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 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 verification/CJK
add new CJK request | history

Requests for verification of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

Requests for verification/Italic
add new Italic request | history

Requests for verification of Italic-language entries.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

Requests for 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/CJK
add new CJK request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

Requests for deletion/Italic
add new Italic request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of Italic-language entries.

Requests for deletion/​Reconstruction
add new reconstruction request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of reconstructed entries.

{{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfd-redundant}} • {{rfeq}} • {{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.
Newest 10 tagged RFDOs
Oldest 200 tagged RFDOs


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

Category:CJKV radicals[edit]

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

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)Reply[reply]

Keep - not in itself a rational for deletion. also yourself: is the category useful? does it fit into a schema of categorisation? is it likely that we are goingto have things to vategorise into it, inm the future? if the answer to anty ofthese is "yes", then we should keep it, rather than have to repeat the work later. respectfully, Lx 121 (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete all - the first one is more dubious than the rest though, as Kangxi Radicals block is just a Unicode block category. If the contents are the same though, there's little point in keeping them separate. — surjection??⟩ 18:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This, that and the other (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Justinrleung since you are commenting elsewhere on this page, I wonder if you can advise how to proceed with the remaining component of this ancient RFDO request? This, that and the other (talk) 09:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@This, that and the other: Entries seem to be automatically categorized into CAT:Han character radicals by {{Han char}}. I'm not exactly sure what the exact mechanism is. @Fish bowl, I'm wondering if you know. Some of the so-called radicals in CAT:CJKV radicals seem to not be Kangxi radicals but Shuowen radicals, like 共, so these would not be automatically categorized by CAT:Han character radicals. I do think that there should probably only one category for radicals, and I think CAT:Han character radicals is probably better as a name since Han characters are not exclusive to the four languages of CJKV. But we'll have to see if these radicals in CAT:CJKV radicals only should just be moved to CAT:Han character radicals manually or with changes to {{Han char}}. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)

Delete - none of these have etymological value. Theknightwho (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’m a language learner, not a linguist. Whether it’s Category:Korean-only CJKV Characters or Category:Korean-coined CJKV characters, I find this list interesting, and would like to be able to refer to it. W3steve (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

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)Reply[reply]
Never mind, I didn't realize that's already a separate catg. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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

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

@CodeCat: I'll do some work on it. — Eru·tuon 21:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When it's deleted, where shall we put Category:Quotation reference templates? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Keep - obviously useful as a meta-category. Lx 121 (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You haven't read the discussion. There are currently two such categories. —Rua (mew) 14:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've seen both categories, & they seem to serve different purposes. this one is general-purpose (any template related to references), & the other one Wiktionary: Reference templates seems to be narrowly-defined (a list of dictionary-reference templates). So either merge or differentiate them better? & 'Reference Templates' is still the obvious meta-category for ALL reference templates. Lx 121 (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After some more cleanup, the category now has only six members. —Rua (mew) 16:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete in favor of Cat:Translingual reference templates. Dixtosa (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Your logic would be flawed if English is a beautiful language is deleted. --WikiTiki89 21:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So maybe on hold until the discussion of the latter is closed.-- 10:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Here is the RFD for anyone who wants to read it. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 23:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please delete per above. --Soumyabrata (talksubpages) 07:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Mahāgaja. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 21:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Appendices are very flexible about what they can have and the entry mentioned above has been deleted. @Barytonesis, Soumya-8974: visibility since the entry was deleted after your vote. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PUC Chuck Entz (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. This was a silly entry outside the appendix since this hasn't ever come up in any casual conversation I've ever had. What makes this appendix-worthy either? What value does it add? This question doesn't seem to have been answered in any above keep votes. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PseudoSkull: With due respect, that’s your problem. What if I showed you a YouTube video of a song (in a particular language) and say it is a beautiful language? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Inqilābī For the phrasebook more than just one song would be needed. I never said the phrase never appeared anywhere, but that it's not nearly commonplace enough for me to consider it worthy of inclusion in a phrasebook, per evidence given in the last RFD. And my point here was, what makes the appendix then a proper place for this? What role does it fulfill for our readers? Who would look this up and why? PseudoSkull (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, this is a totally random phrase, not idiomatic in any language as far as I can see. It was deleted from the phrasebook, so why should we keep it in the Appendix? There's enough useless junk there, we don't need a proliferation of translations of random phrases. If you want to know how to say that a particular language is beautiful, Google Translate will likely do just fine. This, that and the other (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm leaning towards delete, per Pseudoskull and This, that and the other. Doesn't seem to have a lot of value tbh. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per This, that and the other. Graham11 (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aside from whether this is worthy of inclusion, some of these may be word-for-word, grammatically clueless constructions. For example, Lithuanian "lietuviškas kalba yra graža" should be "lietuvių (or much less naturally, lietuviška) kalba yra graži". "graža" isn't even a word or inflection in Lithuanian at all. The Latvian translation means "Latvian-man language is beautiful". Rubbish. 07:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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).-- 10:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep or move somewhere; it is useful as a link target for this Wikisource project. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 22:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete for the above reasons; moreover, w:List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms exists. (Admittedly it doesn't give simplified or Pinyin renditions of the names, but the individual WP articles of the historical figures do, and surely you could just look up the individual characters if you wanted that type of info.) This, that and the other (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. We do not have lists of characters in The Lord of the Rings or Star Trek. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 06:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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. 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 19:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Delete - this category is not useful. - TheDaveRoss 13:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TIFLL (anyone guess the meaning of this?) --Java Beauty (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am going to take a guess. "This is five letters long.". John Cross (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mild keep - can we just auto put in all four letter words that are all in uppercase letters? Facts707 (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, not useful. Ultimateria (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 21:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We also have two-letter abbreviations with 12 entries and five-letter abbreviations with 5 entries. (Three has over 300, but it looks like they have still been added manually.) - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 17:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

  • @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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
Now modified to give usage example - rfd removed. — Saltmarsh. 18:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
Not necessarily, you can use {{ux|el|xxx|t=-}} --Barytonesis (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

Delete --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Metaknowledge: Couldn't you just speedy delete them at this point? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps. I think they deserve due process. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
While regional groupings of languages are of course useless in general, I think they have their merits in the case of Sprachbünde. The current name is poorly chosen and this category should be deleted but a category like Category:Languages belonging to the Caucasus Sprachbund is something I'd support. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 10:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep a shorter name like CAT:Caucasian languages. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rather useless category with rather useless contents. Insofar English is natively spoken in the Netherlands, these varieties are going to align with any national variety of English with perhaps some interference from Dutch, Frisian or Low Saxon. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also Category talk:German English ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Why would there not be value in documenting what English subjected to interference from Dutch looks like, and categorising it as such? (Not that such interference would be the sole source of uniqueness; there do seem to at least be some acronyms that would not be understood outside of the Netherlands.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Potentially useful per Metaknowledge. DCDuring (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because we have no way of definitely establishing whether any such interference occurs among native speakers of English living in the Netherlands or (more likely) among foreign language speakers making typical mistakes. My guess is that a lot of the contents are (mis)spellings produced by non-native speakers, and would either fit in cat:Non-native_English or could be deleted as rare misspellings. This category is also unusual within cat:European_English, as the Netherlands don't have a large population of native speakers of English, speaking one coherent, dominant variety. And as far as I can tell there hasn't been any test at all whether these variants are exclusive to the Netherlands or whether they also occur in Flanders.
As for acronyms, I'm not convinced that it is useful to include Dutch acronyms used in English in this category, any more than it would be useful to categorise ACT as Australian Sotho or NYC as United States Norwegian Nynorsk. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why does the fact that a group of speakers is non-native make their usage less valid? Would you delete Category:Indian English and Category:Nigerian English, which are also produced by non-native speakers from countries without a "large population of native speakers of English, speaking one coherent, dominant variety"? Your acronyms, by the way, are straw men AFAICT, but I welcome serious examples. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non-native speakers' usage isn't per se less valid, but I fail to see why a dictionary should include it if their usage violates native speakers' sense of orthography, morphology or syntax. Not to mention that plenty of their compatriots would consider this use of diaereses a misspelling.
Whether they are technically native speakers or not, English is an official language in both countries that is widely used in national discourse and from a young age many inhabitants speak varieties of English that aren't derivative of other varieties of English. Also, what you quoted was a description of what "Netherlands English" isn't, it wasn't a definition of any variety of English that is desirable to categorise. (The stress on "one" and "coherent" is only for the sake of categorisation, if having just one category isn't justifiable there is no reason there could not be more.)
"NPR" in the meaning "National Public Radio" seems citable in Norwegian - I wouldn't object to the creation of that, but a label "United States Norwegian Bokmål" seems a bit much for this kind of thing. [4] [5] [6] [7] ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DeleteSvārtava [tcur] 05:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep because this is the wrong process for dealing with a category like this: why would we delete an {{lb}} category which isn't empty? It's populated in the same way as any other category is that uses that template. Just amend the terms if they need amending, and then the category will be deleted by an admin if it's empty. No need for this vote. Theknightwho (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 2019[edit]

Russian prefixes better analyzed as containing an interfix -о- or -е-[edit]

(Notifying Atitarev, Cinemantique, Useigor, Wikitiki89, Stephen G. Brown, Guldrelokk, Fay Freak, Tetromino, Per utramque cavernam): I'd like to delete the following prefixes:

Prefix to delete Reanalyse as
английско- (anglijsko-) англи́йский (anglíjskij) + -о- (-o-)
арабо- (arabo-) ара́б (aráb) + -о- (-o-)
арабско- (arabsko-) ара́бский (arábskij) + -о- (-o-)
африканско- (afrikansko-) африка́нский (afrikánskij) + -о- (-o-)
бое- (boje-) бой (boj) + -е- (-e-)
водо- (vodo-) вода́ (vodá) + -о- (-o-)
двое- (dvoje-) дво́е (dvóje) + -е- (-e-)
звуко- (zvuko-) звук (zvuk) + -о- (-o-)
немецко- (nemecko-) неме́цкий (neméckij) + -о- (-o-)
ново- (novo-) но́вый (nóvyj) + -о- (-o-)
перво- (pervo-) пе́рвый (pérvyj) + -о- (-o-)
российско- (rossijsko-) росси́йский (rossíjskij) + -о- (-o-)
русско- (russko-) ру́сский (rússkij) + -о- (-o-)
maybe славяно- (slavjano-) славян(и́н) (slavjan(ín)) + -о- (-o-)
французско- (francuzsko-) францу́зский (francúzskij) + -о- (-o-)

