Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for verification
add new | history | archives | old index

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

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} -

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5

This page is designed to discuss moves (renaming pages) mergers and splits. Its aim is to take the burden away from the beer parlour and requests for deletion where these issues were previously listed. Please note that uncontroversial page moves to correct typos, missing characters etc. should not be listed here, but moved directly using the move function.

  • Appropriate: Renaming categories, templates, Wiktionary pages, appendices, rhymes and occasionally entries. Merging or splitting temp categories, templates, Wiktionary pages, appendices, rhymes.
  • Out of scope: Merging entries which are alternative forms or spellings or synonyms such as color/colour or traveled/travelled. Unlike Wikipedia, we don't redirect in these sort of situations. Each spelling gets its own page, often employing the templates {{alternative spelling of}} or {{alternative form of}}.
  • Tagging pages: To tag a page, you can use the general template {{rfm}}, as well as one of the more specific templates {{move}}, {{merge}} and {{split}}.


Unresolved requests from before January 2013[edit]

February 2013[edit]


It is rather unusual for us to use a bare adjective as a category name. I can't really think of anything substantially better, but if someone has an idea, I'd be glad to hear it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Sailing is already taken as a subcat (though I don't know what the difference is supposed to be), so perhaps Category:Nautical terminology? —Angr 13:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe Category:Sailing has to do specifically with sailboats: you can set sail in a submarine, but the verb "surface" isn't a sailing term (unless you're doing a really bad job of it)... Chuck Entz (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
What about Category:Boating? That's what Wikipedia's Sailing category is a subcat of. —Angr 15:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I like your previous suggestion, Nautical terminology. If you take a look, a lot of it is sailors' slang. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
There is slang, and there is jargon. The sailing argot of the late 19th-early 20th century was also translingual; there is ample evidence the industry required proficiency in the technical language but did not require the ability to otherwise communicate with colleagues or officers. Much of nautical terminology refers to maritime and shipping law, e.g. Singapore was established as an entrepôt port (which term is completely lacking the tax-relevant character: it is a port/warehouse at which goods may be stored for transshipment without incurring taxes.) - Amgine/ t·e 19:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
No other categories, AFAICT, use "terminology" in their name, so I support Angr's suggestion of Category:Boating. - -sche (discuss) 00:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't love it, but I could go with Boating. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

jemandem etwas in die Schuhe schieben[edit]

...and jemanden über den Löffel barbieren, jemandem über den Weg laufen, jemanden hinters Licht führen, and other German verb phrases containing "jemand*" and "etwas": should some or all of them drop "jemand*"? I note that our English entries sometimes but not always omit "someone"s and "something"s, e.g. we have [[lay at the feet of]] (which, when said that way, sounds like what a dog does) rather than [[lay something at the feet of]], but then we have [[cross someone's path]]. (Actually, "lay at the feet of" needs a placeholder, IMO; see my post just below this one.) - -sche (discuss) 21:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

  • My gut instinct is to remove accusative jemanden but keep dative jemandem, but I'm not sure I can articulate exactly why. Direct objects just feel somehow more removable from idiomatic verb phrases than indirect objects. —Angr 21:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Move all. I would remove such placeholders generally. The necessary complements (no matter if accusative or dative) can be specified next to the definition. The reason we have a placeholder in cross someone's path probably is that it has the genitive-'s and thus can't be removed (other than by replacing it with "X's" or something like that). Longtrend (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hm, we have hundreds of pages with "someone" in the pagetitle (and others which don't have it in the title). Whereas, we only have nine verbs which include "jemand" or an inflected form. I may start a BP thread asking about this. - -sche (discuss) 00:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:English diminutives of male given names[edit]

Category:English diminutives of female given names[edit]

I think these need to be split as not all of the names are diminutives. Some are non-diminutive nicknames. Alternatively it could be renamed Category:English nicknames of male given names. Or it could be Category:English male nicknames.

I think that nickname and diminutive are overlapping categories. Aren't Francine and Mariella diminutives of Frances and Maria, respectively? But they are not nicknames. Similarly, Jake is a nickname for Jacob/Jacques, but not a diminutive.

I don't know whether the categories and their application are correct with respect to other languages, but the application of {{given name}} has lead to a bad result for English. DCDuring TALK 00:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean that a diminutive has something added (Franc+ine, John+ny) and a nickname has something subtracted (Jake-(c)ob, Rob-ert)? Or what is the difference? Is this a meaningful way to split a category? Francine is defined as a formal given name in French and English. It derives from an ancient diminutive, but that's etymology. The diminutive definitions and categories are based on the way a name is used, not on its grammatical form. Diminutives and formal given names often overlap, and what's a diminutive in one language may be a formal given name in another: Tommy for example. So use of Template:given name seems reasonable.
I agree that "diminutive" is not the perfect category name, but are the alternatives any better? "Nickname" applies to words like Shorty, Dubya, Shug that are not linguistically related to a person's real given name. "Pet name" sounds too colloquial to me, and "hypocorism" is the opposite of a "pejorative" with Russian names. Changing the name would take a lot of manual work. Not all the entries use the template. --Makaokalani (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
What makes you think that "'nickname' applies to words... that are not linguistically related to a person's real given name"? I would certainly say Tom is a nickname for Thomas, Bill is a nickname for William, Liz is a nickname for Elizabeth, etc. Those aren't the only kind of nicknames, but they are nicknames. —Angr 15:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Sure, but terms like Shorty should not be listed in the same category with Tom, Bill and Liz. You can create a separate category for them. I meant "the word nickname also applies to..."--Makaokalani (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Whatever else, the current name is applicable only to a subset of those now in the category. It is mostly populated by {{given name}} when the parameter 'diminutive' is applied. If there were other possibilities for other kinds of derivations, then the template would not create the erroneous results it does. A category of derived names for which diminutives would be a subcategory would be fine with me.
The template did not specify 'diminutive' until January 2010. I'd be happy with a rollback to the edit before that, but there have been later changes that may have some value. DCDuring TALK 00:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The members of the categories are called hypocorisms or pet names, judging from online dictionaries. The current name is wrong, IMHO, or misleading anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd meant to look up hypocorism. It is not really suitable for use as part of a category name if we intend the category for use by normal users, rather than us or language professionals. I probably would be OK to group nicknames, diminutives, and other similar types of names, if there are others to include. DCDuring TALK 23:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Just to make clear that we are discussing the same thing: I oppose splitting the diminutive categories. It would be confusing, and impossible to do in many languages (e.g. Finnish). Tom and Bill certainly belong to the same category as Tommy and Billy. Terms like Dubya and Shorty are now uncategorized and need some other category ("Nicknames?"). Terms like Francine are not diminutives in English or French. (I can see some old entries have confusing definitions like "A male given name, diminutive of X" , the diminutive part properly belonging to the etymology.) I oppose removing the diminutive= parameter from Template:given name. Changing it to something else, and changing the names of all diminutive categories (21 male, 16 female) would not bother me provided someone else does it all, including the tiresome manual work. Webster's 2003 definition of diminutive includes: "used of affixes (as -ette, -kin, -ling) and of words formed with them (--), of clipped forms (as Jim), and of altered forms (as Peggy)", so the present category name is not completely wrong. Our definition of diminutive includes endearments.--Makaokalani (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  1. Is this category supposed to be directed at normal users or linguists or is it intended as some kind of maintenance category? Diminutive for normal users implies "small" and may connote "belittling".
  2. In English, the categorization based on affixes alone cannot be semantic, it is etymological. The word "diminutive" does not seem appropriate for display on the definition line in cases where "diminutive" in the normal user sense is not accurate, though the etymological sense applies. Perhaps we need to create a special template for use in the etymology section of names to categorize into diminutives. I am aware that diminutives seem to be virtually inflectional in some languages, at least in the opinion of, say, some of our Dutch contributors. But I don't think that an approach based on that model is appropriate for English.
  3. It seems to me that we have can have almost nothing to say about the meaning of names, rather than their derivation. At best we can provide a non-gloss definition. I doubt that we have a fact base to use to check the correctness of such assertions as often used as a pet name/term of endearment. DCDuring TALK 13:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Another candidate term: familiar form: try google books:"familiar form"; there, Dictionary of First Names by Iseabail C. MacLeod, Terry Freedman, 1995 uses the term. In spite of Merriam-Webster's "diminutive" entry siding with Makaokalani, I still disfavor "diminutive". --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
That might work. But I'm not sure that a person whose birth certificate says his given name is Jim views the name as a "familiar form" or a "pet name" or a "diminutive".
If we don't consign the relationship to other names to Etymology, the only place it belongs IMO, then for display we need something other than "diminutive" for those cases where that is in appropriate, eg, Jimbo. It is obviously related to James, but is decidedly NOT a diminutive. DCDuring TALK 16:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013[edit]

I haven't the foggiest[edit]

Shouldn't this be at not have the foggiest (now a redirect) or perhaps better at have the foggiest. Certainly this doesn't only occur in the first person singular.

I think there is always a negative associated with this idiom, but the following kinds of usage are not rare:

I don't think he had the foggiest about selecting the best lemma entry.
I wonder whether he has the foggiest about what he's doing.

