Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others/Archives/2007 no consensus

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

January 2007[edit]

Category:Policy - Wiktionary Draft Proposal[edit]

Each item in this category should be submitted for a vote (perhaps one a week? One a day?) until they are all eliminated, or completely reworked to fit Wiktionary. When done, this category should go to the recycle bin with them, as it is a bad mechanism for developing policies (massive long-term inactivity being one good sign.) --Connel MacKenzie 07:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps massive inactivity indicates - lack of interest in policies in general - a stable draft policy that could be promoted to a higher level.

It seems that in Connels' book there is either an Official Policy, or there is Beer Parlour. Funny thing is, we would not have had any policies at all unless someone went to the trouble of pulling the discussion together outside of Beer Parlour, as Draft Policies, Policy Think Tank etc. What Connel proposes is to not have the current mass inactivity, but a return to the previous never-ending, never resolved cyclic discussions in Beer Parlour.

Any organisation worthy of polcies has some steps between bawdy general discussion in the pub, and voting on a policy at the Annual General Meeting. There are discussion papers, white papers, committees, drafts for review, proposals etc. Somehow Connel thinks we don't need those stages. I can only see a return to the bad old days of no way for policies to develop.-- 09:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally oppose CM's misguided demolition of the Policy Development structure. And the way he is trying to achieve this through RFD. He shows no understanding of policy development. See [[1]] for my argument.--Richardb 11:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Has been added to since RFD started. Good base point. --Keene 21:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, bureaucratic gunk, not useful. -- Visviva 02:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Meta Elements of Policy[edit]

OBE. --Connel MacKenzie 07:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally oppose CM's misguided demolition of the Policy Development structure. And the way he is trying to achieve this through RFD. He shows no understanding of policy development. See [[2]] for my argument.--Richardb 11:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, useless. -- Visviva 02:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Policies - Wiktionary Top Level[edit]

Of the whole series, this will be the last to go? Straggler policy stubs need to be deleted or adapted, from here. --Connel MacKenzie 07:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally oppose CM's misguided demolition of the Policy Development structure. And the way he is trying to achieve this through RFD. He shows no understanding of policy development. See [[3]] for my argument.--Richardb 11:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

August 2007[edit]

Category:Languages of the United States Virgin Islands[edit]

All it contains is Category:English language - we don't need this, or will we have cats like Category:Languages of Idaho etc. --Derda 22:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The w:United States Virgin Islands is not a state, but an insular territory. Inhabitants are not granted citizenship under the US Constitution, and it is not obvious what the local language is for a group of islands overseen by a foreign power. In any case, Spanish, French, and Creoles are the primary languages of 25% of the population. --EncycloPetey 06:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Not under the constitution, no, but (unlike American Samoa) they have been citizens for almost a century now. Which doesn't necessarily detract from the overall point. Dmcdevit·t 14:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This -- like many similar categories -- seems like a really weird use of categorization. Why not just have an appendix (or appendices) listing (and linking to) the languages spoken in each country and territory? -- Visviva 23:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
You could ask the same question about any category of any kind on Wiktionary. The answer is that it's a categorization, not an appendix. Appendices have to be hard-coded and constantly updated. The Wikimedia category structure responds dynamically. --EncycloPetey 00:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe the underlying question is: "what is the possible lexical relevance of this category?" Sure, we obviously should have similar categories like Languages of Alphabet City, Languages of the East Village, Languages of SOHO, Languages of Tribeca, Languages of Chinatown, Languages of Midtown, etc., all under Languages of Manhattan, right? Sorry, but I don't see how that geographic mapping is really helpful. For an Encyclopedia, perhaps... --Connel MacKenzie 13:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
As a territory not within the contiguous US, visible on a globe, its category serves a valuable purpose. Someone travelling to that location may wonder what language(s) are spoken there. Consider that Category:Languages of French Polynesia includes more than French. For the most part, the geographic categories are nations or continents, but there are a few regions (e.g. Category:Languages of the Balkans, Category:Languages of the Caucasus) for regions where the national boundaries are less familiar. The major exceptions are major islands and island groups. Personally, I would like to see Category:Languages of French Polynesia, Category:Languages of Haiti, Category:Languages of Hawaii, etc. retained. These regions often have indigenous languages in addition to colonial ones, and it is very helpful to have that information. I would not advocate categorizing languages by states or provinces, and certainly not for smaller internal subdivisions, but for islands and island groups, there is considerably more going on than with other such subnational units. The geographic mapping categories have been in existence for a very long time now, so you are proposing a change in eliminating them. If you think it would pass a vote, then that would be the appropriate course of action. --EncycloPetey 02:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't doubt that someone will find the information useful - I do doubt they'd look in a dictionary to find it. Even if they do, they should be politely referred to our encyclopedic sister project. --Connel MacKenzie 22:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete If someone wants to find out what language they speak in the U.S. Virgin Islands, they can look at the Wikipedia article on the U.S. Virgin Islands. This is useless. Kevin Rector 07:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Not dictionary material. Conrad.Irwin 21:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Note: this is a category, not an entry. Since dictionaries usually have no categories at all, are you advocating that we do away with categories altogether? Would you apply the same criterion to Category:Languages of French Polynesia? It is important for users interested in linguistics to see where a language is found, what languages are present, and which languages occur together in a region. --EncycloPetey 00:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Hungarian animal names[edit]