The problem here is that such formations are productive in modern Russian: pretty much any noun or adjective can be made into a prefix by adding -о- (-o-) onto the end of the stem (or -е- (-e-) if the end of the stem is palatal). Otherwise we're going to end up with an indefinitely expanding set of such prefixes, cf. машинно- (mašinno-, machine-) in маши́нно-чита́емый (mašínno-čitájemyj, machine-readable), бомбо- (bombo-, bomb-) in бомбоубе́жище (bomboubéžišče, bomb shelter), etc. The case of славяно- (slavjano-) is a bit special as the corresponding lemma is славяни́н (slavjanín), but the stem of that lemma is actually славян- (slavjan-) as evidenced by plural forms such as славя́не (slavjáne) (nominative plural), славя́н (slavján) (genitive plural), etc. where the -ин (-in) singular suffix drops out. Benwing2 (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

None of these is a prefix. Delete all ASAP. Guldrelokk (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Guldrelokk What do you think of the following: благо- (blago-), много- (mnogo-), германо- (germano-), англо- (anglo-), одно- (odno-), фото- (foto-), энерго- (enɛ́rgo-)? благо- and много- are maybe not prefixes as they can be analyzed as благой + -о- and многий/мно́гое + -о-. германо- and англо- are *maybe* analyzable as А́нглия + -о- and Герма́ния + -о-, but this leads to the question of why not англе- etc. as well as the fact that in reality the prefixes англо- and германо- were probably borrowed as such (cf. франко-, which cannot be derived from any noun). одно- is maybe analyzable as the stem of оди́н but одно- does feel like a prefix to me. фото- is maybe derivable from the noun фо́то, but that seems questionable as фото- was probably borrowed as such (cf. аудио-, which cannot be derived from any noun). энерго- likewise feels like a borrowed prefix to me, although it's conceivably analyzable as эне́ргия + -о-. Benwing2 (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deleted, along with военно- (vojenno-) and шести- (šesti-). Benwing2 (talk) 05:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Benwing2: I think they were deleted prematurely. Although, I don't have a strong opinion about how we show the etymologies - interfixes or combining forms. The forms are useful, at least as hard-redirects as a minimum or, even better, some form of a soft-redirect with usage notes. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Atitarev Which forms would you want put back? My concern is that the set of actual attested prefixes is a fairly random collection of potential prefixes, with no obvious reason why a given prefix is present or not. Maybe we should keep some extremely common prefixes like много- and благо- and maybe водо-, but I'd argue e.g. that арабско- and африканско- aren't terribly useful. Benwing2 (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Benwing2: I suggest to make a soft redirect template, using an "adjective form" or "prefix" in the header. The definition line is up to you. E.g. something like in ру́сско- (rússko-): ру́сский (rússkij) + -о- (-o-) (a combining form). I would keep all the deleted ones, hopefully using the same template. You don't have to create new ones. As you said, they are very productive. Might as well help users understand their usage and how they are formed. Consider also back translations for such prefixes in English. What do you think? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Atitarev I don't really like the idea of keeping a random collection of such prefixes that happen to already be in the dictionary. I think if we keep some of them, we should be logical about what we keep. Note that information about formation of such prefixes could be included on the -о- (-o-) page (it already is, in fact), along with pronunciation of the most common prefixes (e.g. много- and благо- are never stressed, водо- is stressed in some words, etc.).
Another issue is, do we use them in etymologies? For example, do we etymologize водопрово́д (vodoprovód, water pipe) as вода́ (vodá) +‎ -о- (-o-) +‎ прово́д (provód) (as I would prefer) or as водо- (vodo-) +‎ прово́д (provód)? If we do it the former way, the connection to вода́ (vodá) is made clearer, and the word is automatically categorized into CAT:Russian compound words, which appears correct to me. If we do it the latter way, we'd have to manually add CAT:Russian compound words to all such words. OTOH, if we do it the former way, then there won't be any links to водо- (vodo-) (if we decide to keep it), so it's not obvious how a user would find it. Benwing2 (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Benwing2: I see. OK, delete. I will convert the deleted forms to hard redirects. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Atitarev If you'd rather have them exist as soft redirects, that is OK with me, as long as we don't have to use them in etymologies. Benwing2 (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-o- and -e- are not interfixes in Russian. They are just the endings of the preceding noun in a compound, and directly reflect the original thematic vowel that has been lost or modified in many other endings. See the discussion below for Latin, which concerns the same thing. —Rua (mew) 22:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This analysis, if it ever made sense, doesn't make sense for the vast majority of such compounds, which were formed when the thematic vowel was no longer transparent. Benwing2 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Russian non-rhymes[edit]

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

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

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

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

Tetromino (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tetromino OK. This isn't how things work in English but I'm completely ready to believe that Russian works differently. If others can confirm this, I'll do a bot run to fix things up. (The bot could handle the whole process of adding rhymes, potentially, if people think this is useful.) Benwing2 (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's actually a little bit more complicated: the consonant doesn't need to match exactly: ловлю́ (lovljú) famously rhymes with на Ю (na Ju) because in this case a palatalized approximant [lʲ] in [lɐˈvlʲu] is "close enough" to the glide [j] in [nɐ‿ˈju]. But you need something consonant-ish there; -u by itself does not make a rhyme. Tetromino (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wittiami: Please note that your creations can be deleted. You should discuss these edits first. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 19:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tetromino, @Atitarev: OK. I can reorganize all rhymes into subcategories in order to arrange every ultimate syllable accordingly to their preceding consonant. Also I think it is a nice idea to combine rhymes like люблю and на Ю with similar preceding consonants in one entry. Additionally I have already combined entries for /æ/ and /a/ sounds in one, analogously /ɵ/ and /o/. If my work here still make sense, I'll continue adding more rhymes and entries. Wittiami (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wittiami Even after you said you'd stop creating entries with rhymes like /a/, you are still doing it with туда́ (tudá) and сюда́ (sjudá). Note that in any case, adding rhymes is better suited to a bot than a human. Benwing2 (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 2019[edit]

@Neitrāls vārds Similar logic appears here as for Template:sv-compound above. The usage is a bit less random as it's mostly used specifically for some suffix-like words used as the second component of a compound, but it's still used only on about 80 pages for about 7 components. The documentation gives the example of mīez, which is supposed to be equivalent to compounds with English -man, except that the latter *is* analyzed as a suffix, and I don't see why the same can't be done for these Livonian components. Benwing2 (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Judging by talk:-man there isn't exactly a consensus... And they have a point. By that logic who is to hold someone back from creating Bundes- and -republik and hundreds of other "prefixes", "suffixes".
Latviešu valodas gramatika says that "a sign of a tendency towards grammaticalization is weakening of the initial meaning and strengthening of generalized character(?)" (I guess what is meant is that the affixoid yields uniform results?) and apparently grammaticalization is a sign of an affixoid...
Or we can go by Nordisk leksikografisk ordbok referenced in affixoid and consider this case solved with -mō and -mīez being postfixoids.
I only want to know how I can get the derived terms at mō#Derived terms and mīez#Derived terms (this is assuming you would replace the template to be deleted with {{af}})? It's possible to tell {{suffixsee}} to show -mō and not take the page name which would be mō, right? (I have no interest in making entries for the "postfixoids" I think they're completely redundant on an entry level.) Neitrāls vārds (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redundant to the much more widely used {{+obj}}. —Rua (mew) 17:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rua I am inclined to agree with you as it appears {{case-gov}} is used on < 10 pages and {{+obj}} is used on 300+ pages, but it's hard to tell for sure because {{+obj}} isn't properly documented. Can you fix this? Benwing2 (talk) 09:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rua It should be noted that we also have {{construed with}} (barely used) and {{indtr}} (used on over 500 pages, mostly Spanish and Portuguese) for the same purpose. Ideally we should have only one. Benwing2 (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rua, Benwing2 I hope I am right in assuming that {{case-gov}} will not be deleted before {{+obj}} is properly documented and ready for use. I feel that it might also be good if whatever we use linked to the case in the glossary (but that is a different discussion). PJTraill (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PJTraill I have a total rewrite of {{+obj}} that I did a year or so ago. I need to find time to polish it a bit and push it to production. Benwing2 (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about the categorisation? I see that {{+obj}} just adds to Language prepositions, while {{case-gov}} also adds to Language case prepositions, which seems useful to me. I imagine that is a small change, but I have not worked with Lua, and am a bit wary of modifying a moderately heavily used (~1,498 times) template+module. PJTraill (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This wouldn't just be used for prepositions though, would it? Sometimes you need to indicate the case governed by a verb (for instance, Latin incidō) or even another part of speech on occasion. This, that and the other (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not familiar with how these templates are used, but I see there are also {{+preo}} {{+posto}}, which I suppose are meant for pre- and postpositions. If {{+obj}} does all the work, it could be passed an argument indicating or implying which categories are wanted, or the caller could do it itself; I prefer the former as keeping in one place all the responsibility for categorisation. PJTraill (talk) 11:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Swedish inflectional templates[edit]

@Patrik Stridvall, Vildricianus, Mike, Rua, LA2 There are 34 Swedish inflectional templates for different possible noun, verb, adjective and adverb forms. Most of them are equivalent to simple calls to {{form of}} or {{inflection of}}. None of them do any categorization except adding to CAT:Swedish noun forms, CAT:Swedish verb forms, CAT:Swedish adjective forms and/or CAT:Swedish adverb forms, which is already handled by the headword template on the same page. (Exceptions: (1) {{sv-verb-form-pastpart}}, which categorizes into CAT:Swedish past participles; (2) the obsolete-form templates, see below.) The following is the full list:

A slight complication is that a few of the templates have an extra parameter (usually |plural of=, in one case |obsoleted by=) for obsolete forms, which specifies the equivalent non-obsolete form. When this parameter is specified, the text changes to include the word "obsolete", and the category changes to CAT:Swedish obsolete noun forms and/or CAT:Swedish obsolete verb forms. This encompasses the following 5 templates:

Most other languages have a single template to handle all non-lemma forms, or at most one template per part of speech. I'd like to replace these templates with either (a) a single language-specific template, (b) calls to {{form of}} and/or {{inflection of}}, or (c) a combination of (a) and (b), depending on the template.