This is what favors the non-negative as lemma with redirects from the most common forms, including those with -n't. DCDuring TALK 01:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a canonical negative polarity item in English, found only in negatives (including negation of the main clause when the NPI occurs in a subordinate clause) and questions (including indirect questions like "I wonder whether..."), just like any in "John does not have any potatoes", "I don't think John has any potatoes", "Does John have any potatoes?", "I wonder whether John has any potatoes" but *"John has any potatoes". I'd say move to have the foggiest or even the foggiest since I think "have got the foggiest" is also used. —Angr 11:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Should any (explicit-verb-containing) negative polarity item contain "not" in the headword? I think not, though there may turn out to be exceptions. Of course, redirects from the most common negative containing forms might be helpful. DCDuring TALK 16:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Move to have the foggiest, retain the redirect (would not be an ambiguous redirect). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I think "idea" is an essential part of undIerstanding the phrase, even though it's dropped in some forms. Suggest we first create foggiest idea (idiom) and then either redirect other terms there or to have the foggiest idea (have the foggiest could be an alt. form). Facts707 (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Having said that, I see "foggiest clue", "foggiest notion", etc. are not uncommon. I also updated foggiest with a second sense. It seems to make foggiest idea and have the foggiest idea less useful. Also, "get the foggiest..." is also popular.Facts707 (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:English words with different meanings in different locations[edit]

This was originally nominated at WT:RFDO as this page didn't exist yet. I feel uneasy about the title. There's clearly some merit to it, like pissed meaning drink in the UK and angry in the US, but I hate the title 'English words with different meanings in different locations'. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A similar page was RFDed/RFMed in the past; I'll see if I can find it. It was the one which was originally titled something like "words having different meanings on different sides of the pond"(!)... - -sche (discuss) 20:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
It was Category talk:Pronunciations wildly different across the pond. - -sche (discuss) 00:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

April 2013[edit]

Template:han tu form of[edit]

Two editors on 𫋙 and Talk:𫋙 (no I can't see those links either) have objected to the name han tu, saying it should be chu nom. I have no opinion on the matter. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to move or rename this. It's just that using this template in 𫋙 and 𪜚 (which are chữ Nôm) is wrong. There is no problem using it in Sino-Vietnamese words; all pages linking to it are using it correctly except for those two. Wyang (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Since that was me who made those two edits, what's the difference? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Kauffner (talkcontribs) moved it unilaterally; I moved it back. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
"Hán" means Classical Chinese. "Nôm" is Vietnamese written with Chinese-style characters. The template says it is for "Vietnamese written in Chinese characters", so it should be called "Nom form of". Tự (words) and chữ (characters) are just descriptors and should not be treated as part of the name. See Vietnamese Nôm Preservation Foundation. Vdict defines hán tự as "Chinese literature", and chữ nôm as "demotic script (Ancient Vietnamese script)." I note that the phrase "unilateral" is being misused above, as there was in fact another editor who agreed to the move. Update: I looked at some of the links. They are mostly Vietnamese readings for modern Chinese characters. This is properly called "Han-Viet" or "Sino-Vietnamese reading". Every Chinese character has a reading of this kind; It's the Vietnamese equivalent to pinyin or Wade-Giles. You can get such readings from this site. Kauffner (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Weirdly, that editor is the one that commented here and doesn't agree with it. Don't ask me why that is. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps we can create another template for Nôm? In Vietnamese dictionaries, the Hán reading is labeled "H" or "Hv." (for Hán Việt). The Nôm reading is labeled "N". There is none of this Hán tự stuff. Update Here is a Vietnamese dictionary that uses the label "Hv" for Han readings. Type "nom" or some other syllable into the search function. Kauffner (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
@Wyang do you think we need another template, as Kauffner suggests above? - -sche (discuss) 06:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there is a need for a separate template. One template should do the job, with two parameters |h= (Hán) and |n= (Nôm) which will be parsed by Lua. Wyang (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

June 2013[edit]

Appendix:Japanese Swadesh list[edit]

This page is quite a dog's breakfast. The list includes numerous terms that don't belong in a Swadesh list; see the list's Talk page for details.

Glancing over the list, I thought some of the content looked different from how I remembered it. Poking around in the history of the Appendix:Japanese Swadesh list page and the Wiktionary:Japanese Swadesh list page, I realized why -- apparently Croquant (talkcontribs) and I had had the same idea at nearly the same time back in 2006, and he launched the Appendix: page, while I launched the Wiktionary: page four days later.

Comparing the two pages, the Appendix page has gotten a lot more editing traffic, but sadly appears to be less usable -- more Chinese-derived terms, more compounds, and more inflected forms (all inappropriate for a Swadesh list), and less useful information given (no Notes or Usage, for instance). Add to that the fact that the wikicode is harder to work with (as each column is given in a single huge list, but it's each row instead that the editor must work with).

With all that in mind, I'd like to propose that we merge the Appendix:Japanese Swadesh list page with the Wiktionary:Japanese Swadesh list page, with a bias towards keeping the wikicode from the Wiktionary: page and merging in any preferred data from the Appendix: page. If no one objects, I may set to that task in a week or two. Once done, my sense is that we should delete Wiktionary:Japanese Swadesh list, or at least turn it into a redirect to Appendix:Japanese Swadesh list. If anyone feels otherwise, please chime in. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This sounds more like a subject for WT:RFM Chuck Entz (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah, yes, somehow I'd gotten it into the back of my head that RFM was only for moves, not for mergers. Moving there. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Anatoli's Angr's post here copied from Appendix talk:Japanese Swadesh list:

I don't think anyone has taken lexicostatistics seriously in forty years. All Swadesh lists are useless for determining the genetic relatedness of languages, regardless of whether they're filled with native words or loanwords, because the methodology has proven to be flawed. The only point in having Swadesh list appendices at Wiktionary is to provide a list of basic words that we need to have entries for. —Angr 20:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Arrowred.png Is lexicostatistics as a whole discredited, or just Swadesh's approach? Is there any value in keeping these pages, then? Should we just remove them, if they're not to be maintained? We have plenty of other, more highly-trafficked lists that help us keep track of what terms we're missing and might want to add. Curious, -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Both. Lexicostatistics makes the assumption that language change is a homogenous, continuous process that can be reduced to mathematical models. In the real world, there are things like regional and social variation, and things like sociopolitical and economic forces (not to mention blind luck) that often determine which form survives. Swadesh lists are interesting, and provide a rough view of variation between languages, so they're probably worth keeping in the appendices. I wouldn't base anything on them as evidence, though. Lexicostatistics is usually a lot better than flipping a coin, but there are too many ways for it to go wrong, since it depends on unverifiable past events. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Considering the amount of work I've put in on the Burmese and Irish Swadesh lists and the amount of work I'm planning to put in on the Lower Sorbian, Old Irish, and Welsh Swadesh lists, I'd be opposed to deleting them. I don't know of any other lists of terms we need for those languages. —Angr 12:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Chuck, thank you for the detail. I'm clearly behind in my reading.  :)

@Angr, understood. I'm fine with keeping them.

That said, if we are to keep them, I feel rather strongly that the lists should be cleaned up -- despite Angr's comment, known-borrowed words have no place in any such list, even if the methodology has been entirely discredited. At the bare minimum, drilling down to root forms for these concepts would itself give us a list of terms needed for etymological purposes. I'm working through JA terms to add etymologies, which is how I wound up coming back to this list in the first place.  :)

Also, if we are to keep them, presumably we should only keep one per language, yes? And presumably in the Appendix: namespace?

Cheers, -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 15:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, I don't see any reason to exclude loanwords if a loanword is the most common term for a particular concept. The English Swadesh list itself has a large number of loanwords, including they, husband, animal, forest, fruit, flower, skin, egg, vomit, give, count, sky, mountain, and correct. One per language, yes, though there's nothing wrong with keeping some language-family lists too, though these need to be kept within reason. Some currently existing ones run off the right edge of the screen because they contain so many languages. AFAICT all Swadesh lists are already in Appendix: mainspace, which seems like the best place for them to me. —Angr 16:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Re: namespaces, my original comment in this thread concerns a duplication, with one such JA Swadesh list in Appendix:, and one in Wiktionary:.
  • Re: loanwords, my understanding was that the whole point of Swadesh lists was for historico-comparative research? If so, known loanwords would be irrelevant. I'm not opposed to keeping a list of modern terms for Swadesh concepts, but that wouldn't be a Swadesh list then, no? Would an acceptable compromise be to add a column with a header such as Modern equivalent? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
If anything, I'd rather have a separate column for native words that are now obsolete/archaic or that now have different meanings. To stick with the English examples, the native words deer, blossom, hide, spew, and reckon are all modern English too, so it would be odd to exclude them from the "Modern equivalent" column. They just don't mean "animal", "flower", "skin", "vomit", and "count" anymore, or are at least not the most common way of expressing those ideas. But they could be in a column to show that they are the modern English descendants of the Old English words that did have those meanings. —Angr 16:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I was thinking about something along the lines of the format at Wiktionary:Japanese Swadesh list. This includes some JA-specific headings, but the Usage and Notes columns could conceivably be used to convey this kind of information -- like for deer, to describe how it is used now and how that differs from the older meanings. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

"xx nouns lacking gender" to "xx terms with incomplete gender"[edit]

Sometimes we want things other than nouns to have genders, but I doubt we want another category for that. "terms" is better than "entries" because we also include genders in translations, which are not entries. There is also a difference between lacking a gender altogether and simply having an incomplete gender. For example, Slovene nouns divide masculine nouns into animate and inanimate, and this is normally specified as part of the gender (m-an, m-in). So if you specify just "m" for a Slovene noun, it's not a complete gender, but it's not lacking a gender either. So "incomplete" is more inclusive. The same applies to Dutch, where users may specify "c" as the gender but this should really be "m" or "f". —CodeCat 17:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Category:Regionalisms - Category:Regional terms by language[edit]

A big mess with lots of overlap and miscategorization. -- Liliana 23:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I think there was a similar proposal a while ago, I just don't remember where it went. Also there's Category:Dialectal terms by language to make it more interesting. —CodeCat 23:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Terms which are from specific regions go in subcategories of Category:Regional Irish, etc. I've changed the module so that terms which are labelled just "regional" go into that broad category (Category:Regional Irish, etc). This should move almost all if not all of the entries in Category:Regional terms by language. - -sche (discuss) 01:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Merged into Category:Regionalisms. Once the job queue is processed, Category:Regional terms by language and its subcategories will be empty. - -sche (discuss) 02:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