This is a category of names (proper nouns) given to animals in Hungarian. This is equivalent to a category containing English words like "Fido" and "Rover" not "cat" and "dog". The category of words do meet the CFI (I've not checked the two words the category contains), but I'm not certain we want to categorise words this way.

This is the only category that I am aware of that categorises the words thus ("Fido" is in Category:English proper nouns, Category:Dogs and Category:Names; "Rover" and "Rex" are in the first two of these only); although note that with the category expansion not working properly (c.f. WT:GP#Weirdness in subcategory tree expansion) I've not checked all languages. The it:Fido page categorises it under "proper names" and "study of masculine given names" (I think this is what the second category is, but I don't speak Italian).

If we do want to continue with this categorisation, the category needs moving to something like category:hu:Animal names. I had a hard time deciding whether this was best placed here, the tea room or the beer parlour as non seem to fit perfectly. Feel free to move this if you think I've plumped for the wrong one, or indeed if we have somewhere else I'm not aware of. Thryduulf 22:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it’s a useful category. I know a lot of such names in Russian as well. Since these are actually Hungarian names (like Hungarian nouns), and not merely international names that have been translated into Hungarian (like hu:Mountains), I think the category should remain Category:Hungarian animal names. —Stephen 11:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Do we accept human first names? I've got the impression they're not recommended (I've got no opinion on this). In that case animal names would be even less acceptable. But if we keep this category, it should be renamed as Thryduulf said.--Jyril 16:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if a category for these would be as useful as an appendix. — [ ric ] opiaterein — 15:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


We must have a more standard way of dealing with this type of problem. I particularly don't like having to insert the edit link. DAVilla 22:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I wrapped the edit link in {selfref} so it doesn't appear on mirrors.
Why not have the common section appear on one of the two pages, wrapped with <onlyinclude> tags, and then the other page can simply transclude the first? Robert Ullmann 09:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


Should this category be deleted or should it be added to the main glossaries (Appendix:Glossary and Wiktionary:Glossary)? Rod (A. Smith) 04:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is primarily a Transwiki placeholder. It should probably have {{dontlinkhere}} or something similar for categories. --Connel MacKenzie 05:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems like a useful subclass of appendices. -- Visviva 04:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems like the handful that have been added should be moved to some other category. The overlap with transwikis is misleading. --Connel MacKenzie 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:cite news[edit]

Totally incompatible with Wiktionary:Quotations: orphan then delete. --Connel MacKenzie 05:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Would Template:cite newsgroup also come under this heading? Conrad.Irwin 20:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. These also mess up date handling (we don't have entries for individual years, nor specific days of months.) --Connel MacKenzie 17:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Footnote templates[edit]

moved from WT:RFD --Williamsayers79 09:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If footnotes are not used in Wiktionary, should these footnote templates be deleted? Since these are sets of paired templates they should probably be considered together. Jimp 17:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete or mark as deprecated so people don't "import" them from Wikipedia. --Connel MacKenzie 17:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, nothing wrong with footnotes in appendices. -- Visviva 04:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, for the times when we need references, we have <ref> [1] there is no need here for the other variations that just muddy the waters. Conrad.Irwin 22:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


  • Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


[{{ref}} & {{note}}]

Sometimes articles are transwikied from Wikipedia with these templates (though they are being phased out over there). Should we keep them so as to make the transition smoother or delete them so as to draw attention to the need of clean-up? Of course, there is the problem that an editor unaware of the footnote policy (as I had been till recently) might recreate them to make the transwikied article work properly. Jimp 17:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:ref label[edit]

  • Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:note label[edit]

[{{ref label}} & {{note label}}]

The same argument as the above applies here. Jimp 17:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

September 2007[edit]

Category:Aleut expressions[edit]

This should be Category:ale:Phrasebook right? --Connel MacKenzie 08:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. The phrseabooks are one area where the category naming convention hasn't been discussed and isn't standardized. I could see either using the ISO code or using the language name for this situation. --EncycloPetey 19:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Category:Aleut phrasebook. —Stephen 17:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
WT:POS says it is (language) phrasebook. (Not xx:Phrasebook) I don't recall any discussion, but that is what it says, and says it is policy ;-) Robert Ullmann 09:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It should also be noted that the entries in the cat use the non-standard header "Expression", which probably should be "Phrase" Robert Ullmann 10:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Except that they often are not phrases at all. Phrases contain two or more words and therefore qilachxizax, although an expression, is not a phrase. And while words such as i-gai and nat-loun are often spelt with a hyphen, they are actually just one word and they hyphen is only there to separate phonemes (as in to-day, book-keeping, etc.). Before changing "expression" to something else, you always have to examine the term and its meaning at the very least. —Stephen 11:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah ha! Thank you, that is good information (don't know how I missed it earlier.) But wouldn't "Phrase" be a better placeholder than "Expression," since, as you say, they are both wrong? At least, for the cases (if there are any) where the part of speech isn't apparent, I'd rather we stick to a normal heading like "Phrase." --Connel MacKenzie 09:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Language-specific script templates[edit]


Probably good that this isn't used, would take some sorting. It might be Persian Arabic (would be ks-Arab) or Devanagari (Deva). Ask Hippietrail, who created it originally? Robert Ullmann 15:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved to {{ks-Arab}}. --Dijan 03:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


This is for Arabic script, but has a different set of font choices. Should find someone who knows why. (Usually it is just widely differing knowledge of fonts ;-) Is there a reason to have differing presentation for Arabic script? (see elephant for an example) Robert Ullmann 15:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

When I had gone through the script templates by language, I remember having read that some of the ones with Arabic script were written in a slighly different style. We may have to accommodate this with {{Arab*}} or the like.
Also, could we address the issue of language separately, such as "ja" currently used in {{Jpan}}? DAVilla 15:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
If the language has a difference, we should be using for example {{ku-Arab}}, this both fits our naming and matches the HTML/XHTML standard subtag name. Robert Ullmann 16:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that this was developed specifically for Kurdish. I do not know enought about the use of the Arabic script for that language to know whether it merits an independent template. --EncycloPetey 23:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, {{KUchar}} is for Kurdish. Kurdish uses a modified Arabic script that includes some letters not found in most ordinary Arabic fonts. There is also {{PSchar}} for Pashto, {{URchar}} for Urdu, {{FAchar}} for Persian, and {{KSchar}} for Kashmiri. Additionally there needs to be {{UGchar}} for Uyghur, but so far there are not enough of Uyghur entries to worry about. —Stephen 10:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Moved to {{ku-Arab}}. --Dijan 03:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


Which is the correct substitution to make for each, or does it depend on what's being wrapped? Only the first has no entries. DAVilla 14:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sindhi is either Arab or Deva; the cases I've looked at are all Arabic script, but that doesn't mean they all are. Robert Ullmann 15:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
{{SDchar}} is for Sindhi. Sindhi uses a modified Arabic script. —Stephen 10:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Moved to {{sd-Arab}}. --Dijan 03:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