Note that 11 of the templates (not including any of the templates with obsolete-form support) are mentioned in Module:accel/sv, which will have to be changed accordingly (not hard).

Benwing2 (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, go ahead. There's no real reason that these templates should exist when we have generic templates capable of doing the same thing. —Rua (mew) 21:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is broken? Which problem are you trying to solve, except creating therapy work for yourself? These templates exist, they are used in hundreds of articles, and they work fine. By changing or renaming them, you will waste a lot of your own time, which you could have used to add new content. --LA2 (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LA2 I am trying to clean up these various templates and make them properly documented and more consistent, and having so many inconsistent, badly documented and often poorly written templates is a maintenance headache. It also makes it more confusing for end users to have so many different ways of doing things. Also keep in mind that renaming templates with a bot is extremely easy; I'm not doing this by hand or anything. In a couple of hours, I can write and test a script that will rename all 34 templates; then I just let it run overnight and voilà. Benwing2 (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - these serve no purpose and are a potential maintenance headache. We need a cull of pointless lang-specific templates. Theknightwho (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 2019[edit]

This is used only in Thai, and seems to be used in addition to, but also instead of real definitions. Note diff: an editor has entirely removed the English definitions, replacing them with an incomprehensible "abstract noun" definition. The full definition is definitely preferable to this, so I think we should undo this and restore the original full definitions. —Rua (mew) 21:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging @Miwako Sato, who seems to be the editor who removed all the definitions. —Rua (mew) 17:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. There had long been people who manually defined abstract nouns as "abstract noun of xxx", and then I imported this template from the Thai Wiktionary because it would more helpful than inserting such kind of definition manually.
  2. In my opinion, using this template is more useful than putting actual definitions. For example, the verb ตะแบง (dtà-bɛɛng) is defined as "(1) to cross; to twist; to intertwine; to plait. (2) to make or express (a remark, argument, etc) obliquely, evasively, or distortedly.", and its abstract noun, การตะแบง (gaan-dtà-bɛɛng), would be defined as "(1) an act or instance of crossing; an act or instance of twisting; an act or instance of intertwining; an act or instance of plaiting. (2) an act or instance of making or expressing (a remark, argument, etc) obliquely, evasively, or distortedly." So, just defining it as "abstract noun of ตะแบง (dtà-bɛɛng)" would be more appropriate. Moreover, there are terms that have no directly corresponding terms in English and there abstract noun definitions would need long and redundant descriptions. For example, the verb เสียอาการ (sǐia-aa-gaan) is defined as "to lose control of oneself, lose one's mind, or go crazy because of shyness, excitement, surprise, etc.", and its abstract noun forms are ความเสียอาการ and การเสียอาการ, which would be defined as "the condition of losing control of oneself, lose one's mind, or go crazy because of shyness, excitement, surprise, etc." and "an act or instance of losing control of oneself, lose one's mind, or go crazy because of shyness, excitement, surprise, etc.", respectively. Wouldn't a mere definition like "Abstract noun of เสียอาการ (sǐia-aa-gaan)" be more suitable?
  3. Anyway, those who regularly participate in Thai entries might be able to give more beneficial opinions on this: @Alifshinobi, GinGlaep, Octahedron80, Wyang
--Miwako Sato (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In Thai, an abstract noun is merely formed by placing "การ" (for action) or "ความ" (for condition) before any verb, adverb, or adjective and just covers all the senses that the verb, adverb, or adjective has. There's no need to add something which the OP described as "real definitions". This is the same thing as defining "flied" as "a simple past tense of fly" instead of defining "fly" as "to move in the air" and defining "flied" as "moved in the air". The template is applicable to any languages of similar structures, including Asian languages like Khmer, Lao, etc. The fact that it is now used in Thai and has not yet been used in other languages doesn't constitute a reason for its deletion. So, keep it. --YURi (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE: Definitions/translations vs "abstract noun of". Which one?
I probably need to think more about this, but my current view is that a simpler approach should be used primarily. I am not a fan of unnecessarily complex approaches. So, "abstract noun of" should be used mainly, and a definition/translation should be provided only if it is needed. Defining/translating words that are equivalent to -ing words (e.g., การพูด (gaan-pûut) and การเดิน (gaan-dəən) = speaking and walking respectively) does not add much. So, definitions/translations should be provided only for (a smaller set of) words that really do need them (e.g., ความรู้ (kwaam-rúu) is defined in the Thai Wiktionary. Other words that should be defined/translated are ความถ่วง (kwaam-tùuang) and ความเร่ง (kwaam-rêng) etc.). These words, for those who do not speak Thai, have to be defined because they do not simply mean "the state of -ing (something)", or they may have specialized meanings. For example, ความรู้ (kwaam-rúu) does not simply mean "knowing," or "the state of being aware or informed." It means "knowledge," or "facts, information, and skills acquired by a person." It also has other meanings. Anyway, I am open to other views. If you have a strong argument for eliminating "abstract noun of," please share it.
--A.S. (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other than Thai, this template was generally tended to serve many languages such as Northern Thai, Isan, Lao, Lü, etc, as it was used in Thai Wiktionary. (Indeed, they have all same abstract noun concept.) At the present, we made more specific templates for each language like "th-abstract noun of", "lo-abstract noun of", etc. For English Wiktionary, I suggest that the template could be renamed in same way (because it is just currently used with Thai entries).

It is not limited to have the "abstract noun of" only one line. More senses can be added. For example, th:ความเร็ว can have "abstract noun of" in meaning 1 and then scientific sense in meaning 2.

Additionally, use of template is beneficial for scripts and bots making more entries, as I do in Thai Wiktionary everyday. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Octahedron80, YURi, Miwako Sato The problem I have with these is that they are defined as lemmas. That means that they have the full status of independent word, and are not part of the inflection paradigm of another word. One expects lemmas to have proper definitions, and one would also expect to find lemmas in a typical dictionary with definitions given. If they were defined as non-lemmas, then it is understood that their meaning is tied to the meaning of the verb to which they belong, and that they generally are not given entries in the average dictionary but instead are grouped with the verb. A key in this question is also whether every verb has its own abstract noun. If there are many verbs that do not have abstract nouns, then they are better considered as lemmas as their existence is not predictable. They should have proper definitions then, rather than being labelled as "abstract noun". To say it another way, the treatment we give to them depends on whether we consider them a case of inflection or of derivation. Inflection is non-lemmas, derivation is lemmas. Inflection usually implies every verb has a fixed set of forms, while derivation is unpredictable and happens on a case-by-case basis.

If abstract nouns are inflectional, and thus non-lemmas and do not need a full definition, then it is still possible for them to have special senses. The same situation exists in English with participles and gerunds. On one side, they are verb forms, inflectional and thus non-lemmas, and their meaning is tied to that of the verb. But they can also sometimes "detach" from the verb and develop senses that are not shared with the verb. In these cases, the standard practice (that I have seen) has been to have Verb headings for the sense tied to the verb, and Noun or Adjective headings alongside it for senses that are separate from the verb. This practice could be applied to Thai too, then these abstract nouns could be defined simply as verb forms (non-lemma), with an additional Noun header (lemma) for cases where they have independent senses. Again, though, if abstract nouns are derivational, then they must have full definitions and should not use a template, as this is the standard for Wiktionary entries.