I think it should be moved to Category:en:Bones. --ElisaVan (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Support, but let's call it "List of bones". There are a lot of categories like this that could benefit from less ambiguous names. DTLHS (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
No preference; it's not exactly ambiguous what either skeleton or bones refers to. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it should be 'List of bones' because other categories (that I can think of) don't include "List" in their names, except the top level "List of topics". Why rename from Skeleton to Bones? What's the reason? - -sche (discuss) 03:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

bee's knees[edit]

Suggest merging the bee's knees into bee's knees. Per redirect at the the cat's pyjamas. I'm not sure of Wiktionary SOP, so noting here. HTH. Quiddity (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest, instead. merging the other way: is bee's knees ever used in any other combination than with "the", as in the bee's knees? Chuck Entz (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I too would suggest unifying them as the bee's knees. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Moved. - -sche (discuss) 04:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]


I am proposing that entries such as *reťi (and *moťь, *noťь, *dъťi and others) and *meďa (and *svěťa, etc.) be renamed to *rekti (*moktь, *noktь, *dъkti) and *medja (*světja), respectively; i.e. as they usually spelled in academic works. Another inconsistency is that some entries have the intrusive *l, while others do not (compare *čaplja : *zemja). -- 10:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I support using -kt-/-tj-/-dj- in these cases. WT:ASLA already specifies that epenthetic l's should be included, so Appendix:Proto-Slavic/zemja needs to be moved to Appendix:Proto-Slavic/zemlja. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
There is no difference between -kt- and -tj-, the distinction is purely etymological. So I don't support making it. And WT:ASLA did not originally specify that the l should be included, Ivan unilaterally rewrote most of that page and it does not represent consensus. —CodeCat 11:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
If the difference is purely etymological, then surely the etymology section of an entry is the place to make it. I don't see any objections being raised to the inclusion of the -l-, and in consensus-building silence implies consent. Personally I'd prefer to exclude it because we should be giving the oldest reconstructable form (hence -kt-) and the -l- is "unetymological". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Surely if we want the oldest reconstructable form, we should be reconstructing PIE and not Proto-Slavic? Reconstructions should concern themselves with the latest common ancestor, not the earliest. There is no descernable difference between -kt- and -tj- in Slavic, both have the exact same outcome in all languages. So the comparative method that linguists use to make reconstructions will give one phoneme, which has been labelled as *ť on Wiktionary and Wikipedia. To reconstruct the difference between -kt- and -tj- requires "outside information", which is not always available. It would be a bit like reconstructing the distinction between short a and o for Proto-Germanic depending on their origin, even though these clearly merged. —CodeCat 11:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
And concerning -j- or -lj-, there is no clear linguistic consensus on whether -lj- is original or -j-, so we just picked one to standardise on. —CodeCat 11:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Internal reconstruction within the protolanguage and comparison with sister languages and protolanguages is also part of historical linguistics, and distinguishing tj < *kt from tj < *tj provides useful information. We don't have to put blinders on and look only at what's reconstructable from the daughter languages, especially since the majority of published sources don't either, and do distinguish the two types of tj. If we didn't allow internal reconstruction within the proto-language, we'd never reconstruct any PIE laryngeals at all except in words directly attested in Anatolian (and even then we would never reconstruct h₁ at any rate). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I think you're mistaken. While some linguists are in the habit of reconstructing laryngeals to account for any occurrence of *a or a long vowel, there are many who don't and disagree with this practice. Ringe for example explicitly argues that not all cases of *a should be reconstructed as *h₂e just for the sake of it. But there are many cases where the descendants rule out *a and require *h₂e, so then it can be reconstructed. This doesn't apply to Slavic *ť though. There are no examples of any discernable difference between *kt and *tj in any Slavic language, so trying to distinguish them is always going to be an irregular and incomplete process. And there's also a more esthetic argument: Proto-Slavic didn't allow syllables to end in an obstruent, and we don't have reconstructions with obstruent-final syllables anywhere. Yet *noktь has such a syllable, so it would be internally inconsistent if we used this representation, unless we somehow "decide" that *kt is actually a single phoneme. And if you get to that point then you might as well just respell that phoneme as *ť... —CodeCat 12:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
What cases are there where non-Anatolian descendants "rule out *a and require *h₂e"? Reconstructing kt in Proto-Slavic is no different than reconstructing ɸ in Proto-Celtic (or, as I said, h₁ in PIE—or for that matter e-vocalism next to h₂ and h₃); if we know from other evidence that it was there, there's no reason to exclude it, and certainly no reason for reconstructions to "concern themselves with the latest common ancestor, not the earliest". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Well actually, the Proto-Slavic we reconstruct here is not actually the latest common ancestor, it's later. As far as I can tell, we have certain sound changes applied to our reconstructions, even though they can be demonstrated to have occurred after certain other changes that we don't apply. For example, the liquid diphthongs were changed in a dialect-specific way before the vowels *o and *a differed in quality (because *or is lengthened to *ra in South Slavic). But the quality distinctions must have arisen before a whole lot of accent changes that happened in late Common Slavic, such as the creation of accent class B (which we reconstruct). But in all of these cases we represent "archiphonemes" that can be reconstructed for all Slavic languages based on comparative evidence. *or is an archiphoneme that should be understood as meaning different things in different Slavic dialects. The same should be done for *ť, for which comparative evidence gives only a single phoneme rather than two, so there is nothing beyond that to reconstruct. —CodeCat 14:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]


This is an unused template that contains only a schoolboy exercise of the conjugation of do, mostly perphrastic, of course, and incomplete as a table of all periphrastic equivalents of all tenses and aspects that can be expressed in English. Thus it is misnamed and misleading. If anything it ought to be in the creator's user space, renamed as {{en-conj-do}}. DCDuring TALK 14:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If you plug in other terms, it outputs the forms of the verb you've plugged in. Observe: {{en-conj|love|loved||loving}} yields:
That doesn't mean we really need it, of course, but it does do more than you thought it did. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I was so annoyed that it didn't work as it used to, as the inflection-line template (or redirect thereto) for English conjugations, that I didn't bother to look. That it has no documentation makes that particularly easy. It needs the "principal parts" (3, 4?) in order to generate the periphrases that it covers.
Were it deployed in English L2s I think it would be a great way to ensure that we get fewer native speakers to use Wiktionary, to continue phase one of the linguistic cleansing process. DCDuring TALK 16:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you mean the inflection-line template for English conjunctions? That's now at {{en-con}}. Anyway, I have no objection to deleting this (it's unused anyway) since we already provide the principle parts on the headword line and everything is derivable from those parts, especially if we have an Appendix:English verbs for the benefit of learners. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Besides, it needs fixing: buried deep in the paradigm are "he will has" and "he would has". Chuck Entz (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I created a documentation that there are no more confusions and thus I think this discussion is finished, Keep as is. --Bigbossfarin (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. There is so little value to English conjugation tables that it doesn't seem to me that it merits taking a name that should be used for English conjunctions. Mindless uniformity across languages might be fine for other languages, but not for English on English Wiktionary. Why not rename it as {{en-conjugation}}? DCDuring TALK 14:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm split. The template is too well made to delete, but on the other hand it is entirely useless since we don't conjugate English verbs in entries (and I would be opposed to doing so). I guess I would support moving it to {{en-conjugate}}. But I definitely oppose moving {{en-con}} to {{en-conj}} and would also oppose redirecting {{en-conj}} to {{en-con}}. If {{en-conj}} doesn't contain a conjugation table, then it most certainly should not contain a conjunction template. This is not mindless uniformity, this is to avoid confusion. --WikiTiki89 14:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Another way to avoid confusion would be to rename "xx-conj" templates to "xx-conjg". We know have confusion among contraction, conjunction , and conjugation templates, which could be avoided by other shortcuts "xx-contr", "xx-conjct", and "xx-conjg". This template name has the most potential for confusion. DCDuring TALK 15:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you're right, but using different abbreviations for each language is much more confusing than having ambiguous abbreviations. --WikiTiki89 15:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
A discussion about the name of the templates you can already find here: Template talk:en-con. Since this discussion names of some templates for conjunctions were changed to "xx-con", see: {{eo-con}}, {{nl-con}}, {{arc-con}}, {{cmn-con}}, {{lo-con}}, {{nan-con}}, {{hy-con}}, {{ka-con}}, {{xcl-con}}, {{sh-con}}, and {{ur-con}}. So everyone who wants to use {{en-conj}} for header of conjunctions is wrong, and if you look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:en-conj there is not one content page which uses this template as header. I don't think that we have to move anything because it would be a big effort to change the lemma of all the listed templates. Greetings Bigbossfarin (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Could we rename -decl and -conj to -infl instead? Then the problem would be sidestepped. And "infl" is more general, because it can apply to things that aren't conjugation or declension, like Dutch pronominal adverbs or Irish prepositions. Declension and conjugation are primarily Indo-European-biased terms and don't fit well in many other cases, nor is it even clear what should be done when they're mixed together. —CodeCat 16:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Not moved to userspace (as originally proposed) or anywhere else; the template has been substantially overhauled and may prove useful. - -sche (discuss) 04:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

various places where WT:LANGTREAT and Module:languages are inconsistent[edit]