... and {{trans-all}} and {{trans-allsect}}. They require substitution, so editors using them must perform a two step save. MediaWiki:Edittools already lets editors click to insert {{trans-top}} et al. To save mouse clicks, we could make MediaWiki:Edittools add all three trans- templates in a single click and perhaps add a "Headers" block to the edittools. Rod (A. Smith) 18:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to require a two-step save; could take two unnamed arguments for the first and second columns. Don't see the need for more than one such template, though. -- Visviva 01:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep {{trans-all}} and erase the deletion tag. It doesn´t have to require a two-step save. If you want, you can improve the documentation to say how. But delete is an error. And include the trans-all template in the Edittols--Mac 14:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

October 2007[edit]

Template:vulgar slang[edit]

[ Template:vulgarslang ]

Obvious error from the start; lack of immediate deletion has left it to be used erroneously. --Connel MacKenzie 20:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Note the above conversation. Not resolved without consensus: side issue of 'vulgar' tag was open, but the combined vulgarslang was an error to begin with, as was vulgar slang. --Connel MacKenzie 20:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Template:vulgar, since all Category:Vulgarities is in Category:Slang. -- Visviva 04:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Good point. If we stick with "vulgar" as a label, there's no need to say "slang". Or if we want to also say "slang", we should do it on all pages marked vulgar, no? DAVilla 16:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The initial reason given for deletion was that it should be done in other ways. It's been resolved that we have the ability to add both "vulgar" and "slang" in this way. The question raised now is if that's the correct thing to do. DAVilla 16:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

See also Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/October 06#Vulgar slang. DAVilla 16:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Might as well keep as a redirect. Or deprecate and delete. --Keene 11:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


Deprecated; should be changed to normal "===See also===" linking style. --Connel MacKenzie 15:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I would rather see this template continue. What makes it deprecated? --EncycloPetey 04:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why this was proposed. Links to different Wiki projects need to be identified as such. "See also" sections usually only contain links within the same wiki. -- 22:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Because this is not a different Wikiproject. It is an internal project within Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey 02:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep until the current Wikisaurus effort makes some determination about the utility of the template. DCDuring TALK 22:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


Inclusions of this template should be replaced with {{a|RP}} per other accent templates. This standardises the format of all accent/pronunciation labels in pronunciation sections of artciles.--Williamsayers79 11:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not just replace the current content of this template with {{a|RP}}? -- Visviva 13:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
That would an interim fix I belive but it will still need to be deprecated at some point.--Williamsayers79 14:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I think User:AutoFormat is slowly dealing with these. --Keene 11:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


Can anyone explain why it would be in our interest to have this? DAVilla 19:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it very much either, I use other sources instead. It could also imply copyvio I have found.--Williamsayers79 22:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Including the template on a page pretty clearly implies the opposite; that we are confident enough in our definitions that we can even (occasionally - where relevant) offer comparisons to other references. --Connel MacKenzie 03:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Dictionary.com is the enemy. They make money off of merely giving people definitions for words, something that we are struggling mightily to give away for free. bd2412 T 01:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I avoid them except to check for copyvios. I've many times found serious errors, so I don't consider citing them ever as an "authority". --EncycloPetey 01:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
This really only has any worth in making it easier to include Dictionary.com in Dictionary notes sections (I don’t think that the style would be very suitable for a reference). Even if Dictionary.com is unreliable, it is, unfortunately for us, still popularly relied upon nonetheless. The best way that we can end their on-line lexicographical reign is by showing very clearly that we both transcend and include their content.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
That’s a vote to keep this template, in case that wasn’t clear.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - we have plenty of other reference templates. --Jackofclubs 18:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Kept. There's dozens of others

November 2007[edit]

Appendix:IPA chart for English[edit]

This is an exact copy of a Wikipedia article. Any usefulness this article has for Wiktionary is already covered by Wiktionary:English pronunciation key, making this Appendix redundant. Angr 18:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