Separately from this, there is the question of whether abstract nouns need their own special template. We already have the {{inflection of}} template, which can easily handle any kind of inflection, making a separate template unnecessary. I also wonder if an abstract noun is not really just a verbal noun, for which a separate discussion exists below. It would be cleaner if we could make Thai use the verbal noun template instead of having its own separate one. But using {{inflection of}} would be even more preferable. —Rua (mew) 21:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abstract noun (อาการนาม) is a type of noun and is used in sentences as noun, equivalent to English -ing or -ness. It is the umbrella term for verbal noun, adjectival noun, and adverbial noun (other languages may have more kinds). Almost verbs/adjectives/adverbs could be fix with การ/ความ to make the abstract nouns, with some exceptions: (1) The rule can only be found in nowaday/modern use. Dated or obsolete words do not have it. (2) It seldom applies on peotic/galant terms or long idioms/proverbs. (3) Some terms actually never form the abstract noun. They might be considered as (sort of unpredictable) non-lemmas because they are likety not given in published dictionaries, but they should not also have misrepresenting header tag, they must have noun instead of verb/adjective/adverb that would become incorrect part of speech. (I also speak upto other languages in the region that have same concept.)
I see {{gerund of|walk|lang=en}} in walking as lemma under noun tag, that is really equivalent to the abstract noun of in การเดิน. Why the gerund of can exist while the abstract noun of cannot?
FYI: There are five types of Thai noun: common noun (สามานยนาม), proper noun (วิสามานยนาม), collective noun (สมุหนาม; BTW we do not separate this), classifier (ลักษณนาม; someone calls counter, it is same), and abstract noun (อาการนาม). --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems worth keeping, but I agree that definitions/glosses should be provided. Not sure it would qualify as an "inflection of" anything. Ultimateria (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ultimateria, Octahedron80, Alifshinobi: To a first approximation, just saying 'abstract noun of' plus the entry for the verb is the definition. How this is to be interpreted is the task of a grammar. However, perhaps we do need to expand on this for individual languages. If there are language specifics, perhaps 'abstract noun of' should link to an appropriate section in the about page for a language. I'm not sure how we do this. A per language table of targets would be rather unwieldy, though I suppose we could include this in the language data; this would be a question for the greasepit. We could also link it through the glossary.
It's an inflection like the English gerund or -able form. It resembles the latter in that I'm not sure the split into actions and conditions is purely semantic - I suspect it's partly lexical, despite the words like รัก (rák) that have both forms. --RichardW57m (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does nothing useful and nothing Latin-specific. Can easily be replaced by {{head|la|pronoun form}}. —Rua (mew) 19:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In general things that save keystrokes should be kept, but in this case I agree with you because non-lemma pages should be generated by bot or gadget, not by hand. For Russian, for example, we have only {{ru-noun form}}, and use {{head|ru|...}} for everything else. Benwing2 (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are more considerations than just saving keystrokes. If every language has its own copy of {{head|xx|whatever}} just for the sake of saving keystrokes, then something is wrong. They can just use the generic {{head}}, what else do we have it for? We shouldn't encourage laziness to the point that people find 24 characters too much but not 19. —Rua (mew) 17:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Benwing2, could you take a look at handling this and the next few sections according to your plans? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - more template standardisation please. No reason to have this separated off, and it's a potential maintenance headache. Theknightwho (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As above. This also requires a gender to be specified, which is wrong for non-lemmas. Non-lemmas do not require a gender, as it's just duplication of information from the lemma. —Rua (mew) 19:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree that it's wrong to include gender in non-lemma forms. It's more a matter of preference on the part of the specific subcommunity handling that languages. We do include gender/number specs in bot-generated non-lemma noun forms in Russian, for example. Benwing2 (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see it as unnecessary duplication of lemma information on non-lemma pages. Avoiding duplication is a basic principle, and is why we do not include inflection tables, etymologies and usage examples on nonlemmas either. —Rua (mew) 17:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, gender is important for non-lemmas as well. The inflected forms Alten m. and Alten f. differ by gender, similar with Alte m. vs. f. and Alter m. vs. f. --Der Zeitmeister (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - pointless duplication. Theknightwho (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As above. This one doesn't do anything with genders, so it's just straight up the same as {{head|la|noun form}}. —Rua (mew) 19:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed, see above with pronoun forms. Benwing2 (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please note, this template is used on well over 10,000 pages, so if obsoleted it should be deprecated rather than deleted outright. Benwing2 (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That goes without saying. It shouldn't be deleted until there are no more transclusions. —Rua (mew) 17:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - pointless duplication. Theknightwho (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As above. —Rua (mew) 20:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - pointless duplication. Theknightwho (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a duplicate of {{inflection of}} in terms of function and logic, except less capable. —Rua (mew) 17:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rua Don't worry, this is on my list. As it has > 106,000 uses, though, it's not high on the priority list, and some thought needs to go into whether we really want to deprecate such high-use templates. For references, here's a list of all the lang-specific form-of templates with >= 10,000 uses:
Aliased template Canonical template #Uses
Template:es-verb form of Template:es-verb form of 441646
Template:es-verb form of/subtense-pronoun Template:es-verb form of/subtense-pronoun 337361
Template:es-verb form of/subtense-name Template:es-verb form of/subtense-name 337360
Template:es-verb form of/indicative Template:es-verb form of/indicative 185279
Template:es-verb form of/subjunctive Template:es-verb form of/subjunctive 144578
Template:es-compound of Template:es-compound of 114260
Template:lv-inflection of Template:lv-inflection of 106703
Template:eo-form of Template:eo-form of 99100
Template:pt-verb-form-of Template:pt-verb-form-of 94585
Template:ca-verb form of Template:ca-verb form of 78144
Template:es-verb form of/adverbial Template:es-verb form of/adverbial 63386
Template:de-verb form of Template:de-verb form of 54762
Template:fi-form of Template:fi-form of 54262
Template:es-verb form of/imperative Template:es-verb form of/imperative 52546
Template:ru-participle of Template:ru-participle of 47321
Template:de-inflected form of Template:de-inflected form of 46670
Template:pinyin reading of Template:pinyin reading of 40032
Template:el-form-of-nounadj Template:el-form-of-nounadj 31509
Template:nl-verb form of Template:nl-verb form of 30619
Template:bg-verb form of Template:bg-verb form of 30114
Template:en-past of Template:en-past of 28731
Template:pt-verb form of Template:pt-verb form of 28730
Template:nl-noun form of Template:nl-noun form of 27827
Template:en-third-person singular of Template:en-third-person singular of 26977
Template:es-verb form of/participle Template:es-verb form of/participle 24257
Template:ja-romanization of Template:ja-romanization of 16472
Template:pt-adj form of Template:pt-adj form of 15455
Template:io-form of Template:io-form of 10429
Template:sv-noun-form-def Template:sv-noun-form-def 10063
Benwing2 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I'll leave them to you then. Thank you for the work! —Rua (mew) 22:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - yes, agreed. Get rid. Theknightwho (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Phonetic respellings should be handled differently. We normally don't have entries for words, which are phonetic representations of another word, unless they are attestable common respellings. It is useful to show them (unlinked), though, as in баярлалаа (bajarlalaa) (revision|52386186}}. If pronunciation module for Mongolian is eventually developed, these spellings can be used as parameters. Someone suggested displaying respellings in the headword, as in Nelai फूल (phūl), which says "pronounced फुल (phul)" --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd RFV these individually; it's possible that the pronunciation spellings are actually used in writing as misspellings (though then they should be changed to {{misspelling of}} or {{alternative spelling of}} depending on how standardized Mongolian spelling is). —Mahāgaja · talk 05:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, and I don't like the solution at Nepali फूल (phūl). That info belongs in the Pronunciation section, not the headword line. For Irish I do sometimes write "as if spelled XYZ" after the IPA in the pronunciation section. —Mahāgaja · talk 05:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May 2019[edit]

Redundant to {{female equivalent of}}. It is not at all clear what a "feminine equivalent" is. If it refers to grammatical gender, then what distinguishes a "feminine equivalent" from a general alternative form whose grammatical gender is feminine? —Rua (mew) 19:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also @Fay Freak who was previously engaged with this user. —Rua (mew) 19:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Judging from the two uses of this template, the intent is not grammatical gender. What would be a suitable alternative name for referring what is often referred to as natural gender? DCDuring (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not redundant at all as there is a huge difference between gender (of words) and sex (of things and living beings).
English actress (no gender; refering to someone with female sex) is the female equivalent of actor (no gender),
while German terms in (...-er)-in (feminine gender; female or no sex at all) are the feminine equivalent of terms in -er (masculine gender; male, female, unknown or no gender). Real-life examples:
  • "Lenin sah in der Partei die Führerin und Lehrerin der Massen" - Führerin and Lehrerin are feminine but here refer to a sexless thing.
  • "ein weiblicher Lehrer" (sg.), "weibliche Lehrer" (pl.) - Lehrer is masculine but here refers to female beings.
  • "männliche und weibliche Lehrer", "Lehrer beiderlei Geschlechts" - Lehrer is masculine but here refers to male and female beings.
  • "der Glaub ist der Führer der Hofnung" - Führer is masculine but here refers to a sexless abstract thing.
--B-Fahrer (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@B-Fahrer, Fay Freak, DCDuring, Rua I don't really see the point of having separate templates {{feminine equivalent of}}/{{female equivalent of}} and {{feminine noun of}}. All the templates are in practice used equivalently. The three examples above of Lehrer/Führer are irrelevant as they refer to the masculine form, which in many languages can also be used of female beings. The feminine form Lehrerin, as far as I can tell, does normally refer to female beings. All examples on Glosbe of Führerin [8], for example, refer to women. It seems clear to me that the above example where Lehrerin and Führerin are used to refer to a political party is a marginal case as well as a clear example of personification. It is comparable to the use of she in English to refer to boats, airplanes, countries, etc. and he to occasionally refer to various programming language constructs; this does not change the fact that he and she are natural-gender pronouns. As a result I am planning on merging these templates. Benwing2 (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW I thought about this a bit more. There are cases in German like Herstellerin (manufacturer) that are often used of non-human entities (in this case, companies) and cannot be called personifications. (Sammlerin (collector) is claimed to be another instance, although the examples in Glosbe [9] all appear to refer to women.) This situation appears to be specific to German, and exceptional even in that language, where most words in -erin do appear to refer primarily to women. In my opinion, words like Herstellerin should not use {{female equivalent of}} or any other similar variant, but should simply be defined as "manufacturer", possibly with a usage note indicating that they are normally used only to refer to feminine nouns (if that is indeed the case). If Sammlerin can equally refer to a woman who is a collector or to a non-human feminine-gender collecting object, it should have two definitions, one with {{female equivalent of}} and the other defined as [[collector]] {{gloss|object that collects}} or similar, with a usage note. Benwing2 (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
glosbe doesn't matter in any way; and as for Sammlerin it has examples not refering to women but to forager bees:
  • Wenn eine Sammlerin eine neue Nektarquelle findet, kehrt sie zum Bienenstock zurück, um die gute Nachricht zu übermitteln.
    Mockingly ]The duck may swim on the lake, but my daddy owns the lake [this english text is no translation]
  • Andere Arbeiterinnen, gleich welchen Alters, unternahmen vergleichsweise wenige Sammelflüge, solange eine aktive Sammlerin vorhanden war.
    It was great [this english text is no translation]
BTW some entries with good examples that show that it is about gender (masculine/feminine) and not sex (male/female):
Also related: Blaue
--B-Fahrer (talk) 07:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@B-Fahrer You are 100% not listening to what I'm saying. Since the predominant usage of {{feminine noun of}}, {{female equivalent of}} and {{feminine equivalent of}} is to refer to female beings (which BTW includes bees), they should be used for this purpose and not distorted due to vagaries of German. Wiktionary needs to cater to all languages, not just to German. Please reread what I said about (a) masculine nouns referring to female humans (irrelevant for this discussion as they don't use {{female equivalent of}}), (b) feminine and neuter nouns referring to male humans (similarly irrelevant), (c) personification, (d) nouns in -in that refer to things other than female beings (which should do something else than use {{female equivalent of}}). BTW feel free to use {{feminine of}} if the primary meaning of a given word does *not* refer to female beings. Benwing2 (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, normal practice when giving quotes or usage examples is to include a translation into English; please do so in the future, thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, for different languages there can be different templates or approaches if the languages are different.
(a) & (b) It's relevant for the related issue with {{de-noun}} and its incorrect text for the parameters m= and f=.
(c) "and cannot be called personifications" - indeed.
(d) "which should do something else than use {{female equivalent of}}" - indeed, as that's incorrect as shown by the examples.
(Quotes) It's also normal practice to not provide translations (whatever the reasons may be, like lazyness or lack of time, lack of translation skills or vocabulary), although it's indeed nice to have them. --B-Fahrer (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 2019[edit]