Module:languages includes codes from the individual members of several language/dialect groups which WT:LANGTREAT says, without citing any discussion, should be merged. Something needs to change: either WT:LANGTREAT should be updated to note that the individual varieties are allowed, or their codes should be removed from the module. The following language/dialect groups are affected:
(Note 1: whenever the merging of a particular dialect group had been discussed and that discussion was cited by LANGTREAT, I simply updated the module.)
(Note 2: Haida, Cree and Kalenjin face the same issue; I expect to write about them later.)
- -sche (discuss) 05:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

the Gondi lects[edit]

Stephen Tyler (not the singer), in his oft-cited works on Gondi, states "Though I have no real evidence, the general pattern seems to be for geographically adjacent Koya and Gondi populations to speak different, but mutually intelligible Gondi dialects. Where these populations are geographically non-contiguous, the dialects are not mutually intelligible. This same pattern probably prevails among all Gondi dialects." WP says "The more important dialects are Dorla, Koya, Maria, Muria, and Raj Gond." Ethnologue, meanwhile, as encoded only two varieties, ggo (Southern Gondi) and gno (Northern Gondi). Should we deprecate those two codes? Or deprecate the macro-code gon and recognise those dialects? Or allow all three? - -sche (discuss) 05:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Persian, Dari, etc[edit]

Although LANGTREAT notes that they should be subsumed into fa, the following codes still exist in Module:languages:

  • pes, for "Western Persian", the most common variety of Persian. We should merge it into fa because it *is* fa.
  • prs, Eastern Persian / Dari, the variety of Persian spoken in Iran Afghanistan. Its status as a separate language, and its very name 'Dari', were products of Afghanistani politics. Not even Afghani speakers of the language call it 'Dari' or consider it separate from Persian; we shouldn't consider it separate, either.
  • aiq, Aimaq, a variety spoken by nomads in Afghanistan and Iran. It is sometimes considered specifically a variety of Dari (which is itself little more than another name for Persian, as explained). It differs from standard Persian mainly in matters of pronunciation, something we usually handle with {{a}} rather than separate L2s.
  • haz, Hazaragi, another Afghan variety. WP summarizes scholarly opinion (with citations, for which look here): "The primary differences between Standard Persian and Hazaragi are the accent and Hazaragi's greater array of Mongolic loanwords. Despite these differences, Hazaragi is mutually intelligible with other regional Persian dialects."
  • deh and phv, Dehwari and Pahlavani, which it is hard to find information on because even WP simply redirects the words to "Persian".

As indicated above, my opinion is that we should merge all of those codes into fa.
Incidentally, LANGTREAT originally also banned Tajik (tg), but this was not supported by scholarship or by our own practice (we had hundreds of Tajik entries), so after two discussions, I updated the page to note that Tajik is allowed. LANGTREAT made no mention of Judeo-Persian (jpr), Bukhari (bhh), Judeo-Tat (jdt) or Tat (ttt), and past discussions of them have assumed they were separate languages, so I also updated the page to reflect that. - -sche (discuss) 05:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC) (fixed think-o)

The Persian lects are an interesting issue; they are on the whole pretty similar, but Persian and Tajik have separate literary and cultural traditions, and I believe Dari does too. I think it is best to keep them separate. The Jewish varieties are often written in the Hebrew script and have a separate cultural tradition, so I think it would probably be handy to keep them separate as well. All the rest probably ought to be merged into their macrolanguages, unless there are script conflicts I'm unaware of (it is, of course, easier to keep with one script per language). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The difference between Dari and Persian is not great AFAIK, there are some references on Wikipedia. Tajik should stay separate, not just because it's in Cyrillic. It's very different from Persian and has many Russian and Turkic loanwords. There is also a significant difference in phonology (vowels). Persian e, o and â are usually i, u and o in Tajik. ZxxZxxZ (talkcontribs) may be able to say a bit more. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
We also currently include "Parsi" (prp) and "Parsi-Dari" (prd), which Wikipedia suggests are spurious(!). - -sche (discuss) 05:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Dari, to merge Dari into Persian, we would have to figure out what to do with transliterations. In standard Persian, ē merged with ī into what we transliterate as i (no diacritic) and ō merged with ū into what we transliterate as u. In Dari, ē and ī and ō and ū are still differentiated. Furthing complicating the problem, standard Persian e, o, ey, and ow are pronounced i, o, ay and aw in Dari, although these differences are not phonemic. The other differences are not as much of a problem, but see a brief description at w:Dari#Phonology. --WikiTiki89 14:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The followed was copied here by User:-sche from User talk:Dijan:

Hi, Do you think Dari can be merged with Persian? See Wiktionary:Requests_for_moves,_mergers_and_splits#Persian, Dari, etc. {{context|Dari|lang=fa}} can still be used. CC ZxxZxxZ (talkcontribs). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

That has been the practice on Wiktionary. Dari should be under the Persian heading with {{context|Dari|lang=fa}} label. That is what we do already. Take a look at فاکولته, for example. Regarding the transliteration of long vowels, ZxxZxxZ (talkcontribs) has been trying to implement a classical Persian transliteration (which is pretty much used for Dari by scholars) as a standard for all Persian entries. So far, it's been a slow and selective process. I'm not opposed to it and it can easily be indicated as the standard Wiktionary practice in the Appendix:Persian transliteration. --Dijan (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you mind posting your answer on Wiktionary:Requests_for_moves,_mergers_and_splits#Persian, Dari, etc and perhaps address Persian/Dari vowel differences raised? Where can I look at the classical transliteration? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
By the way, if you happen to know anything about Parsi or Parsi-Dari (and about their relationship to Farsi and Dari), your input on that subject would also be appreciated over in the same section. :) - -sche (discuss) 00:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I support keeping Dari (and Western Persian) under Persian heading, but I'm not sure what to do about transliteration. By the way, Eastern Persian / Dari (prs) is the variety of Persian spoken in Afghanistan, not Iran, that of Iran is the first one, Western Persian (pes). --Z 17:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, yep, I've fixed my think-o. - -sche (discuss) 21:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I've merged pes and prs into fa. - -sche (discuss) 22:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I've deleted "Parsi" (prp) and "Parsi-Dari" (prd). - -sche (discuss) 06:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Category:US State Capitals[edit]

This category-rename request was listed on RFC all the way back in 2009, before this page existed (IIRC). I've moved it here in the hope that we can finally address it.

This topical category that is a subcategory of Category:Capital cities needs a rename, but there are several logical possibilities, so I wanted to get some input.

Category:US state capitals
The simplest rename, but still somewhat clunky and not well suited to be paralleled for similar topical categories covering other countries. Plus I'd prefer to avoid using US in category names.
Category:American state capitals
Better suited to paralleling, say for example in Category:Canadian provincial capitals, but unlike Category:American English, I don't think the ambiguity of American can be justified on the grounds of euphony.
Category:State capitals of the United States
Form that I'd happen to prefer. However...
Category:State capitals in the United States
... is the form used on Wikipedia, but the equivalent categories for other countries are a mixture of in and of so I don't see a compelling reason to blindly follow Wikipedia here.

In short unless consensus calls for another choice, I'll see about moving these over to Category:State capitals of the United States in about a week or so. — Carolina wren discussió 03:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I prefer an option not listed: Category:Capital cities of US states. --EncycloPetey 01:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should go with Carolina Wren's Option 1 and move this to Category:US state capitals. - -sche (discuss) 02:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see why we need this category. Isn't Category:Cities enough? --WikiTiki89 02:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Hm, this category is the one outlier in Category:Capital cities; we never actually had the Category:Canadian provincial capitals which Carolina wren mentioned. OTOH, extreme overcategorization of placenames does seem to be the fashion of the day; see the categories which were recently created, one for each of the various Divisions of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. I don't actually have a strong opinion on whether it stays or goes... just that if it stays, everything after "US" should be lowercase. - -sche (discuss) 06:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I would go as far as to say that we don't even need Category:Capital cities. If people want a list of capital cities, they can go to Wikipedia. --WikiTiki89 13:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The Rwanda-Rundi lects[edit]

We currently separate {{rw}}, {{rn}}, {{haq}}, {{suj}}, {{han}}, and {{vin}}, which can all be treated as a single language and often are; their separation seems largely political. The Wikipedia page Rwanda-Rundi language catalogues the differences between rw and rn: they are pretty minor, and a lot seem to have to do with regular spelling differences and tones, which are not even reflected in the standard orthography and could thus be relegated to pronunciation sections. To quote Zorc and Nibagwire's Kinyarwanda and Kirundi comparative grammar (2007):

The terms dialect and language are used loosely in everyday communication. In linguistic terms, the two are bound together in the same definition: a language consists of all the dialects that are connected by a chain of mutual intelligibility. Thus, if a person from Bronx, New York can speak with someone from Mobile, Alabama, and these two can converse with someone from Sydney, Australia without significant misunderstandings, then they all form part of the English language. Kigali [the capital of Rwanda] and Bujumbura [the capital of Burundi] are similarly connected within a chain of dialects that collectively make up the Rwanda-Rundi language.

Kimenyi's A Relational Grammar of Kinyarwanda (1980) explains that:

This language [Kinyarwanda, rw] is very close to both Kirundi [rn], the national language of Burundi, and Giha [haq], a language spoken in western Tanzania. The three languages are really dialects of a single language, since they are mutually intelligible to their respective speakers.

