Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others/Archives/2008 no consensus

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
This is an archive page that has been kept for historical purposes. The conversations on this page are no longer live.

Old Webster pages in the wrong namespace

I think I've sorted out the problem of the nasty webster1913 pages - See what I've done with Wiktionary:Webster 1913, and I've moved the 1913 dictionary's pages to the appendix namespace, so the below pages can probably be deleted now:--Keene 21:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why did you move them the wrong way? The pseudo-prefix "Webster 1913:" is perfect for temporary stuff destined for the main namespace. As each is broken into a separate NS:0 entry, it is removed from the pseudo-NS page. But remains search-able throughout. The Appendix: is completely inappropriate, as would be "Wiktionary:Webster..." --Connel MacKenzie 22:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I know that having the entries in 0 namespace as a pseudo-prefix made them searchable, but it has been "temporary stuff destined for the main namespace" for ages. As far as I can tell, word lists like this one belong in appendix form. I'm not sure about the history of the Webster pages, but am confused why only a couple of dozen of these webster1913 pages are around - it seemed best to me to put them as an appendix. Not ideal, but should be a step in the right direction. But I'm open to reconsider. --Keene 00:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Having them in NS:0 allows the existing project pages (those do exist somewhere, right?) point to the correct location. Not many people work on these pages, but I don't see how moving them helps accomplish that. Nor do I see the utility of moving them to an inappropriate namespace. --Connel MacKenzie 20:45, 30 January 2008

January 2008

Category:Imitative Korean words

A bad duplicate of Category:ko:Onomatopoeia--Keene 01:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. Korean contains a large class of words (의태어) which are mimetic but in which physical attributes such as shape or texture, rather than sound, are imitated. -- Visviva 05:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
See also Category:ja:Onomatopoeia, which has gitaigo (the Japanese equivalent of the Korean uitae-eo Visiva mentions) as a subcategory. Kappa 01:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
That seems wrong; at least it does not accord with the ordinary definition of "onomatopoeia." Suggest that the umbrella category should be foo:Mimesis, with subcategories for foo:Onomatopoeia and foo:Ideophones. -- Visviva 05:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:English misnomers

Cannot possibly conform to NPOV. --Ptcamn 19:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Is a light year a year? DAVilla 22:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
No, and nor is it a misnomer. The term "misnomer" means that the label was misapplied or is misleading, not simply that one interpretation of the term might be misunderstood. The problem is restricting inclusion so that the category is meaningful. Otherwise, it is simply an over-expansion of a list of idiomatic terms with no boundaries for including terms. Consider: is a cowboy a boy? Most flatware isn't actually flat, but it is flatter than bowls and other crockery. So, is it a misnomer or not? Is red cedar a misnomer because it is not in the modern genus Cedrus, or simply the result of an older and more broadly applied concept of what a "cedar" is? It is possible to make almost anything a misnomer by choosing the right POV. --EncycloPetey 18:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with above. Sneakers are not always worn by people that sneak. Or if you want to go further, they can't sneak as they are inanimate objects! Creates an enormous problem without offering any advantages, so delete. Mglovesfun 22:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


This seems a bit too specific to fall within the scope of a dictionary? Conrad.Irwin 17:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but maybe not. I'm not too keen on the macrons in the name, since this presumably the English words category for this, but I can see the reasoning behind having the category. The Bhagavad-gītā comprise the primary Hindu sacred scriptures, and the category could function like Category:Bible to include names of religious figures and such. I'm not familiar enough with the text to make a guess as to how useful the category would actually be. --EncycloPetey 23:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a renaming to Hindu scriptures would be appropriate? Otherwise we risk ending up with several more categories for the Srimad Bhagavatam, Ramayana, etc. __meco 13:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:cite meta