@DCDuring, -sche, Rua, Renard Migrant Almost all categories under Category:English derived terms are empty. The ones that aren't empty are populated manually, as there are no (remaining?) templates to populate those categories automatically. The idea appears to be to create categories for terms derived from common English words like "cat" and "load". This is potentially a good idea but doesn't seem to have worked out in practice. If we are to implement something like this it should probably be done either through {{affix}} or {{compound}} or through a mechanism similar to {{desctree}}, which would automatically scrape a specified pages for derived terms. Rather than have what's essentially dead weight at this point hanging around, I propose deleting all the individual categories and the top-level category, removing the few manual invocations of those categories and removing the category boiler {{dervcat}}. Benwing2 (talk) 05:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The idea of autopopulated categories which would enable automagical displays under Derived terms headers is perfectly consistent with what we do under Descendants, but the polylingual lobby for doing so for Descendants has proven more powerful than the monolingual lobby for doing so under Derived terms. I suppose reminders of the loss should be razed. DCDuring (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DCDuring I could definitely implement something that works like {{desctree}} and pulls from Derived terms, but I don't think it can populate a category. The problem here is that the only way I know of to get a page in a category is to link to the category on the page itself. What could be done however is create pages in some namespace whose contents are auto-generated, consisting of a table of links in some format, and which pull from Derived terms on a specified page. E.g. it could be called Derived terms:English/cat (with a short-form prefix "DT:"?) and have a simple page definition {{deriv cat}} (or even just {{auto cat}}). Or this could go into the Appendix or wherever. We have namespaces for rhymes, reconstructions, etc. so there is precedent. IMO this is more likely to work than going through {{affix}} or {{compound}} (which in the case of cat means that 118 pages must all have etymologies that mention the word "cat", vs. a single page that lists 118 derived terms, like we already have). Benwing2 (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete unless someone automates the process. Ultimateria (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 2019[edit]

Not a widely recognised country, and the category doesn't seem to serve much purpose. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pretty real and bulky country. Recognition is irrelevant, as I have explained also with the example of Artsakh. Don’t exactly know why it must serve less purpose than say Category:pt:Moldova. Fay Freak (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kept. Although the category is really lame with just one entry, that's not an RFD issue. --ReloadtheMatrix (talk) 08:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Struck that, as nobody has even made a proper vote and you didn't bother to remove the tag. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, un-useful topic. Across 6 languages, only one category has a member and it's the translation for Transnistria. Ultimateria (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bogdan: The question is then whether you can make aught useful from Category:ro:Transnistria. Someone in there would also do Category:ru:Transnistria. Something other than place-names, there must be specific political and legal terms?
Place-names thus far are in Category:ro:Places in Moldova because you used region/Transnistria instead of c/Transnistria in {{place}} on e.g. Tiraspol with the latter in Portuguese; in contrast Scotland of course gets its own categories as a “constituent country”, in spite of Transnistria being objectively more independent than Scotland. Should we have an option breakaway state in {{place}}? I support retiring the placetype country altogether and replacing it with state. Fay Freak (talk) 06:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Binarystep (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 2020[edit]

I sent this to RFD and WF closed it somewhat prematurely, so I'm sending it back. My argument: I don't see the point of this category. We should just modify the template so it doesn't categorise. It already has a |nocat= parameter that 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 07:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, you can just go to Special:WhatLinksHere for this. I also noticed that at least one of the unblock requests I've checked has been resolved already. Not a particularly useful category, then. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PseudoSkull: How can I find all these user pages using Special:WhatLinksHere? Fytcha (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The category is added by the template {{unblock}}. You can either click "What links here" in the sidebar at Template:unblock, or type "Template:unblock" into the search form at Special:WhatLinksHere. Either way, it's a good idea to add filtering of links, since what I just typed has added this page to the list. The main difference is that WhatLinksHere has no way to ignore those with |nocat=1. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chuck Entz: Thank you, I can use this feature a lot better now. Regarding the original discussion of whether to delete the category or not, what you've just said is pretty good reason to keep it, no? I've just noticed that Special:WhatLinksHere links 174 entries in the User talk namespace compared to the 113 entries within the category. I imagine the difference is a use-mention distinction for templates. Fytcha (talk) 08:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I think this (or at least, some other parts of our unblock-request infrastructure) were created to appease global admins/crats who didn't know what to do when one particular blocked editor (Gtroy? or a certain one who has since been unblocked?) pestered them because admins here had blocked him, and they found that we didn't have a real request-for-unblock infrastructure. - -sche (discuss) 02:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe you're referring to this discussion. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, not useful. Ultimateria (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a potentially useful category if the resolved/obsolete requests are removed. I note that this project doesn't really have good methods for getting the attention of admins when this is required, for example, to make edits to protected pages, or to ask to be unblocked. So this category should be cleaned out and put back into use. This, that and the other (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added nocat=1 to all uses of the template on talk pages of users that were not currently blocked. J3133 (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 2020[edit]

Like anything using title text, this is really awful from a usability perspective. It also stands out from normal Wiktionary practice, which is to use context labels. A context label would make it immediately clear what it means. —Rua (mew) 10:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support making it more "standard" and less awful UX-wise, but how? It is a long tooltip.Suzukaze-c 19:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Labels commonly link to a glossary. Couldn't that be done here too? It doesn't have to be Appendix:Glossary, language-specific pages can be a thing too. —Rua (mew) 19:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess we can also do {{lb|zh|literary|or|Cantonese|...}}. —Suzukaze-c 19:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that conveys the same thing, then I think it's fine. —Rua (mew) 19:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could something be added to the section that the references template or something else that us used on most or all pages that identifies what the template means? I saw both this template and the "††" symbol for the "zh-hg" template on the page 我#Chinese, and had no idea what they meant. Jimw338 (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the difference between Template:zh-obsolete and Template:zh-no-solo? It seems that only one needs to stay. Or maybe make it redirect. Some characters (eg. 子#Chinese) have both templates and it's very confusing. Betty (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The title text does not even appear for me when I mouse over any more, and an anon has reported that they don't know what the symbol could possibly mean. We need to bring Chinese entries more in line with the dictionary as a whole, which seeks to communicate plainly and clearly rather than obfuscate with cute symbols. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I support using clearer labels, such as those that @Suzukaze-c has suggested above. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per Metaknowledge, though it do appear for me. It is space-efficient but we have the space to spell it, and if we don’t then due to the other uses of that dagger I still prefer Todesrune in a print-out version of this dictionary, but here it is still safest to just spell it out (although this creates the problem to distinguish obsolete, archaic and dated, then probably use other words such as “outmoded” if you are too judgementless to distinguish thus far …). Fay Freak (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support changing the template to be equivalent to {{lb|zh|obsolete}}, but deleting a widely used template breaks old versions of pages. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Very confusing label. Hope that I'm not too late to discussion. The obvious way would be to spell them in {{lb}}, but I think when there are multiple senses repeating the same {{lb|zh|obsolete}}, it is better to list them as a subsense under a sense that just says {{lb|zh|obsolete}}, as demonstrated here Special:Diff/68565444. (Obviously it should be templatized if done in this way)
I should also note that these labels are sometimes used outside of definitions and not in templates, such as in the {{zh-forms}} at . How should we deal with them? -- Wpi31 (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The dagger character can have other uses, such as an asterisk-like function, so it's better to write obsolete in a label. Soap 09:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete this template along with the similar ones listed below. Fancy symbols like these just make the dictionary harder to understand and edit. Glades12 (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:zh-o, Template:†[edit]

and redirects. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:zh-historical-dict, Template:zh-hd/s, Template:zh-no-solo[edit]

ilk —Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are even obscurer and should the more be deleted. The verbal equivalent of Template:zh-historical-dict “is per the record found in one or more historical dictionaries. It does not necessarily have citations” is elsewhere “Lex.”, for Template:zh-no-solo and Template:zh-obsolete it is “obsolete except in compounds”. Fay Freak (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete for the reasons above. Frankly, we should be incorporating the functionality of all of the zh templates into the generic templates wherever there's an equivalent. Theknightwho (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 2020[edit]

I don't think we need to be any level lower than countries... Ultimateria (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

California at one time probably had about a hundred indigenous languages and represented the intersection of the Algic languages (which extend to the east coast), the Athabascan languages (which extend from Alaska to northern Mexico), the Uto-Aztecan languages, (which extend to Central America), a few still-to-be-proven language families like Hokan and Penutian, and a few probable isolates like the Chimariko language and the Karuk language, with a very high percentage endemic to the state. Right now the category contains only one language which was added by a clueless editor based on a bogus etymology, but we already have hundreds of entries in upwards of 5 dozen indigenous languages- about a fifth of Category:Languages of the United States. I should also mention that we have Category:Languages of Hawaii, among others. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Make that over a thousand lemmas. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've now added 58 indigenous languages to the category, which I will, of course, remove if we decide to delete. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about nonindigenous languages? Besides English and Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Tagalog are all widely spoken in California. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and I've been to stores with signs in Arabic, Armenian, Hebrew, Hindi, Indonesian, Japanese, Persian, Russian and Thai, and I've met people from Greek, Malagasy, Samoan and Tongan communities as well. The Los Angeles County election websites can be viewed in Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Hindi, Khmer, Korean, Vietnamese and Thai, and American Sign Language interpreters are in considerable demand. I understand that we have lots of people speaking American Indian languages from the rest of the US and from other parts of the Americas. I've even heard of a radio station somewhere in the Central Valley broadcasting in Assyrian Aramaic. I should add that I know there are lots of people speaking other South Asian languages than Hindi and other Chinese languages than Mandarin, but I don't know which ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So how do we decide what to include and what not to? And really, that question applies not only to this category but also to country-level categories like CAT:Languages of the United States. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know, but I disagree with categorizing Category:American Sign Language into Languages of California. ASL is used in all 50 states. I don't think it needs to be in potentially 51 location categories when 1 covers that same information. Leave the demographic specifics to Wikipedia. Ultimateria (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
English and Spanish are spoken in all 50 states too. And they're spoken in other countries as well; does that mean they shouldn't be in CAT:Languages of the United States? —Mahāgaja · talk 05:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what I'm arguing for, rather than put e.g. Spanish in 300 categories for all the states of the US and South American countries. Ultimateria (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete because it is ambiguous. If we talk about native languages we go also beyond the current state borders and might think about the California of the now United Mexican States. Fay Freak (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deletion for the reason given immediately above is completely inappropriate. The rationale would suggest renaming. "Early languages...", "Pre-Columbian languages..." might work for the instant case.
We use current governmental borders for categories such as this because of the administrative processes that govern almost all the research on such matters and because that is how most of our users would approach the subject matter. California may secede after the coming election so it would seem prudent to wait before any rash deletion or renaming. DCDuring (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
California might secede? Even then there is still a different California. I am not sure that we use governmental borders. Many who use these categories think that. Fay Freak (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's Baja California, not California. Don't conflate etymology with meaning. Theknightwho (talk) 09:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Chuck Entz as it's important to have the indigenous languages there. AG202 (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep: It is so well populated now that it is not overly precise. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 06:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep because it seems useful to have a category of indigenous languages. That said, I'm not sure about cases like Mandarin, Tagalog, Korean, and Vietnamese, all currently in the category. Worth noting that neither English or Spanish currently are in the category, and they undoubtedly have the most speakers. I can see a case for including these non-indigenous languages, but if we were to admit any language that has a community of speakers in California then the category would probably stop being useful, even though I suspect there may be more speakers of Icelandic in California than of Valley Yokuts. Not sure where the line should be. There might be a case for only including languages that are (semi-)unique to California, which would probably limit the category to indigenous languages. There might also be a case for having separate categories for indigenous and non-indigenous. Or we could just hope that having all indigenous languages + maybe the top ten non-indigenous is a sane heuristic and hope nobody decides to add Icelandic. (This issue is not by any means unique to California, and I'm not sure whether there's a general rule that's been agreed upon.) 06:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Maybe the rule should be indigenous to California OR speakers per capita in California >> speakers per capita in US, which would exclude English but plausibly include those Asian languages. There may still be some disagreement about what ">>" means, however, as I assume Spanish is spoken at a greater rate per capita in California than in the US as a whole, but it seems weird to include Spanish but not English. I don't have a fully satisfactory answer. 07:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 2020[edit]

Category:Japanese uncountable nouns[edit]

Category:Japanese collective nouns[edit]

Japanese doesn't have concept of countable/uncountable/collective noun. 片割れ靴下 (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(I know no Japanese.) Not having a concept of them doesn't mean it doesn't have them. I mean: The fact that Japanese grammarians and grammar-school teachers don't divide nouns into these three categories doesn't mean that it's impossible to do so. Did you mean only (a) that it has no concept of them, or did you really mean (b) that the division is nonexistent, and the existing categorization into these categories of several entries is baseless nonsense? If you meant only (a) and are correct, then I think we should keep the categories; if you meant (b) and are correct, I think we should delete them.​—msh210 (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

(Notifying Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji, Atitarev, Suzukaze-c, Poketalker, Cnilep, Marlin Setia1, Huhu9001, 荒巻モロゾフ, 片割れ靴下, Onionbar, Shen233, Alves9, Cpt.Guapo): Open for 500 days. --Fytcha (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No opinion. I'm not a grammar expert. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have never encountered the concept of uncountable nouns/collective nouns during my Japanese studies. I guess it's possible to do so but I don't see how it can be helpful to current and future learners. Shen233 (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Some things are inherently without number even conceptually: "water" is one such. When talking about the substance, "one water" or 「水が一つ」 (mizu ga hitotsu) just doesn't make sense. But even here, "water" in both English and Japanese can be counted, if one assumes the right conceptual context -- "[bodies of] water" or "[servings of] water".
That said, when asking about things that can have number, in Japanese, one uses the word いくつ (ikutsu, how many), and when asking about things that have no number but do have amount, in Japanese, one uses the word いくら (ikura, how much). Japanese does have the concept of "countable" vs. "uncountable", but it is not really a feature of the language the way it is in English, not least as there is no grammatical number in Japanese (no plurals).
I mostly agree with @Shen233 here -- I don't think this is a very useful (or sensible) thing to categorize, not least as this isn't really a language-dependent feature, so much as a distinction of the things themselves -- and thus, it's not lexical information. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with Shen233 and Eiríkr that countable and uncountable are not sensible categories for Japanese. Japanese does not mark plural on nouns (or other word classes). Although, as Eiríkr suggests, the things to which words refer may be collective or individuated, that is not reflected in word classes or morphology. (By the way, slightly counter to Eiríkr's suggestion, one does hear things like 生一つ (nama, hitotsu, “one draft [beer]”) quite commonly. See also universal packager for a related concept in the philosophy of language.) Cnilep (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak delete. Without a grammatical basis, the categorization of countable/uncountable/collective nouns is largely subjective and comes more close to a topic category, while the topic seems too broad and not very useful. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFD-deleted the countable and uncountable categories (amusingly, they both contained the same 2 entries). However, I'd like to see more discussion about the collective nouns category. @Eirikr, Cnilep do you have input on this? This, that and the other (talk) 03:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, I really don't understand the use case for having Category:Japanese collective nouns. For example, (inu) could mean dog, or dogs -- there is no inherent number, so any Japanese noun could be collective.
Can anyone else come up with a compelling use for this category? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 2020[edit]

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

Boo. You can use {{root}}. --{{victar|talk}} 03:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The deletion notice shows up in the pages transcluding the template. This is very confusing. I think that the deletion template should be wrapped in a noinclude tag. 08:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As it now is. DCDuring (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 2020[edit]

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


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

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

@Benwing2: I have no objection to orphaning and deleting. @Justinrleung, Suzukaze-c. -- User:Atitarev 06:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm down with deleting them. I personally don't like these functionally 'neutered' headword templates either. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition, the parameters of {{zh-noun}} are actually deprecated, and the content should be moved to {{zh-mw}}, which is more flexible. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Making sure other Chinese editors are aware of this potential change (because I somehow didn't get @Atitarev's ping above until @Tooironic told me about it): @Mar vin kaiser, Geographyinitiative, RcAlex36, The dog2, Frigoris, Apisite. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support deleting all templates in Category:Chinese headword-line templates except Template:zh-verb (see Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2020/July#Inner structure of a Chinese verb - not supported now, but may be supported in the future). -- 10:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@沈澄心: Apologies for forgetting you above. You do bring up a good point. I do wonder if it may be better for us to do it on a definition-by-definition basis, like we do with {{zh-mw}}, though. Is it possible for a verb to be more than one type? This reminds me that I forgot about @恨国党非蠢即坏, Thedarkknightli, Michael Ly. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 12:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Justinrleung: 出櫃 seems to be both. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Suzukaze-c: Exactly what I'm looking for. The first sense is separable (verb-object specifically), but the second sense is not. I think this is a good case for having it in {{lb}} rather than {{zh-verb}}. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 12:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Justinrleung: No. This is another Chinese grammar phenomenon. When a "verb-object" verb is followed by another object, it becomes unseparable. This rule applies to all transitive senses of all "verb-object" verbs, including 加速 mentioned below. There is no point to repeat stating a general rule in every definition. Also, this does not change the "verb-object" nature of the verb and it becomes separable again if the the object is omitted, regardless of the sense used. Thus I oppose the definition-by-definition format. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
... although there is also the issue of using a dot or slashes to demarcate where we can separate the verb. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 12:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Justinrleung: Another example is 加速 (per Xiandai Hanyu Cidian). Also, 糊口 is separable in Classical Chinese (Zuozhuan: “寡人有弟,不能和協,而使於四方。”, Shiji: “伍子胥橐載而出昭關,夜行晝伏,至於陵水,無以……”), but in Modern Standard Chinese, it's not. -- 13:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@沈澄心: 糊口 is in fact separable. The reason why we rarely see expressions like 糊了口 is a semantical one, not a grammatical one. 糊口 describes a habitual and ongoing action, thus there is usually no need to attach tense/aspect particle to it, which is the most frequent case of a modern Chinese verb to separate. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@恨国党非蠢即坏: Yeah, there seem to be some ghits for 糊著口, so it is separable. I guess there are grammatical restrictions that make verb-object constructions inseparable if it takes an object, but when that happens, I don't know if we should still treat it a verb-object construction. It's not like 出 is ditransitive in transitive 出櫃, nor is transitive 出櫃 functioning as verb + object anymore from how I see it. I'm not familiar with how people have dealt with these, but I think we probably need some scholarly sources to back up our decisions. I still think definition-by-definition is a safer way to go in case there are cases where a compound could be both separable and inseparable. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Justinrleung: It is very evident in the 把 structure and the passive voice that they are still verb-objects and separable.
The only key point is whether they are directly followed by another object. Of course they are not ditransitives. They simply don't work that way. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@恨国党非蠢即坏: Okay, that makes sense. I can also find some ghits for google:"把*加了速". Then we should keep {{zh-verb}} and implement the verb compound categorization soon. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Justinrleung, 恨国党非蠢即坏 We also have {{tlb}} for adding a label after a headword to indicate that it applies to all definitions. That could potentially be used here, and has the advantage that {{lb}} could be used if there are cases where the compound verb has different structures per-definition. OTOH this doesn't allow for adding a dot or slash to indicate where the separation point is. Benwing2 (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Benwing2: Yes, thanks for bringing that up. I thought of it but forgot to mention it. We could use the |head= to show where the separation point is, but it'd be nice to have a template so that the formatting could be more easily standardized. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Justinrleung: This is fine with me. Benwing2 (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not familiar with the coding so I don't have any particular opinions now. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

December 2020[edit]

Just stumbled upon their WP articles which has been removed from mainspace as spurious (and the original retained for historical reference), so it's time to delete their language family category, including the Category:Proto-Sunda-Sulawesi language, and rearrange the Malayo-Polynesian family tree.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, SemperBlotto, DTLHS: Can you take a look on this? -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My understanding is that the Malayo-Polynesian family tree is more like a lawn. Aside from Oceanic, there are lots of smaller local groups and there's Malayo-Polynesian, but no real structure in between. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chuck Entz: There 's a Western Malayo-Polynesian family (and a Proto-Western-Malayo-Polynesian protolanguage) proposed by Blust that lumps all those currently grouped under Borneo-Philippines and Sunda-Sulawesi here into a single family, but it's mostly geographical and discredited. I agree with your point. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If the scholarly consensus is that these nodes are invalid, then I agree we should delete them and associate their daughters directly with Malayo-Polynesian, but there will be widespread consequences, including deleting all of the Proto-Sunda-Sulawesi lemmas. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Most of those are only present due to their easy availability via Blust's Austronesian Comparative Dictionary. I use that a lot for data on languages, but I don't trust its reconstructions unless I can find confirmation elsewhere. Blust is notorious for using software designed for cladistics in biology on lexicostatic data.
    • As you know, it's possible to reconstruct a protolanguage for any assortment of languages that are related at all, and coincidental patterns of presence or absence of reflexes as well as borrowing can make these reconstructions different for different arbitrary groupings even though they share the same latest common ancestor. I'm sure Proto-English-Italian-Romanian and Proto-Engliah-French-Spanish would look different, even though the only common ancestor for both is Proto-Indo-European. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking over our PSuSw lemmas, most of them are just trivial rewritings of PMP lemmas anyway, and the sole exception is actually continued solely in Malayo-Chamic *bagus. I don't know what has motivated creating Sunda-Sulawesi and also intermediate Malayo-Sumbawan entries for this, did someone perhaps originally miss Blust's note that the reflex in Rembong (spoken on Flores) should be considered a loan from Malayic rather than inherited? --Tropylium (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chuck Entz, Mahagaja, Tropylium I've been fixing Austronesian reconstructions to get rid of Borneo-Philippines and PSuSw, and some IP working on the same area reverted my change for *buʀuk. I think there should be already be a resolution here.
In addition to Borneo-Philippines and Sunda-Sulawesi, should we also delete these families as well?
  • Malayo-Sumbawan (proposed by K. Adelaar. Includes Malayic and Chamic, Bali-Sasak-Sumbawa, Sundanese and Madurese)
    • Malayo-Chamic (rather two separate families directly grouped with MP)
--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Related discussion: Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Non-English#Proto-Sunda-Sulawesi. –Austronesier (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The recent RFV of the term Proto-Sunda-Sulawesi has reminded me of this. It looks like we only have a few lemmas left to remove? (And then perhaps etymologies to update... and so many categories to delete...) - -sche (discuss) 06:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Created after this discussion to abandon the functionalities of {{ko-etym-native}} and move to {{inh|ko|okm}} instead, which I can't really agree with. First attestations are given in the standard Korean dictionaries, and there are a number of benefits to Wiktionary doing so as well:

  • It's more detail we won't be providing, which I think is a bad thing.
  • There are important differences between fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Middle Korean, and this is obscured by using {{inh|ko|okm}} only. I would also add that specifying the source immediately allows a knowledgeable reader to understand the nature of the word, e.g. a Middle Korean word first attested in Childae manbeop is highly likely to be southeastern dialectal, and a word first attested in personal letters is likely to be a colloquial form. This is all valuable information lost.
  • {{inh}} will not work at all for Early Modern Korean because {{inh|ko|ko-ear}} causes a module error (a language cannot inherit from a variant of itself).
  • {{defdate}} (suggested in the discussion) won't normally work without a specific academic source because many Middle Korean and Early Modern Korean ancestors of contemporary Korean words had different meanings (cf. 착하다 (chakhada)), but these are not provided in the standard generalist sources which largely ignore semantic shifts.
  • In practice, all editors working in Korean have continued to put in first attestations, so this hasn't really been working out anyways and the category doesn't really do anything.

Also, it includes entries that do have Middle Korean entries now, e.g. 가랑비 (garangbi).--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Module:ko-etym would need to be edited to remove autogeneration of this category, of course.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Karaeng Matoaya I am fine with deleting this and fixing the module accordingly. Are there any other people working on Middle Korean? If so maybe we can get them to weigh in, and delete the category. Benwing2 (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Benwing2, AFAIK the only other people who have been creating entries are @LoutK, Quadmix77.--Tibidibi (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DeleteLoutK (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Makes sense, delete Ffffrr (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 2021[edit]

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

Abstain. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. It is used now. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The template parsing code there seems to be supplanted by Module:templateparser. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 11:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 2021[edit]

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

In your example the template was in the definition line, however it is used in pronunciation sections: isn’t the usage in pronunciation sections as on מלך‎ about the thing we need for Arabic entries presenting multiple vocalizations from the same root, to avoid structuring around pronunciation headers? Fay Freak (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fay Freak: I'm actually fine with its use in pronunciation headers; it's the use everywhere else that I find to be a problem. Perhaps instead of deleting it, the solution is to change its usage? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yea. Though it may be deleted if a template working for more languages is created. Fay Freak (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 2021[edit]

Reference templates categories by family[edit]

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

Undeletion of Category:Indo-Aryan reference templates[edit]

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

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

@Inqilābī I'm not quite sure about it, but it seems like these sorts of templates are categorized by languages, not language families. I've seen some templates that were belonged to a category named after a language family but later moved to a new category named after related proto language's name, so I did the same thing. --TongcyDai (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indo-Aryan reference templates do not necessarily deal with Proto-Indo-Aryan. Indo-Aryan reference templates just pertain to the family as a whole while Proto-Indo-Aryan reference templates are specifically meant for the language. So I do not agree with the deed, but I will at first inform other editors about it. (@Bhagadatta, Kutchkutch, AryamanA) ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 22:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Inqilābī: Since there are templates that would be in both categories and many Indo-Aryan templates are named as Template:R:inc:Name, that must have created the impression that they should be merged into a single category. However, there really should be a distinction so that templates that involve more than one Indo-Aryan language but not Proto-Indo-Aryan can be in Category:Indo-Aryan reference templates. For comparison,
Category:Sino-Tibetan reference templates
Category:Proto-Sino-Tibetan reference templates
are currently two separate categories. Kutchkutch (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kutchkutch Category:Sino-Tibetan reference templates is currently a category of categories. Do we need this kind of category? In addition, I think it will be fine to add all main languages mentioned in a reference one by one, just like many templates do. --TongcyDai (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kutchkutch: You can now recreate the deleted cat. I have fixed those reference templates that deal with the family. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Discussion moved from User_talk:TongcyDai#CAT:Indo-Aryan_reference_templates.
  • Inqilābī RFD undeleted
    TongcyDai The issue with add all main languages mentioned in a reference one by one is that there may be too many languages to list individually and/or a reference may collectively refer to languages as a group rather than as discrete entities. If you still contest this undeletion, then continue here.
    Could you provide examples of I've seen some templates that were belonged to a category named after a language family but later moved to a new category named after related proto language's name Is one of them Category:Iranian reference templates? Kutchkutch (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Kutchkutch I don't really care about it, you can do whatever you want. But for now Indo-Aryan reference templates contains not only the templates which are hard to put into specific language categories, but also 55 subcategories you manually added. I'm wondering what's the purpose of it. If that is really necessary, I think you should consider integrating this feature into autocat. --TongcyDai (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Benwing, Benwing2, Erutuon, TongcyDai: Do you know how to integrate this feature into {{autocat}}? Kutchkutch (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Sino-Tibetan reference templates[edit]

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

December 2021[edit]

The concept behind this topical category is obviously fundamentally flawed: the only explanatory text is the sentence: "Verb words about action in the Amis language of Taiwan", but these aren't verbs on the subject of "action", but members of some kind of class of verbs referring to actions as opposed to states.

This has been posted on Requests for cleanup, but it looks to me like we would have to know more about both the concept behind the category and about the language in question to have any hope of making a real category out of it. As it is, this is the ad hoc creation of one person, and could very easily be based on a misinterpretation of the grammar of a language they don't speak.

As for preserving the information it contains, there's very little benefit to being able to see that certain terms are believed to be related to each other for some reason we don't fully understand, and there's no way to maintain the category. Are the verbs that aren't in the category excluded because they don't belong there, or is it just a matter of what the category creator got around to before they stopped editing? If someone adds a new Amis verb entry, does it belong to the category or doesn't it? Pinging @Barbie0117 as category creator, and @Ffffrr, Austronesier as participants in the RFC discussion.Chuck Entz (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see the category as mostly unnecessary, if it cannot be cleaned up then I guess it should be deleted then. If all Amis verbs were included then that would be redundant as https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Amis_verbs already does that. Ffffrr (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete, although I might change my mind if we could still get input from the creator of the category. It appears from various sources about Amis that the term "Action verbs" has been used as a complement to "State/stative verbs", but without known exact criteria and no documentation about its use, the category is not maintainable. The online source that is used for most Amis entries does not categorize verbs in that way, and there are several entries of obviously non-stative verbs that were added, but not categorized as "Action [verbs]" by the category creator. So the current application of the category is not just undocumented but also unintuitive. –Austronesier (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 2022[edit]

Category:Korean syllables without final[edit]

Category:Basic Korean syllabaries[edit]

Nearly empty, they don't appear to be useful anymore. "Letter" would probably be more appropriate than "syllable" for the two entries in the first category. Ultimateria (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. (Notifying TAKASUGI Shinji, Atitarev, HappyMidnight, Tibidibi, Quadmix77, Kaepoong): AG202 (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The subcategories can essentially be speedied, which I have done, however, it's not clear what should be done with the two entries in Cat:Korean syllables. The entry bears some similarities to, say, , but none of the latter's categories are appropriate for 튽. And ꥸᅦퟗ is a bit of an oddball entry. Ultimateria's suggestion of merging this category into Category:Korean letters seems inappropriate, as that cat contains Hangul "radicals" (sorry, don't know the proper term). This, that and the other (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

@Useigor Thadh (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The amount of fuzzing is ridiculous. The idea of making something even a little bit harder to read when we are supposed to be giving it attention to try to verify is contrary to logic. DCDuring (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Metaknowledge, DCDuring: Apparently, when you hover over the term, it explains the issue and unblurs it. Thadh (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about mobile? (Or me, who didn't think to hover over something I couldn't read?) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since it is a departure from any standard way of indicating that something is being challenged, how would any user or contributor know what was going on? Hovering is not always the response one would make. We have often been encouraged to be sensitive to accessibility concerns. This seems like an occasion to apply that sensitivity. DCDuring (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not mean that I think this template should be kept in its current state, I was simply pointing out that blurring isn't the only thing the template does. By the way, what about just putting a dotted line under the term, or something similar? Thadh (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would change the background colour to orange or the like (one sufficiently distinct from that of {{quoted term}} in any case). I found the blurring bizarre from the beginning (but ignored the template thinking that Useigor was still coding) and the reason boils down to that, as DCDuring said, the idea of making something even a little bit harder to read when we are supposed to be giving it attention to try to verify is contrary to logic. Fay Freak (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why not just use the same format as Template:t-check? - -sche (discuss) 22:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cause it was not “for translations” in translation sections, I don’t know whence this equation by Metaknowledge comes from but now have to dispel this conception, but apparently for strange derived terms and descendants in Proto-Slavic entries. The design of {{t-check}} is of course for the background of translation tables while descendants and derived terms sections look different and hence seek different tinge. Fay Freak (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could use the same format of adding superscript "(please verify)". Although really, if the term is so likely to be fabricated and the likelihood of someone coming back to provide references is low, maybe just remove it or move it to the talk page or HTML-comment it out... - -sche (discuss) 18:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not supposed to be readable because term is likely fabricated (i do some search before adding the template) and it is unknown when its editor will provide reference for it. Marked term could be removed instead but there is slight possibility that it can be verified. If you want to read, you can hover (swipe) or click and then create page with reference. For me, colored background or excessive text are ugly and distracting when i'm reader and not editor. Any editor can make custom CSS in User:USER/common.css (e.g. #mw-content-text .temp-rfv-term+[lang] {filter: blur(0px); text-decoration: underline dotted; background: orange;}). —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a computer that has no mouse input at the moment. It is very cumbersome to interact with words that have this text decoration. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now blur is changed to strike. I wanted to use 50%-opaque 2px-thick line (text-decoration: line-through 2px rgba(0,0,0,0.50);) but for some reason wiki editor does not let use thickness so i had to use 80%-opaque 1px-thick line (text-decoration: line-through rgba(0,0,0,0.80);) —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I stand by my earlier comment that using the same format as Template:t-check, a superscript note explicitly saying "(please verify)", or even a non-superscript note like Template:rfv-sense, would probably be the clearest thing, although if a term is really most likely fabricated and the likelihood of someone coming back to provide references is low, maybe just remove it or move it to the talk page or HTML-comment it out. IMO we should allow people to occasionally RFV terms that don't have entries yet: then we could just submit the terms this is for to RFV and remove them after a month... - -sche (discuss) 03:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, if this is not rendered more useful/user-friendly. Strikethrough is not a help. Text display of what action is to be taken and where seems essential, but has not been provided in the more than five months this RfD has been active. And deprecate now. DCDuring (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's already Category:English terms derived from toponyms. We should make sure the entries listed have that category, then delete the appendix. – Jberkel 20:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added as many as I could extract from that page. – Jberkel 23:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete for the sake of deduplication. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 19:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tagged 1.5 years ago by User:JoeyChen (diff) but not listed. User:DCDuring as the creator. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 22:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See [10]. DCDuring (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Monotypic families don't necessarily remain so. In addition there are at least two other genera that are sometimes included in the family. DCDuring (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also sometime useful to save keystrokes for higher taxa by substing. DCDuring (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Bacillaceae Hypernyms[edit]

Tagged 1.5 years ago by User:JoeyChen (diff) but not listed. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 00:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More than 100 genera besides Bacillus are in this family. We just don't have entries for them yet. DCDuring (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tagged by User:Linshee (diff) but not listed. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 22:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andrew Sheedy: what's your rationale for keeping this? Thadh (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's an extremely common term in works based in the Star Wars universe, and refers to a specific type of droid (humanoid, with translating abilities, etc.), which isn't apparent from a surface analysis. Maybe the definition could be improved, but it seems worth keeping (as an appendix entry, obviously). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep in appendixspace. It seems to be in use and idiomatic, meaning the only reason it does not deserve to be in mainspace is that it is fictional. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 19:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thadh, could you speedy delete this page given that the same content is there at Citations:protocol droid? Thanks. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 13:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Inqilābī: I'm afraid I agree with Andrew above: Our CFI doesn't yet allow for this word, but that doesn't mean we can't put its meaning in the appendix. The definition is not repeated in the citations page. In any case, this doesn't warrant a speedy deletion. Thadh (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tagged by User:Daleusher (diff) but not listed. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 00:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tagged by User:Zcreator alt (diff) but not listed. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 00:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No reason to divide by part of speech, I think, but having all Appendix entries that look like English mainspace articles in a Category:English Appendix lemmas would be good. Currently, Appendix:Star_Wars/protocol_droid is in the mainspace's Category:English lemmas. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 00:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tagged by User:LesVisages (diff) but not listed. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 00:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shouldn't this be an RFV issue? Though not sure how that works for Appendix-only languages. AG202 (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 2022[edit]

I don’t think it is a proper category. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Inqilābī: I think you'll need to explain why it's not "proper". — SGconlaw (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. It is not in proper category format; we do not have Category:Multiracial. (It was created unilaterally without consensus.)
  2. This category is a hotchpotch of random entries. All ethnonyms, including mixed races (such as mestizo, mulatto, Eurasian), belong in CAT:Ethnonyms; ethnic slurs have their own separate category; CAT:Scientific racism and CAT:Eugenics could be separate categories, if useful.
  3. Even the category name is not grammatically correct, it should be either multiracial people or multiracials.
  4. A lot of mixed-race group names are not dictionary material, being SoPs. Therefore, I do not think we need any category dedicated to multiracial people (the name as used in that category, which itself links to Wikipedia). ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 21:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think a lot of third culture kids would disagree with that last point... Theknightwho (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    William Jones (philologist) was an Anglo-Welsh person. This racial term should remain as a redlink; tho’ it could have a different idiomatic sense. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Issue #1 could be addressed very easily by adding it to the category tree. Issue #3 could be addressed by renaming the category. I don't find #4 a very convincing argument. We could just keep the ones that aren't SOP and delete the ones that are, which is the same rule we apply to any other kind of term. There are evidently plenty of such terms in English that are single words or idiomatic. Also, the RfD of Irish American closed as keep, and although that isn't a term related to mixed ancestry, it shows that hyphenated or spaced combinations of nationalities aren't necessarily regarded as SOP by the community.
    Point #2 seems to be the most substantial, but as I wrote in my comment below I think there might be value in separating out these terms from other ethnonyms. And not all of these fall under Scientific racism or Eugenics. I don't think Blasian or Finndian are necessarily associated with racism or eugenics. Such terms seem to be used as identities by members of the groups themselves. That said, I don't particularly object to deletion either. 02:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. —Svārtava (t/u) • 09:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 06:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I can see some potential value in keeping a separate category for things like mulatto, Blasian, Chindian, the last of which isn't even in the category currently. I think there is something different about those terms as compared to most ethnonyms, and Wikipedia seems to agree given that it has a "Multiracial affairs" category with similar terms as members.

    While an argument could be made that almost all human populations have admixture from multiple groups and so almost everyone is in some sense multi-ethnic, I don't think most would e.g. include Desi in this category even if one could theoretically make an argument that the Indian subcontinent has a mix of Indo-Aryan and Dravidian genetics. It has to be a term for someone whose recent ancestors came from different groups, not way back in (pre)history. One doesn't have to be a racial essentialist to realize that people who fall under this umbrella are viewed differently in society (hence the existence of such terms).

    That said, I don't particularly object to deletion, as the issue may be more trouble than it's worth, most commenters support deletion, and the category mixes relatively PC and highly offensive terms as though there is no distinction.

    The inclusion of BIPOC in this category perplexes me. I thought "multiracial" in this context describes a person with mixed ancestry, not a coalition of different ethnic groups. 01:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 2022[edit]

Category:Three-letter words by language[edit]

Category:One-letter words by language[edit]

All entries are manually categorized. If we must have these categories, can’t the categorization be automated? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, but why are you proposing them for deletion? This sounds like a bot request. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually I wanted to know whether the community wishes to keep these categories…