That seems like a strong case for merger to me, although I'd like to see if any academic sources disagree. (Pinging User:-sche as well, just to try it out.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I got the ping, thanks. :) I've just been busy. I'll look into this more closely soon, but on the face of it, it does seem like we could merge them. (And that reminds me that en.Wikt really needs to have a discussion about merging Nynorsk and Bokmal. It's bizarre that we manage to accept that Drents and Twents — and, to use the example above, the English of Alabama and the English of Australia — are not separate languages, but haven't managed to accept that Nynorsk and Bokmal aren't. But that's for another discussion...) - -sche (discuss) 06:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
But cf. Appendix:Swadesh lists for Bantu languages, which shows large differences between the two. -- Liliana 14:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I was just talking to a native speaker today to get their perspective on this. They said that the vocabulary varies a lot dialectally, but not along national lines, and it's still easy to understand people on the other side. They claimed that the biggest differences were in the tones, but that's not even marked in the orthography. I think that's a pretty strong ase for merger. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

take someone's point -> take the point[edit]

As the target seems to be the most common form. I'm also going to soft redirect with {{alternative form of}}:

And also note the exclamatory entry point taken. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Category:Alternative forms by language[edit]

All categories here only contain other categories now, no entries. Most of the subcategories don't really fit the Wiktionary definition of an "alternative form", either, though. We treat an alternative form as a form that is more or less interchangeable, and has the same usage frequency and register. But that definitely doesn't apply to rare, dated or archaic forms, or to misspellings or proscribed forms, and so on. So this category and its subcategories should really be renamed. But to what? —CodeCat 16:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Merge Category:Euphemistic forms by language into Category:Euphemisms by language[edit]

I think we should merge Category:Euphemistic forms by language (and it's subcategories) into Category:Euphemisms by language (and it's subcategories). --WikiTiki89 17:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Category names containing "US"[edit]

I believe that the punctuated U.S. is the more formal usage, and has the advantage of not being mistaken for an all-caps instance of the word, "us". I therefore propose to move all categories containing "US" (e.g. Category:US State Capitals, Category:fr:US States, and Category:Southern US English) to titles containing "U.S.". By my count, this covers about 50 categories in total. If approved, I will be glad to do all of the renaming and recategorization. bd2412 T 21:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I actually think we'd be better off renaming them to categories containing the unabbreviated "United States". --WikiTiki89 21:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I would absolutely agree with that, as it eliminates all possible ambiguity. For states, we would have to change it to "States of the United States" to avoid the alliteration of "United States States". bd2412 T 22:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
We wouldn't have to, but I agree it would make it less awkward. Anyway, I see no problem with "States of the United States". --WikiTiki89 22:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. At least part of the time, people have to type these category names by hand, and even a couple of extra characters every time can be a nuisance (I'm surprised you aren't going all the way and suggesting "the United States of America").
I fail to see how the "US" in category names could ever be mistaken for a pronoun- do you really think people are going to look at Category:US States and mistake it for a colloquial version of "we states"?
It looks very much to me like a solution in search of a problem, with no real benefit, unless you can call forcing people to do more typing a benefit. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Our category names, being part of the visible public product, should at least look formal and professional. bd2412 T 04:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Support renaming to "United States". Note that we do currently have Category:Languages of the United States of America (rather than Category:Languages of the United States); I don't know if it should be renamed for consistency. - -sche (discuss) 18:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
For an English-speaking audience, "of America" is indeed probably superfluous. bd2412 T 21:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Is there any further comment/opinion on this? bd2412 T 00:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Attributive US and noun United States. So US state capitals (caps sic) and Languages of the United StatesMichael Z. 2014-03-16 04:11 z
Is that just an opinion on whether United States should be spelled out, or is it also addressed to the question of whether we should use a punctuated U.S.? bd2412 T 18:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Both. These are also the forms recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style. Michael Z. 2014-03-17 21:56 z
I see no reason to abbreviate. --WikiTiki89 21:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]


Hi... perhaps it is not of my concern, but I do believe Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/leb- and Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/leh₂b- should be merged, or, rather, that the former should be supplanted by the later. Would someone verify this for me? Perhaps provide reasons for not doing so? I'm no one to say, but I understand that *leb- is an alternate form of *leh₂b-; the descendants of the former are among the descendants of the later, at least, and I'd expect leb- rather the lab- as Italic reflex if the PIE should be *leb-... I might be wrong... Any way, thank you for reading this... 02:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Merging cbk-zam (Zamboanga Chavacano) into cbk (Chavacano)[edit]

Pretty much every source I could find referred to Zamboangueño et al. as varieties or dialects, not languages. Two of them in particular make it very clear:

“The result of the study showed that while there are observable differences in certain language features beween and among the four variants, they are nonetheless, mutually intelligible with each other even among native speakers who do not have any special language training. Thus, for the purpose of this pilot study, al four variants were identified as dialects of PCS.” Sister María Isabelita O. Riego de Dios, A Pilot Study on the Dialects of Philippine Creole Spanish

“The two variants of PCS share enough distinctive differences from regular Spanish or regular Philippine usage that they must be considered historicaly related dialects of the same language” Charles O. Frake, Lexical Origins and Semantic Structure in Philippine Creole Spanish

Ungoliant (falai) 07:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Support. - -sche (discuss) 08:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. - -sche (discuss) 08:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Meänkieli (fit) and Kven (fkv) into Finnish (fi)[edit]

Finnish dialects

I think that linguists consider these to be dialects of Finnish, so that would make these pluricentric standards of a single language. I don't know if keeping them separate would hold any value? —CodeCat 14:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's ping our active Finnish speakers to see if they have input: User:Hekaheka and User:Makaokalani. 23:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC) (updated - -sche (discuss) 06:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC))
The impression I get from the example at w:Meänkieli is that the differences are very minor, no more than there might be between Croatian and Serbian. I notice systematic loss of -d- and Finnish -ts- corresponds to -tt- in Meänkieli. They definitely look mutually intelligible. Kven looks a little more different, but it might also just be the spelling; I don't know how hard it would be to the average Finnish speaker. —CodeCat 23:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I know maybe a dozen words of Finnish, so I can't judge for myself, but the impression I get from the Wikipedia articles is that there's an equal or greater range of variation between dialects in Finland as there is with these dialects- if these dialects were on the other side of the Finnish border, they would probably be considered just part of the normal dialectal variation (I'm sure there are some differences due to their isolation from the influence of standard Finnish, as well). They have special status because they're in Sweden and Norway surrounded by Swedish and Norwegian. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Finnish wasn't even a single language to begin with originally. There's several dialect groups that form a continuum, but it's not easy to draw clear lines. Savonian (eastern) dialects for example might well be closer to Karelian (considered a separate language) than they are to western Finnish. —CodeCat 00:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
My impression is the same as Chuck's, that these could be merged. By my (quick) count, we have 11 Meänkieli entries and 14 English entries with Meänkieli translations, and 19 Kven entries and 8 entries with Kven translations. - -sche (discuss) 02:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
For more information see w:Finnish dialects and also w:Peräpohjola dialects. The map to the right may also help. —CodeCat 03:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Blue indicates areas where Finnish is spoken by the majority, and green indictes minority. Meänkieli and Kven are considered Finnish on this map

I somehow missed this discussion when it was active, but better later than never. I have the following comments:

  • The map is outdated. There's practically no Finnish-speaking population left in the areas which were annexed by the Soviet Union during and after the WWII. The map on the right is more up-to-date.
  • There's some Ingrian population left in the St. Petersburg area, but their number and share of population (less than 0,5‰ in Leningrad oblast) is drastically reduced due to 1) inflow of Russians to St. Petersburg, 2) Stalin's terror in the 1930's and 3) emigration to Finland between 1990 and 2011.
  • I'm not sure of Kven-speakers, but the speakers of Meänkieli tend to be quite strong in their opinion that they are not Finnish-speakers. It is probably true that if the border were in another place, Meänkieli would be considered a Finnish dialect. But then again, it would hardly be the same language as it is today - it would have preserved less archaic features and there would be much less Swedish influence in it. If ISO regards it a language, how could we be wiser?
  • Meänkieli is an official minority language in Sweden, and is regarded as distinct from Finnish which also has a (separate) minority language status there.
  • "Finnish wasn't even a single language to begin with originally." -- Show me one that was!

--Hekaheka (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's take a look at our current 15 Meänkieli and 20 Kven lemmas:
  • Meänkieli:
    • Six words indistinguishable from Standard Finnish
    • Two words indistinguishable in shape from Standard Finnish but with dialect-specific meanings
    • Four words with some phonetic peculiarities specific to Northern dialects
    • Two words widespread across Finnish dialects
    • One word that might be specific to the variety, or might be one of the previous
  • Kven:
    • Seven words indistinguishable from Standard Finnish
    • Seven words widespread across Finnish dialects
    • Five words with some phonetic peculiarities specific to Northern dialects
    • One narrow-distribution loanword from Norwegian
So yes, Symbol support vote.svg Support. We could well treat these as Finnish dialects, though I think to account for any local neologisms and such, they would deserve categories of their own under Category:Regional Finnish. --Tropylium (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I've merged Kven into Finnish, relabelling the handful of Kven entries we had, except nelje and kahðeksen, yhðeksen and yhðeksentoista, which don't seem to be attested in any language. (kahdeksen and yhdeksen do seem to be attested as regional variants of the usual Finnish terms.) - -sche (discuss) 05:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


"Having no beard or mustache" and "Having had facial hair completely removed." are the same thing. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not obvious that they are.
I don't even know what "completely" and "facial hair" are supposed to mean when used together in this context. Does "facial hair" as people use the word normally include the follicle, the portion below the skin? If it does then "complete" removal would at least require a depilatory.
Can I be clean-shaven if I don't have a beard or mustache, but haven't shaven for three days? What if I did a bad job shaving? This seems like a case for sharpening the definitions by RfV's. Keep, cite and revise, or RfV. DCDuring TALK 13:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
most dictionaries seem to have only one sense, if they have the term at all, but AHD has two defs:
  1. Having the beard or hair shaved off.
  2. Having recently shaved.
These each seem better than our corresponding definitions. DCDuring TALK 13:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The women and children are not clean-shaven although they are "having no beard or mustache". Thus the first definition should go, whatever else happens. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Also there are plenty of hits for "clean-shaven leg", "clean-shaven chest" and other formulations. This is not unique to the face. Since this request has lingered since March of last year (which is literally forever in Internet years), I'm boldly combining both defs to say Having had hair completely removed, especially facial hair that is freshly shaved. If somebody really wants to make this two defs as AHD says, I guess that wouldn't bother me, but I don't think it's really ideal -- no one really uses "clean-shaven" to mean "having recently shaved" unless they also mean "shaved completely, usually the face", which is also a core part of the other def. WurdSnatcher (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I was (and am) advocating a merging of the two above senses, not opposing the addition of more senses to cover usage like you've just come up with. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • How is this a request for a move, merger, or split? DCDuring TALK 15:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Merged (a while ago, and recently refined by me). - -sche (discuss) 18:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