I like the new book reference template okay, especially since it's designed with Wikipedia compatability in mind, but I don't think the passage should be one of the parameters. In particular it makes indentation tricky. The indentation has always been left out of these templates by default. DAVilla 21:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why this is on RFD? You can control indentation of the passage through "indent2" if you feel the need. And I believe it is possible to omit the passage entirely and display it by hand if you wish. That would of course eliminate any of the potential benefits which would be enjoyed if this template were actually to catch on (perhaps unlikely) and it were possible to use a CSS class to define display preferences for quotes or allow downstream filtering. -- Visviva 01:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually I guess I'm neutral. I really think this is the best approach (laying the groundwork for users to be able to hide citations by default); however, it will only be meaningful if it is adopted across the board and that currently seems unlikely. -- Visviva 12:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The fact that I'm always doing things like this (and I don't think I'm the only one) makes me think that automating indentation is a Good Thing. -- Visviva 05:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, assuming that deletion will break something. --Jackofclubs 09:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

February 2008

Category:Words with alpha privatives

This seems like a useless and untenable category. It still has entries in it, which obviously need to be changed before the cat. is deleted. If no one has any objections to this, I'll empty and delete it. Atelaes 03:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this has some merit, for words formed in English through the addition of a privative a- or an-, but most of the entries currently in it don't belong... Some are not alpha-privative at all (aphesis), and many are simply the descendants of a Greek word which happened to be formed from an alpha-privative (amnesty). It does seem valid to have a category for words like apolitical, asexual, achromatic et al., although this should of course be at Category:English words with alpha privatives. -- Visviva 04:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
So, you're saying the category should be used for words in which the a- prefix (specifically the negating a-) was added as an English prefix (as opposed to a Greek prefix)? Atelaes 19:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
That would be my inclination, yes; it would probably be useful to have a Category:Greek words with alpha privatives et al. as well. In general I think we would do well to use etymology/morphology categories more aggressively. -- Visviva 03:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I must admit I'm opposed to such etymology cats myself. It just seems like clutter to me. It would be better to simply use the "Descendants" line as well as "What links here". Does anyone else have any opinions on the matter to break this stalemate? Atelaes 03:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think such a list might be useful, but don't see this as something for which a category works well. This would be better if converted to Appendix:English words with alpha privatives. That way, the addition or removal of items could be monitored and discussed. --EncycloPetey 18:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

But compiling such a list would be rather difficult. This is ultimately a property of the words thus formed, and as such it seems likely to be better served by a category structure. If a word is incorrectly placed in this category due to a bad or absent etymology, that will eventually be fixed as the entry is improved; on the other hand, if a word is incorrectly placed in the appendix, there is a good chance that no one working on the entry will notice. In my experience such appendices tend to get less oversight than categories, and are often simply forgotten after the initial burst of activity at creation. -- Visviva 05:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Visviva: this should be Category:English....—msh210 23:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Couldn’t these words just be listed under the appropriate sense in the Derived terms section of our entry for the English prefix a-, an-?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

March 2008

Category:English countable nouns

While I perfectly seem the use of the template, as of the mirror cat Category:English uncountable nouns, this particular category is fairly pointless given that nouns are countable by default in English. It'd make more sense in a language like Nahuatl, where the average word is usually uncountable. Circeus 15:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Without some fancy changes to {{countable}} to exclude categorisation for certain languages, then I'd say leave it alone, it's not hurting anyone and if we have Category:English uncountable nouns, then the above is almost expected.--Williamsayers79 18:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. We have a category for uncountable. I'll add something to the top of the category to clarify this. --Jackofclubs 09:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I can't see any reason to delete it. I can't see any use for it either, unless you're going to computer-analyze it but someone might! Mglovesfun 22:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


Wikipedia-cruft. Conrad.Irwin 17:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Even though Wiktionary is much less likely to get major disputes as on Wikipedia, no one can guarantee that no major disputes will occur.--Jusjih 04:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't see any need for it. The action=edit page says it's protected, and links to the protection log, which says why it's protected. (It does link to the log, yes? It certainly should.)—msh210 17:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Maroon Spirit Language