We should have an appendix for English pronunciation (i.e. a resource for readers), not just a Wiktionary project page (i.e. a resource for just contributors). Should Wiktionary:English pronunciation key be merged into Appendix:IPA chart for English? Rod (A. Smith) 19:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Possibly, but there should be a simple stripped-down chart in the Wiktionary name space for editors who just need to quickly look up some standard. I use the Wiktionary:English pronunciation key from time to time when I can't remember what SAMPA does for some particular IPA equivalent. I don't want to have to look through a comprehensive Appendix for that information; I just need a short reference table. That's how I see the different functions of the two pages. The Appendix should assist users who may need little or much assistance interpreting English pronunciation, while the Wiktionary page should be a quick minimal reference for editors. --EncycloPetey 23:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself, this so-called "appendix" is an encyclopedia article. Those don't belong on Wiktionary in any namespace. Angr 21:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand, Angr. Everything in Appendix:IPA chart for English seems inappropriate for a dictionary appendix. Is there a particular part of it that doesn't seem relevant to lexicology? Rod (A. Smith) 22:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Basically, I disagree that Wiktionary should have an appendix on IPA that is more detailed than the existing Wiktionary:English pronunciation key. Readers who want more detailed information can go to Wikipedia for it, and find this exact page as a Wikipedia article at IPA chart for English. In general, Wikimedia projects do not duplicate each other's content. Wikipedia doesn't host source material, Wikisource doesn't host dictionary definitions, and Wiktionary doesn't host encyclopedia articles (which is what this is), not even in Appendix: space. If, on the other hand, the IPA chart for English is considered an appropriate appendix for Wiktionary, then it must be deleted from Wikipedia, by the same token. And I am definitely opposed to its deletion from Wikipedia. Angr 14:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. I suppose next you'll say that a Wikipedia article mustn't begin with a definition of its topic? Or that a Wiktionary entry mustn't include notable quotes that include a term? There will always be some overlap between the various projects, and it's nonsense to say — in italics, no less! — that something found in one must be deleted from all others. —RuakhTALK 00:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article can begin with a definition of its topic, but if the definition is all it includes, it will be transwikied here and then deleted there. This article doesn't include some minor portion of a Wikipedia article, it is an exact copy of a Wikipedia article. Where do you find entire pages present in identical form on two or more different projects? Angr 14:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Appendix:Place names/Gråbo[edit]

Is there a new way of dealing with places like this, and sneaking them in a subpage? Or just an editor trying out something new? --Keene 02:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a serious proposal to start adding all place names this way, but the conversation was so prolonged and diffuse, I'm still not sure what we decided. --EncycloPetey 07:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe anything has been decided, but this did receive positive feedback when I proposed it on the BP. Therefore, I began employing it when archiving RFDs for placenames which did not meet CFI but were otherwise well-formed, useful entries. IMO this is by far the best solution, but if there is a consensus against it I will happily desist. -- Visviva 06:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


This should be replaced by {{a}}, right? Rod (A. Smith) 01:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's worse than that. Whoever used this template was using it to add synthesized Canadian pronunciations. Look at biodiversity. The results of these additions need cleanup, and a decision on whether we want to allow these hideous synthetic pronunciations to exist here at all. --EncycloPetey 13:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

category:American Sign Language[edit]