Templates Template:grc-conj-perfect-σ and Template:grc-conj-perfect-dental are identical. ObsequiousNewt (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:-er to Template:en-er[edit]

This is an English-only template, so the name should reflect that. —CodeCat 15:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Its main advantage over {{suffix|foo|er|lang=en}} seems to be its brevity. I see little point in having it if it is renamed (or, TBH, even if it's not). It might be better to expand it to allow a lang= paramater (either adding lang=en to all current uses, or setting it to default to lang=en if no lang= is set). It could then be used for German and other languages. - -sche (discuss) 06:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
If kept, it should allow a lang= parameter so it can be used on German and other entries. Ditto the little-used Template:-or. But IMO merge both (but especially the little-used {{-or}}) into Template:suffix. - -sche (discuss) 20:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


Should be modified, renamed or (my preference) merged into Template:suffix in the same way as Template:-er. - -sche (discuss) 20:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:rank to Template:en-rank[edit]

Same as above. —CodeCat 17:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Category:Japanese humble language[edit]

Category:Japanese humble terms

I noticed the nonexistent topical category Category:ja:Humble in Special:WantedCategories, and checked, as I often do, whether there was an existing category that already covered the subject. I found these two. The first one was created by User:Haplology, and has more information about Japanese culture, while the other one was created by User:Atitarev along with Category:Korean humble terms, and is more suited to a multi-language series of categories.

It seems to me that Category:Japanese humble terms fits our naming scheme better, so I propose we merge both into that one, and that we convert it and the Korean category to use {{lexiconcatboiler}}, which is designed for this kind of thing. That means creating a category called Category:Humble terms by language with a general description of humble language in its subtemplate. We can then add language-specific details to the Japanese and Korean categories.

I suspect that there aren't many languages that have such well-developed and institutionalized humble lexicons as these do, but I'm sure there are an awful lot of languages that have at least a few such terms- "your humble servant" comes to mind as an English example. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It's only to do with two languages - Korean and Japanese. Note: some people mix "honorific" with "polite" or "formal" but the exact concept currently exists only in Japanese and Korean, even if other languages have similar ideas, "honorific" and "humble" are opposite and used in out- and in-group references.
I have posted on User:Haplology's page some time ago, which is now archived. You can see here: [1]. Haplology admitted that the structure wasn't perfect and needs fixing.
The current setup:
In my opinion it should be:
Which matches Japanese more closely.
@Eirikr might add more to it. I didn't get around to fixing it but I will. It's not a big list. Korean can and should be structured the same way. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The suggested structure above (2) shows that honorific and humble terms are both part of the respectful formal language but honorific is used in reference to outgroup and humble - to ingroup. The concept and usage are critical in formal communication in Japanese and Korean languages. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
We could also put them directly under Category:Japanese formal terms, if that works. —CodeCat 01:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not the same, although if it's related. Category:Japanese honorifics should be a subcategory of Category:Japanese formal terms. "Formal" is opposed to "colloquial" but respectful language is a specific variety, which needs special training, including native Japanese students. E.g. おっしゃる (ossharu, honorific) shows respect to the 2nd/3rd person or outgroup and is never used in self-reference in the polite speech, whereas 申す (mōsu, humble) is used to self-reference or ingroup (even if one talks about own CEO!). Formal words are used regardless who/what they refer to in the formal language, like in any language. An interesting example might be that a person talking to an outsider about own general manager without polite "-san" (e.g. simply Yamada, not Yamada-san) and using humble terms. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Category:Wiktionary:Foo → Category:Wiktionary foo[edit]

I have just finished moving Category:Wiktionary:Language considerations to Category:Wiktionary language considerations in accordance with the discussion above. But that's not the only category that's using "Wiktionary:" as a pseudonamespace. I therefore propose all of the following moves:

If there is consensus to make these name changes, I also request someone with a bot to do it, because the move I did by hand wasn't particularly big, but it sure was tedious. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe some of these should have "Wiktionary" removed from the names. Not sure which though. —CodeCat 14:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Category:Help already exists and it isn't clear what the difference is between it and Category:Wiktionary:Help, so those two probably really should be merged. The same goes for Category:Pronunciation and Category:Wiktionary:Pronunciation: they both exist, but seem to have the same function. Category:Statistics is a topic category covering things like Category:en:Statistics and Category:de:Statistics, so it can't be merged with Category:Wiktionary:Statistics. Category:Translation seems like a good potential topic category too, even though it isn't one yet, so I'd rather keep that one free at least. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I've moved Category:Wiktionary:Help,and Daniel has moved Category:Wiktionary:Transliteration. - -sche (discuss) 18:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


Hello everyone. I'm curious as to how one would go about requesting an exceptional code for the standard Kichwa language? There are several SIL/Ethnologue codes for various Kichwa dialects (Imbabura (qvi), Chimborazo (qug), Cañar Highland (qxr), etc), but not one is for the standard Kichwa language that's taught in schools and used by the government in Ecuador. There is a common Quechua code (qu) is currently used for Quechua Wiktionary and Wikipedia, but both projects are exclusively written in standard Southern Quechua. Both Kichwa and Southern Quechua are part of the Quechua II branch of the Quechuan languages, but they are different dialects with different standardized grammars and different standardized writing conventions. --Dijan (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... how mutually intelligible are Kichwa and Quechua? It wasn't that long ago that the various Quechua dialects' codes were removed from Module:languages, though I'm having trouble locating the discussion(s) that led to that.
If Kichwa is to be included, we could either (1) pick the code of one of the Kichwa dialects and use it for all of Kichwa (the way we use gcf for all of Antillean Creole), or (2) design our own code, like qwe-kch, according to the system outlined in WT:LANGCODE, point 3.3. - -sche (discuss) 04:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
They are mutually intelligible for the most part (similar to differences between Danish and Swedish), but they are also significantly different from each other to be considered separate. Linguistically, Kichwa belongs to a different subgroup of Quechua. The grammar of Kichwa is more simplified (loss of possissive suffixes, loss of the voiceless uvular fricative, etc) and the vocabulary is affected by native languages spoken before the Incan conquest of the territory of today's Ecuador and Colombia (meaning, Quechua was imposed as a foreign language, whereas it is a native language in the regions where Southern Quechua is spoken - in southern Peru and Bolivia).
I was referring to designing our own code and using that as an umbrella for all the Kichwa varieties - which now all use a standardized alphabet different from the Peruvian varieties (such as Southern Quechua), but I couldn't find the procedure for it.
There was an attempt to create a separate Kichwa Wikipedia, but apparently no one got around to it and it got complicated as somone pointed out that an official ISO code must be requested specifically for the standard variety. And for some the problem was that it was trying to use the Chimborazo (qug) code (which is one of the most widely spoken varieties of Kichwa). Apparently the issuing of codes is very strict on Wikipedia. --Dijan (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Middle Chinese language (ltc) and Category:Old Chinese language (och)[edit]

These two languages are being merged as the rest of Chinese topolects per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-04/Unified Chinese into one L2 "Chinese" - PoS are added if there is a pronunciation for a given topolect. The reconstructed pronunciations will be updated from a reliable source and existing transliterations removed but there will be no PoS categories for them, which are applicable to modern Chinese topolects in the modern classification. See for example (expand "Pronunciation" section to see Middle Chinese, Old Chinese pronunciations). As a result, Category:Middle Chinese language (ltc) and Category:Old Chinese language (och) will have to go or be moved to appendices. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Category:en:Names into Category:English names[edit]

And likewise for other languages. There is nothing particularly topical about names as such. Of course the entities that they refer to have a topical element, but that is distinct from the name used to refer to them. That is, "Canada" is both a country (as a concept; topical), and the English name for that country (as a word; lexical). So I propose that a stricter split is made between these two things. I think that since we already have another category tree for names of people, we might as well extend that category tree for names of other things as well. —CodeCat 17:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

After thinking about this some more, I'm not sure about this proposal. I was mainly led by the name of the top-level categories, "Names" and "Place names". These are clearly about the nature of the word rather than what it refers to. A place name is a word for a place, not a place itself. For personal names it's more practical to treat names as types of words, because there are many individuals named "Alice" or "Bob" and putting them in some category like "People" is hardly going to be useful. But at the same time, it's not so clear for things like "countries", or "cities" because by and large these terms are unique in what they refer to. Thailand is clearly the name of one unique place, not a name for many places to be assigned as one sees fit. This means that categories for "countries" would not really contain anything different from categories for "names of countries". Sure, the focus is different (topical versus lexical) but the end result would be the same. So I'm wondering what the best approach would be here. —CodeCat 12:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Information_desk/Archive_2013/July-December#Question_about_given_names_and_surnames is semi-relevant. Most (but not all!) people seem to agree that there's a distinction between "en:Names" (and "en:Surnames", etc) and "English names" ("English surnames", etc), but not everyone agrees on what that distinction is. - -sche (discuss) 02:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Earlier today, I stumbled on a good example for discussion: Yazdegerd, which seems to be strictly used to refer to Persian emperors who died before the English language even existed. It seems odd to lump this in with names of clearly English origin and usage such as Smith. Yes, it occurs in the English language- but I somehow doubt that the average speaker of English would ever describe it as an English name. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Most people here agree that place names are topics and personal names are parts of speech. So it doesn't matter which one you use for the top category, the topic/POS division never made sense with names anyway. Names of foreigners used in another language, like Yazdegerd, have always been a problem. I would place it in a "Category:en:Middle Persian male given names" (cf. Category:en:Persian male given names), but Anatoli always uses the from= parameter and now Vahagn has taken it up too. It might help if Template:given name and Template:surname had a parameter for transliterations. But you'd still have to decide the category name and the definition ("A Middle Persian male given name? A(n English) rendering of a Middle Persian male given name?") CodeCat, please don't make any major change before bringing it up in Beer parlour, otherwise you'll just add to the chaos. Very few people read this page. And be prepared that the discussion will go astray and there will be no consensus, as in the link given by -sche. People who never edit names often believe that there's a miraculous simple rule that will solve everything. --Makaokalani (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

*sъ(n)*sъ, *sъn[edit]

*kъ(n)*kъ, *kъn[edit]

*o(b)*o, *ob[edit]

I think it is bad practice to have parentheses in the entry titles. We should move these pages to one form and have the other be an alternative form. --WikiTiki89 17:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this one way or the other, but the entry titles are inherently unattested, so I don't see harm in notation that enables the content to be fully centralized on one page. And the parenthetical notation is easy to understand, IMO; certainly there are weirder naming schemes out there, like Sino-Tibetan's — it has entry titles like Appendix:Proto-Sino-Tibetan/(s/r)-ma(ŋ/k) and Appendix:Proto-Sino-Tibetan/p(r)an/t ~ b(r)an/t. - -sche (discuss) 18:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Wow, that's even worse. I would say those should be moved as well, but they are also a different scenario, since they indicate different reconstructions, whereas in the cases that I nominated, they just indicate alternative forms. --WikiTiki89 19:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
@CodeCat As the creator of those entries, I was hoping to get your input here. --WikiTiki89 17:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it's ok to move them, but which one should the main lemma be on? —CodeCat 17:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd say the one with the final consonant, since it's unpredictable. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]


and all its subcategories. "Analysis" is a very vague name, and lots of fields have aspects called "Analysis" (just look at the list under w:Analysis#Applicants). This category seems to be about mathematical analysis, and so should be renamed Category:Mathematical analysis. I don't mind if the context label remains "analysis" (at least as long as no other field wants to use that word too), but it should display as "(mathematical analysis)" rather than just "(analysis)", which simply isn't specific enough. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Support. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Support DCDuring TALK 17:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I've changed how the label categorizes; now, to move all the entries and categories. - -sche (discuss) 06:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Done. - -sche (discuss) 06:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Japanese romaji to Category:Japanese romanizations[edit]

(Notifying Eirikr, Wyang, Haplology, Atitarev):

"Romaji" is just the Japanese word for romanization; it does not actually indicate a specific transliteration scheme like the name "pinyin" does for Chinese. Since we already have Category:Chinese romanizations, Category:Egyptian romanizations and Category:Gothic romanizations, I propose moving the contents of Category:Japanese romaji to Category:Japanese romanizations and deleting the former when it's empty. —CodeCat 20:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There are various romanization for Japanese as well but only form was adopted. Although the word "rōmaji" is used, it's based almost entirely on Hepburn romanisation. Perhaps, like pinyin it can remain a subcategory of Category:Japanese romanizations but Category:Japanese romaji should have a description what it's based on? Adding "Hepburn romanisation" to the category name seems awkward. I don't foresee any other scheme for Japanese to be adopted but it's again about the name, "romaji" is favoured by most linguists and learners of Japanese. Will wait for more comments but I think Wyang will oppose romanisation entries. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there's a need for a subcategory if there is only one scheme. —CodeCat 00:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it makes to use consistent category names. Undecided for now. (Notifying TAKASUGI Shinji, Whym, Haplology): , (Notifying Tooironic, Kc kennylau): . --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Support. Japanese romaji sounds redundant because romaji practically means Japanese romanizations. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:ja-romanization of[edit]

Above it was noted that all our Japanese romanizations follow the Hepburn scheme. But the form-of template currently just says "romaji reading of", which is not really very specific, as "romaji" just means any kind of romanization. This is not even technically correct because you can't really call something a "reading" if you're just romanizing. I believe it would be clearer if it said either "romanization of" or "Hepburn romanization of". If we include the name of the scheme used, this would remove any ambiguity that users might have. But it also opens the door to possibly introducing other schemes for Japanese if we ever desire to. Either way, being explicit about it is good. —CodeCat 21:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The option "romanization of" seems good and close the door to possibly introducing other schemes for Japanese :) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

German rhymes -iːʀən/-iːʁən/-iːɐ̯n[edit]

These three pages all deal with the same rhyme ending. Please check which one follows the local IPA rules for German and merge them. Cheers, Kronf (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

They should be at Rhymes:German:-iːʁən. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
In this case, Rhymes:German:-eːʀən and Rhymes:German:-øːʀən should be moved, too. --Kronf (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought we used /ʀ/ for German. At least, that's what I see in actual entries. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Updated to reflect the new naming scheme of rhymes pages, the preceding links are: -iːʀən/-iːʁən/-iːɐ̯n, which Angr says should all be Rhymes:German/iːʁən, prompting Kronf to say Rhymes:German/eːʀən and Rhymes:German/øːʀən should also be moved. (I'm providing this so people can see they're all still blue links.) - -sche (discuss) 22:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

"entries needing reference" categorization[edit]

This is a little strange, because all of these are redlinks at the moment, but templates have been modified to generate cats using this naming scheme, and I would like them all to go away. While it might seem nice to unify things, having diverse templates using the same cats means you have to generalize away all the useful information and you end up with mumbling and hand-waving.

I'm sorry, but "English entries needing reference" makes no literal sense, and it's impossible to tell from the cat name what's supposed to go in it- you might as well call it "English entries needing something or other". Please change it to something that makes sense before we create a lot of really lame categories that will have to be deleted. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Entries are placed in those categories by {{rfv-etymology}} and {{rfv-pronunciation}}. Both templates specifically ask for a source, so the name seemed appropriate. Before I changed them, these templates just categorised in the generic "needing etymology" and "needing pronunciation" categories, which was not really any more helpful. —CodeCat 10:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
But your solution just substituted one problem for another, by eliminating any reference to etymologies or pronunciation: providing references for an etymology is quite different from providing references for a pronunciation. Also, treating reference as uncountable makes the category names look like typos- does anyone use reference that way? Can one ask, "how much reference do you need?"
A few possible alternatives (the equivalents for pronunciation are left as an exercise for the reader...):
  1. [] etymologies needing to be referenced
  2. [] etymologies needing references
  3. [] etymologies needing referencing
  4. [] etymologies needing to be sourced
  5. [] entries with etymologies needing to be referenced
  6. [] entries with etymologies needing references
  7. [] entries with etymologies needing referencing
  8. [] entries with etymologies needing to be sourced
  9. [] entries with unreferenced etymologies
Chuck Entz (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer "entries needing etymology reference" or "entries needing etymology source". The name doesn't treat it as uncountable; it just leaves out the article as a shorthand. A plural doesn't seem appropriate as it would imply that more than one reference is needed. —CodeCat 10:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Chuck about the missing article. It seems non-native or needlessly telegraphic to drop it. What do we hope to accomplish by dropping it as no human keystrokes are involved? Are we suddenly concerned with server resources, download times? As to the implications of the plural, there is no more implication than there would be using the singular. DCDuring TALK 13:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I wholeheartedly agree with Chuck. We need more specificity of categories not less.
Whether the prefix to these types of requests should be "rfv" is another question that should be addressed while we have fewer than a hundred of these. Are we fairly sure this prefix will turn out to be adequate? DCDuring TALK 01:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The template names go back 7 or 8 years, and I seem to remember discussions as to whether it was a good idea to link etymologies, which take citations in the Wikipedia sense, with rfvs, which take citations in the Wiktionary sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The only alternative I know of that has some installed base is {{fact}} (45 transclusions here, and lots of pedians who have the habit), which would need to be followed by "pron" or "ety" (or "usage" etc?), but that might quickly get us part ways back to where we are now with a template likely to be overused and with an undifferentiated category. I suppose that if we made {{fact}} generate a screen that required the users to say what type of problem concerned them or could detect the previous heading in an AF-type bot run, we could make that work. Some new prefix, like "ref", could work. DCDuring TALK 02:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I would add that the subject nouns are plural, so one could just as easily say that using a singular object would imply that one reference or source would do for all the entries in the categories- but that would be silly, too. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I've created the "needing reference" categories as they were originally named. This does not mean I'm enforcing that particular state of affairs (in case someone gets the wrong idea - you know who you are), it's only so that they aren't left in a redlinked state for ages, filling up Special:WantedCategories. They will presumably be deleted again once there's an agreement on what to name them. I do want to note, though, that as far as omitting the article goes, we already have "entries needing inflection", "entries needing definition", "entries needing etymology", "entries needing pronunciation", "entries needing audio pronunciation", "entries needing quotation" and "terms needing transliteration". I think that whatever name is chosen should fit with the existing names, or else all these should also be renamed to maintain consistency in the naming. —CodeCat 20:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Zootomy and Category:Phytotomy[edit]