Also, the noun and verb subcats (which have both been emptied). Maroon Spirit language is a difficult quandary, as it is appears to be a real language, however, it does not have an ISO code. What I have done is reclassified these words under Category:Jamaican Creole language, with "Maroon Spirit language" as a context tag. However, while it is a Jamaican creole, it appears to not be a dialect of the language known as "Jamaican Creole language", but rather a closely related distinct language. But, since SIL has no ISO code for it, and I think our reliance on SIL is an excellent policy, I think this is the best compromise. If anyone has any other thoughts, feel free to give them. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many languages that have no ISO code, so I wouldn't use that as a strong point for deciding what to do here. I've been cleaning up the language categories, and frankly, this is one I have no idea what to do with. --EncycloPetey 02:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I think a context tag could work, as a stopgap, if we assume that the ISO 693-3 folks just happened to leave this one out. However, in general we need to be careful about this sort of language, which is (apparently) never written down and has (apparently) received only minimal academic attention. Anything "known" about this language or the meaning of its words could easily turn out to be false. Per CFI, in the absence of at least a mention of the specific word in a peer-reviewed scholarly work, I'm inclined to think these entries should simply be deleted.
Why was the category emptied before discussion had run its course? Are these entries still out there somewhere, uncategorized, or have they already been removed? -- Visviva 11:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Classifying this as a variety of Jamaican Creole is silly. One of the main reasons it's interesting is its distinctness from Jamaican Creole.
The main source on this language is an article in New West Indian Guide/Nieuwe West-Indische Gids, "the oldest scholary journal on the Caribbean". While it's true that there isn't much coverage of it, what exists has been cited by various other linguists who apparently regard it as reliable. (See Google Books.) --Ptcamn 05:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Maroon Spirit language

Following the Category:American Sign Language, if a category for Maroon Spirit Language is desired, it should be named with an uppercase L, so I have created the Category:Maroon Spirit Language. --Daniel. 04:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Bokmål nouns

Should be Category:Norwegian Bokmål nouns. --Connel MacKenzie 00:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This will hinge on the outcome of the discussion at Wiktionary:Beer Parlour#Norwegian language classification. --EncycloPetey 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
No, if the language name is "Norwegian", this is wrong. If the language name is "Norwegian Bokmål", it is still wrong. It might be "Norwegian Bokmål nouns". Robert Ullmann 00:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
My point is that there is a discussion in the Beer PArlour about how to handle this language. Please see (and participate in) the discussion there. --EncycloPetey 00:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Category:Romanian alphabet

Category:Ukrainian alphabet

Category:Arabic numerals

Digits yes, numbers no. Most of these should be deleted. All sum of parts.

Note that some have a reason of existence, such as 180 and 1337, and possibly 911 and 112. H. (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of an Arabic numeral is the ten numerals 0 through 9. A number such as 25 is not an Arabic numeral, but a number composed of the Arabic numerals 2 and 5. —Stephen 14:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Terminology will vary depending on the context and background of the author, but I agree that it's highly unusual to call multi-digit numerical representations "numerals". Most authors seem to apply the term numeral either to individual digits or to written words. --EncycloPetey 17:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought that the categories in the general format Language numerals etc. were for parts of speech in that language which are numerals e.g. cardinal numbers and ordinal numbers.--Williamsayers79 18:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes and no. We've never agreed on any standard (and the last discussion was inconclusive). So, the words in Arabic that represent numerical concepts could be in Category:Arabic numerals or in Category:Arabic numbers, depending on who set up and populated the category. The same is true for all other languages. --EncycloPetey 12:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
What about the other ones, that aren't categorized there? (ie 51). 13:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Template:possessive determiner

This template is unused, as should be the case since there are no possessive determiners in English. Such words as my, his, etc. are pronouns. Nevertheless, its existence will likely tempt somebody to include it somewhere. Best to get rid of it.--Brett 15:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a few in English, but rarely used these days. Consider "Mine eyes have seen...", which are the opening words of the well-known (in the US) "Battle Hymn of the Republic". The word mine functions as a possessive determiner, since it may precede a noun or stand alone as a pronoun. That doesn't mean we should keep this template, but it is worth pointing out. Please note that a lack of use for a template in one language does not mean it should be deleted. --EncycloPetey 17:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
mine is simply a variant of my (actually the other way 'round). They're both pronouns though. As for deletion, though, I suppose you're right. Rather than delete it, the tag for English determiner should be removed.--Brett 01:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Korean false cognates

Created by Rodasmith to be placed on talk pages created by our very dear KYPark.

Since Korean is a language isolate (sometimes placed in "Macro-Altaic" scheme with Japanese, but the whole Altaic thing is highly dubious anyway), comparing any Korean word (either native Korean or borrowing) with that of any other language is always a false cognate.

As can be seen on the talk pages of entries this template ended up: Talk:매다, Talk:띠앗, Talk:마니다, Kypark is concerned only with IE languages, even the extinct/reconstructed ones like Oscan, Gothic, Old High German and Proto-Germanic, which are of next-to-none educational value to casual reader, this whole thing cannot be understood as nothing less than Kypark's intention of subtle promoting IE-Korean relatedness. --Ivan Štambuk 19:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I support our efforts to keep misleading comparisons out of etymologies, but false cognates are potentially useful to language learners. Applying the label "false cognates" and relegating them to the talk pages seems to be something of a compromise: KYPark can continue to provide this potentially useful memory aid without making misleading etymology claims. If there is a better place for the memory aids, a better label to apply, a better name for the template, or better wording for it, please suggest them, but let's not just delete potentially useful data. Rod (A. Smith) 19:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Abstain As far as I can see the arguments are 'harmlesss and not useful, which both amount to the same thing. Let's stop wasting puff over the issue and just get on. Conrad.Irwin 20:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I cannot imagine profile of a person who would be interested in mnemonics on Korean and Oscan, OHG and Gothic. I sincerely doubt that these are intended as "mnemonics" in the first place - that's how you labeled them, and that's the term that came up after Kypark was asked what does he mean when he says that e.g. Korean and French word "share the same roman syllable". Somehow I don't think he had pure mnemonics in mind. I find it very hard to see any potential usefulness of these kind of lists.
However, I wouldn't mind seeing Kypark channeling his effort exclusively on one appendix page, safely outside the main namespace, with a big detailed warning message that would forbid potential misinterpretation of it's content. --Ivan Štambuk 20:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
These weird etymological claims remind me of a pesky Russian contributor that we had here a few years ago. He kept trying to add things like бери, бери (take! take!) to bribery and so forth. He put considerable effort into this and and tried hard to convince us to allow him to "convert" English Wiktionary to his so-called "multilingual associations". After the revert wars finally stopped, it took me another two years to root all of that stuff out. I still run across some of them on Russian Wikitionary.
I agree with Ivan, if Kypark insists on expressing his eccentric views on language here, it should be restricted to a single appendix page with a clear explanation to keep people from misinterpreting it. There are still a lot of Korean pages here that contain his "evidence" that Korean is an Indo-European language, and I think it will take quite some years to find and repair them all. —Stephen 20:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Harmless, because the text of the template, both as transcluded and as noincluded, states very clearly that this nonstandard (substandard) linguistics. (This is not a vote, if anyone's counting.) I'd change the wording from "WT:ELE does not admit a ===False cognates=== section, so they are listed here instead, on the talk page" to "Because this is balderdash and poppycock, WT:ELE doesn't admit it to the entry, so it's here on the talk page instead" or some such. (Incidentally, there's a fascinating book called The Word, by Mozeson, full of false cognates, presented as cognates, between ancient Hebrew and English. Sample page.)—msh210 21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)