Per the discussion on Old Church Slavonic, above, this category should be moved to category:American Sign Language language. I'd do it myself, but the page, for some reason, didn't have a move button, so I guess it needs an admin.—msh210 06:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the necessity for having "language" twice. Kappa 07:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't either; I'm just recommending the move because that seemed to be the decision in another similar case. See the discussion above.—msh210 07:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking that the name of the language should be American Sign. We don't go around using Finnish language as a header or such. Then the category name is "American Sign language" (note the lc language), like all the other languages. Robert Ullmann 09:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
But the name of the language isn't "American Sign". No one calls it that. It's "American Sign Language". Per the discussion on Old Church Slavonic, the category should then be "American Sign Language language".—msh210 07:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
"American Sign Language language" sounds retarded. The "language" is already included, sign language being a kind of language. "American Sign Language" isn't exactly the name of the language. American + sign language. Just like French + Sign Language, Finnish + Sign Language, Russian + Sign Language, and all the rest of these — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 20:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree it sounds retarded; I'm trying only to conform the category to what seems to be the policy on these categories. But "American Sign Language" is the name of the language. (It's called that because it's an American sign language, certainly. But that doesn't change that it's the name of the language.) If it were merely the American sign language, not American Sign Language, then one could just as well (and perhaps even should) call it "the United States sign language" — but no one does. No, "American Sign Language" is its name.—msh210 06:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"American Sign language" and "American Sign Language language" both look illiterate. (I've nothing against the illiterate, but I don't think that's the image we're going for.) If it's essential that all such category names end in "language", then I guess the non-ideal "American sign language" is our only option. —RuakhTALK 22:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether that's our only option (I hope not!), but I emphatically agree that it's non-ideal, for reasons outlined in my comment, above, stamped with same date and time as this one.—msh210 06:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Both "American Sign Language language" and "Old Church Slavonic language" look illiterate to me. Most languages may be referred to either with or without the addition of "language"...however, some languages, such as American Sign Language (Language capitalized), always contain the word "language" (and it should not be repeated), while a few others (e.g., Old Church Slavonic) do not admit the word "language" at all. I note that Wikipedia agrees with this logic and most language articles are styled like w:Spanish language, w:Burmese language (because these words also refer to other things besides language, such as culture and food), but w:Old Church Slavonic and w:American Sign Language (because these terms only mean language and are not used for things like culture or food). —Stephen 20:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the way we have our categories named, it looks like Adjective + noun, the noun generally being "language". "Finnish language", Finnish acting as an adjective, describing the noun "language". Like I said above, "sign language" is the noun being modified by the adjective "American". "Old Church Slavonic language" does look strange to me, though. Oh well. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 22:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, "Old Church Slavonic language" gets plenty of straightforward Google hits, including in fairly reputable sources like the Britannica; and while Wikipedia does have Old Church Slavonic it also has Category:Old Church Slavonic language. (Granted, "American Sign Language language" also gets plenty of Google hits, but few if any are using it as a constituent.) —RuakhTALK 22:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, there are some constructions that call for the word "language" to be included...e.g., as regards the Old Church Slavonic language. It would be illiterate to write that without the word "language". But as a simple title, Old Church Slavonic is the form that is used, and I can’t easily imagine anyone writing it with "language". —Stephen 01:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned above most languages can be referred to as "X language" because X is an adjective (pertaining to the culture of the X people) as well as a noun (the language spoken by the X people). However, in the case of "American Sign Language", X is only a noun and thus needs no further clarification. Not only would be grammatically clumsy, if not wrong, to juxtapose the two nouns in this way, it looks ugly too. The reason for adding "language" to the end is to make it clear that the category is not referring to other aspects of the culture - for example French stick is not in Category:French language but probably would be in Category:French. (I am not sure where Old Church Slavonic stands, it is certainly a harder case than this one, but I feel that it could be because this is the "Old Church version of Slavonic", or the "Old Church - Slavonic language".) Incidentally, it looks to me as though most of the small number of google hits for "American Sign Langauge language" (that have no punctuation between the two "language"s) are on CMSs that are programmed to add "language" every time they spin out a new page. Conrad.Irwin 01:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - ....Language language looks silly. --Jackofclubs 16:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Kept - No consensus --Jackofclubs 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

December 2007[edit]

Transwiki:Military reserve[edit]

Changed tag from speedy. I think the proper noun referring to the semi-active military component should probably have an entry, but not sure where. It doesn't seem to be covered by reserve or reserves currently. --Connel MacKenzie 23:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Worth thinking about, but the explanation seems encyclopedic, depending on particular force concepts. This is an example of what I mean by "theory-laden" definitions. It seems like some kind of "official" definition, or a definition by a military theorist, rather than one that would be used in ordinary discourse, even among soldiers. It reminds me of the official definition of a second in terms of the vibrations of an isotope of cesium (or whatever it actually is). The ordinary language version is more like one sixtieth of a minute, which is one sixtieth of an hour, which is one twenty-fourth of a day, which is measured from noon to noon. Or actually more like: what my watch says is a second. I'll look at g.b.c. anyway. DCDuring
Also, see USAR, the initialism for the United States Army Reserve. The US nomenclature, I think, is the "Reserve Components", with consist of the "National Guard" and the "Military Reserve", but the actual entities are organizations connected with the service branches. DCDuring 01:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Wikipedia kept article. Old and dated import from year 2007, "theory laden" indeed. If we decide to define this word, it would be best to create a military reserve entry from scratch. Goldenrowley 22:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ one