𐌿𐌲𐌰𐌽[edit]

Neither attested directly nor indirectly through derivations, transliterations, borrowings or any of the other usual reasons to add a reconstruction. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Move to WT:RFVN to ask if anybody has any other sources, references? -20:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I never am sure whether RFV is also supposed to be for reconstructed entries. But anyway this one for sure isn't attested, and I can't really find it elsewhere as a reconstruction either. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018[edit]

Category:en:Area codes[edit]

Area codes are not lexical by default, and we don't want to include all area codes (that's under Wikipedia's purview anyway). What we do include are area codes like 213 that have entered the lexicon (and which often refer to an area that is not perfectly contiguous with the area code itself). There may well be a role for a category to hold these terms, but this is not what such a category should be called. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep: I disagree with two of the nominator's main points here. a) "Category:en:Area codes" is what a category filled with area codes should be called (and the nominator hasn't bothered to offer up any other alternate title), and b) I dissent from the nominator's unsubstantiated claim that "area codes are not lexical by default". An area code can, and often is, used in phrases without the rest of the phone number, and an area code (unlike the rest of a phone number) has geographical boundaries. Anyway, whether all area codes are lexical or not isn't wholly germane to the existence of this category because there should be a category for the lexical ones. If the nominator wants this claim taken seriously, he needs to offer a policy-based rationale, rather than a series of vague, unsubstantiated claims that, in sum, amount to little more than "I don't like it" or "I don't get it". Purplebackpack89 23:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
It would possibly be better as "English terms derived from area codes" or some such. Equinox 10:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
That seems like a good suggestion to me. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I oppose that name change based on my rationale above that area codes are lexical. Purplebackpack89 15:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Funny idea of "lexical" you have got. Would you then consider any phone number to be lexical because it refers to "Bob's phone", and any street number because it refers to "Bob's house"? Equinox 07:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Funny how you reduce every argument you don't like to absurdity. Stop it. "If we have X, we'll have to have Y" is a logical fallacy, an inherently weak argument. Purplebackpack89 16:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge@Equinox Are either you arguing that an area code carries no meaning? That's what lexical means. Carrying a specific area code means that a phone number is in a particular geographic region. There aren't 212 numbers in California or 562 numbers in New York. Purplebackpack89 16:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
That's not what lexical means. We're a dictionary, you can't play fast and loose with words. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The definition of lexical we have is "concerns morphemes". Morphemes are units of language that carry meaning. Are you saying an area code is not a morpheme? Purplebackpack89 16:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I would say that they are not morphemes, are not part of a language, and do not carry meaning (in the same way that a word or term does). - TheDaveRoss 17:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Not all things that convey meaning are lexical:
Chuck Entz (talk) 04:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, they are not lexemes and have no meaning in a language. They only have a meaning in the telephone system, but Wiktionary is not a telephone directory. Also delete .nl and other TLDs, which likewise have no meaning in a language, only in the domain name system. —Rua (mew) 17:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
If you think domains should be deleted, put your money where your mouth is and nom them for deletion (I'd vote keep, FWIW). Purplebackpack89 18:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@Rua, Purplebackpack89: I've nominated them for deletion here. Per utramque cavernam 19:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep area codes or area code–derived terms (whatever you want to call them) if they're really used as nouns to refer to the area that the area code covers. (I can't confirm that myself.) But I don't support including area codes that are not used in that way. For instance, I've never heard anyone say "the <my local area code>" to refer to my area. — Eru·tuon 23:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Erutuon: It seems that you have misunderstood. The entries are not nominated for deletion, just the category itself. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge: Oh, duh. Well, I support keeping these terms in a category and like Equinox's suggestion of "English terms derived from area codes" because it makes it clear that only area codes that have made it into the lexicon should be included, and we put most derivation-related categories in the POS category system. I wonder if any other languages have area code–derived terms. — Eru·tuon 00:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    I believe in Montreal French, there is an area code that is used lexically to denote what part of the Greater Montreal area one comes from (on the island or off the island, IIRC). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Alternative form of undeletion of redirect[edit]

This should not have been deleted. It wasn't doing anybody any harm for it to exist. Purplebackpack89 21:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

That would make sense if this were Wikipedia, where the first character of a template name is case-insensitive. Here on Wiktionary, there are hardly any template aliases with the first letter capitalized. The only example I can recall is {{C}} and {{c}}, which redirect to {{topics}}, but on the other hand, there's {{q}} as an alias for {{qualifier}}, different from {{Q}}, a quotation template (very confusing!). In general, we don't have many semantically unnecessary capitals in template names – for instance, capitals are fine in proper nouns ({{R:Cunliffe}}) or titles of works ({{R:American Heritage Dictionary}}) or abbreviations ({{R:OED}}) or special cases like the R: prefix for reference templates – and template redirects tend to be names that save space (like {{alt form of}}{{alternative form of}}). Having a capitalized version of {{alternative form of}} is very unusual. — Eru·tuon 07:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:sa-ima1s[edit]

This only contains a bunch of categories, which aren't necessary in the first place. —Rua (mew) 11:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

It was on Beer parlour and on the talk page of भवामि that it decided to not add categories manually on sanskrit non lemmas and rather devise some new method. JainismWikipedian (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and in that same discussion, people already expressed disagreement with the creation of all these categories. Yet you did it anyway. —Rua (mew) 12:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Sanskrit verb second-person forms[edit]

Why? Categorisation gone too far. —Rua (mew) 11:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete this already, on User talk:JainismWikipedian § poscatboiler module the creator already regretted the idea behind this and like categories after manifold reprehension. Fay Freak (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Delete, pointless category. Per utramque cavernam 19:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:English third-person singular forms[edit]

Category:English verb simple past forms[edit]

...and others. What is so special about these that people would have a need to look them all up? We don't categorise verb forms for other languages, why English? —Rua (mew) 12:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Per utramque cavernam 19:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Requests (Klingon)[edit]

As we're now Klingonless, this can probably be deleted. --XY3999 (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

What?? Where was this decided and why? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
We're not Klingonless; we simply restrict entries to the appendix and avoid having too much, just to be exceedingly conservative about unknown legal territory. As such, these pages can be deleted. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah, OK. That doesn't sound terribly different than the way things were before... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
(Out of curiosity I had a look at Appendix:Klingon for the first time, and was surprised to note that Klingon terms have to pass WT:FICTION, which means the main source of Klingon vocabulary – Star Trek TV series and films – cannot be relied upon for quotations. That seems strange for a language constructed for the main purpose of that franchise! — SGconlaw (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC))
This could still theoretically have something in it- appendix-only languages still have categories. However it can easily be recreated in the future. DTLHS (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requested entries (Klingon)[edit]

As above

Category:Latin root words[edit]

No description or criteria for what a root word is is provided. DTLHS (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete per my comment at the Information desk. This category has no utility. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Delete Total nonsense category. --Victar (talk) 05:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:defdate[edit]

This template is misused, inaccurate, or unreferenced almost everywhere it occurs. As a particularly egregious example, see mark. It purports to provide some degree of research into an entry's definitions that we almost certainly did not do. In cases where it is not referenced it is often plagiarized from sources like the OED. We should be providing textual evidence for datings and not random, unsubstantiated notes at the end of definitions. DTLHS (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)`

Keep. There are serious problems with this template, but I don't see how deleting it is a solution. I have seen a great deal of examples that are not misused or inaccurate and need not be referenced because they are original research, just like our definitions. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep It looks nice and is useful. Including on mark it is beauteous. We should be providing textual evidence for datings but we can’t; also some would go to to other language headers (Old English for quotations for “mark”, when the given date is “9th century” …). Plagiarizing dates is nothing that should raise an eyebrow, it’s like plagiarizing mathematical formulas. Also senses are often sorted by chronological appearance anyway, this template just makes it explicit. Fay Freak (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
It is in no way like plagiarizing mathematical formulas. Assigning a date to a specific sense is a subjective exercise that depends heavily on the researchers available sources and what they consider English. It is the worst kind of dishonesty, and we're presenting it like we have some kind of crystal ball into the past of English. "This definition is from X year" is not a mathematical fact, it is the product of serious scholarship and requires evidence to back it up. Cite your sources and stop pretending like you came up with it out of nowhere. DTLHS (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Reform the system somehow (???). —Suzukaze-c 00:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep. At least some of the data is useful. I am certain that we will never have sufficient citation information to replace what {{defdate}} instances have, let alone all the definitions that have no such information and sorely need it. There are important unaddressed issues about sense dating, eg, How uncommon does a term have to be in a century before we show it as out of use? But we do not even have relative frequency indicators for current usage, which allows users (including those who prepare FL entries here) to believe that rare and obsolete terms are suitable for use in definitions. DCDuring (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep. Sometimes assigning a date is subjective; sometimes (e.g. when there’s only one sense and a well-defined corpus) it’s objective. Sometimes original research is done (I often comb through Egyptian attestations in various sources to check attestation dates) or sources are cited; sometimes they aren’t. There are many given dates that are neither bad nor copyvios. The rest should be improved. (As far as the particular case of the OED goes, the earlier fascicles of the first edition OED are in the public domain, so many of the apparent copyvios are probably not such in any case.) Providing textual evidence for every dating would be ideal, but deleting all attestation dates seems like the wrong way to go about getting it. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 03:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I never said anything about copyright. Copying from a free resource is just as bad if no attribution is given. DTLHS (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Right, sorry, I must have mentally blurred this discussion together with the other current discussion about defdate. If there’s no legal issues involved, that’s all the more reason to improve what we have/add attributions or other evidence rather than delete, IMO. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 18:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep. It is true that in quite a number of cases we don't have the evidence to accurately provide accurate datings of senses without borrowing them from other sources. On the other hand, in other cases we do have such information – when the coinage is fairly recent and can be pinned down to a particular writer's work. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Appendix:Harry Potter/Spells[edit]

I was thinking over whether magic spells are even lexical, when I realised — why is this something we should even host in the first place? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Per utramque cavernam 19:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)