I request that these categories be moved to Category:Animal anatomy and Category:Plant anatomy respectively. The fuller names are more easily understandable and far, far more common (per b.g.c ngrams) than the terms "zootomy" and "phytotomy". Even Wikipedia uses the more understandable names for their categories. All language-specific subcategories are of course nominated too. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

We now also have Category:Body. The anatomy categories are really meant for technical/medical jargon used in the field of anatomy, not for categorising simple parts of the body generally. I do support the rename, but this is something that should probably be looked at too. —CodeCat 19:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Is Category:Body also for animal bodies? Would we put horn and antler and tail there? Either way it's not really an appropriate place for leaf and stem and petal, which aren't technical jargon but ought to have a home somewhere in our rather chaotic category hierarchy. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Animal bodies share many terms with humans, but the terms for plant bodies are normally entirely separate, so maybe "Animal body" and "Plant body" categories should be created. The former would be a subcategory of "Body", while the latter would be a sister category. When I rearranged many of the categories, my aim was always to split things up in the way that the average human would do. So the categories specifically reflect an anthropocentric view of the world rather than a scientific one necessarily. —CodeCat 21:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I like the idea of having some topic categories for technical terms and other topic categories for everyday terms. When I'm deciding where to categorize a term, I often look at Wikipedia to see where they categorize something, and then try to find the closest corresponding category here. And they definitely categorize Horn (anatomy) and Antler and Tail in :Category:Animal anatomy (or a subcategory of it) and Leaf and Plant stem in :Category:Plant anatomy. (Petal is only in :Category:Plant morphology for some reason; I'm unsure what the difference is supposed to be.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that we have many topical categories that only exist because there is a label that categorises terms in them. For example, {{label|en|anatomy}} will add things to Category:en:Anatomy. As these labels are meant to be used to indicate technical jargon, we've now ended up with a whole category tree full of science terms, including this one. We have never been very consistent in how labels are used, which has caused a proliferation of entries using labels just to categorise, rather than to indicate jargon. It doesn't help either that there has never been any kind of conclusive discussion on what topical categories are meant to achieve in the context of a dictionary, nor how they are delimited from other kinds of categories. Until we answer those more fundamental questions, issues like this will never be solvable. —CodeCat 22:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:English locatives to Category:English location adverbs[edit]

This seems more appropriate, given that the category only contains adverbs. I can't think of anything that might belong here that is not an adverb. —CodeCat 23:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

To move this to some called "adverbs" makes a stronger statement than some grammarians would make. A word like home need not be treated as an adverb. Furthermore prepositional phrases can be locatives but it does some violence to their function to call them adverbs. DCDuring TALK 00:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
As a further illustration an expression like where the sun don't shine a clause that is obviously a locative, as are where angels fear to tread (a clause, from, but not an alt form of the proverb), every which way (a noun phrase), and where it's at (clause). If the membership criteria are not explicitly, clearly, and reviewably specified in such a way as to exclude these, the change seems simply wrong. DCDuring TALK 19:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why they would need to be excluded. They are location adverbs to me. —CodeCat 20:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
You have confused semantic function and word class. DCDuring TALK 23:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Why is it necessary to distinguish them? —CodeCat 01:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Only to be nice to users by avoiding needless confusion and redundancy. In English almost any word can assume almost any function in at least some cases, often attestably so. It is not that Adverb is all that well-defined a word class in English to begin with. We use it because we need to provide hooks from our content to what users may remember from their schooling. DCDuring TALK 04:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Nominator has not made the case for the move IMO, at least not to my satisfaction. Purplebackpack89 22:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:English temporal location adverbs to Category:English punctual adverbs[edit]

I think "punctual" is the more common way to describe these? —CodeCat 23:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

"Temporal adverb" is much, more common, though it may include a more diverse group of adverbs DCDuring TALK 00:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I believe that we are making a mistake to treat all of these in subcategories of parts of speech. We can be free of the tyranny of the word classes that users are familiar with for purposes of categories of this kind, though sadly not for headings. There are nominals that are not nouns, MWEs that are not phrases of any kind. Forcing a category structure to be hierarchical is convenient in a bureaucratic kind of way, but it does a great deal of violence to the reality of things. DCDuring TALK 00:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
There was Category:Latvian temporal adverbs, which I renamed to Category:Latvian time adverbs while also creating Category:English time adverbs. I did this because "temporal" seems like a higher-register word, which is like the distinction between "location" and "locative" - and we already had Category:English location adverbs as noted in the discussion below. So I figured that "time" was a better lexical counterpart to "location" than "temporal". Using "temporal location" is confusing as it gives the impression that these adverbs indicate a place, which they don't of course. But it also misses the point of the category. The defining characteristic is that these refer to punctual moments in time, analogous to adverbs which denote stationary position. They contrast with adverbs like "yearly" or "for a year" which denote frequency and duration respectively. These, of course, are also temporal location adverbs, but they don't belong in this category as they have their own categories (Category:English frequency adverbs and Category:English duration adverbs), so the suggested new name is an attempt to make this more explicit. —CodeCat 21:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Note that the other categories both use nouns attributively instead of adjectives, eg, not "frequent adverbs", but "frequency adverbs". The nouns are chosen because they have a different meaning than the adjectives. "Punctuality" obviously doesn't cut it. Can you think of any other one- or two-word nominal that would be better than "temporal location"? DCDuring TALK 14:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Ain't broke. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    • It is, see my reply above. —CodeCat 21:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
DCDuring is right that "temporal adverbs" is a lot more common than "punctual adverbs". The latter phrase gets only 50 non-redundant raw Google hits, and 47 Google Books hits; the former phrase gets at least 43 pages of Google Books hits (43x10 = 430 hits) before the hits stop actually containing the phrase. "Temporal location adverbs" is the least common of the bunch, getting only 6 Books hits, and it's a moronic / oxymoronic name, because it states that the adverbs refer to places, which they do not. So the question is whether it's sufficient to relabel these as "temporal adverbs", or necessary to give them the narrower label "punctual adverbs"? Are there enough of them that the narrow categorization is necessary? Is the narrow label one people will understand? - -sche (discuss) 22:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, as it is now, we have Category:English time adverbs, but it's a parent category to various other types of adverbs with an aspect of time. The adverbs in question here are just one type. So it wouldn't make so much sense to have "temporal adverbs" as a subcategory of "time adverbs". But it also wouldn't make much sense to have "frequency adverbs" as a subcategory of "temporal adverbs" if the latter is meant to indicate points in time specifically. —CodeCat 17:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


This poorly maintained category should be combined with Category:Taxonomy. The poor maintenance arises from the overlap conceptually as well as the poor choice of name for this category. In addition, for some undocumented and unfathomable reason Category:Taxonomy was made a subcategory of Category:Systematics. I think this is symptomatic of the unmaintainablity of the category. DCDuring TALK 19:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Support. —CodeCat 20:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we should merge the two. In the English categories, at least, the members seem to be correctly apportioned between the two, with a handful of exceptions. I do think they should be made sister categories, rather than one being under the other. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I would support that too. —CodeCat 20:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
What are the criteria that distinguish membership in the categories? Many dictionaries have them as synonyms in one or more of the variously defined senses and subsenses, two of which BTW systematics lacks. DCDuring TALK 13:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requested entries (Japanese) and Wiktionary:Requested entries:Japanese/Non-romaji[edit]

Both pages do the same thing - request new Japanese entries Wiktionary:Requested entries (Japanese) and Wiktionary:Requested entries:Japanese/Non-romaji. The latter should be removed, IMO but the former has a lot of rubbish - rōmaji entries or English entries derived from Japanese. I suggest to disallow rōmaji entry requests. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The romaji on the Wiktionary:Requested entries (Japanese) page is there by design and intent -- users who cannot read or write Japanese might still have a valid reason for wanting to request entry creation, and romaji (i.e. the Latin alphabet) is the only script that we can safely assume that our users can read and write. As such, I must disagree with your request to disallow romaji requests.
I also noticed that you added an RFC to the Wiktionary:Requested entries (Japanese) page, apparently as an objection to the presence of romaji. I could certainly support a general call to clean up the request page in general, but the presence of romaji alone is not sufficient reason for an RFC. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]


Should be: -trix

While -or does seem to be a real agent suffix, -rix doesn't really exist. As it turns out, the main masculine agent suffix in Latin is -tor, and -trix is the feminine counterpart. As far as I can tell, there are no Latin agent nouns that end in -rix except those ending in -trix. That's why the Latin section at -rix was moved to -trix some time ago.

For those who might think that English is different, look at the dozens of derived terms in the -rix entry, and in Category:English words suffixed with -rix, and you will be struck by an amazing "coincidence": the last letter before the "suffix" is always "t". Chuck Entz (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

What about ambassadrix, toreadrix, and vendrix? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I did miss those, but do three rare words (I doubt the last two even meet CFI) disprove the overwhelming pattern shown by everything else? I would call those modification by analogy with the all the -trix forms, which may well result in eventual reanalysis of -trix into t + -rix if the whole class of feminine agent nouns don't disappear first.
Well, those three formations are undeniably formed with -rix; but can you show me any that were undeniably formed with -trix in English (they have to be terms that definitely weren't borrowed, and in which the t was not part of the word to which the -trix was suffixed)? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
No foolin' about Latin, Chuck? I always assumed that, in Latin, the "t" was from the past participle. But this Lewis and Short search shows that past participles with stems ending in "s" form a female agent word by adding "-trix" to the stem, even when "-or" forms the male agent. DCDuring TALK 21:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
That's because the cluster -sr- is not allowed by Latin. The -t- could simply be considered an epenthetic consonant. —CodeCat 23:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I thought about that too, but -sr- becomes -br- in Latin (funebris < *funesris), not -str-. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
It's probably more correct to say that -tor (originally -tōr, as still in the noun stem) is originally a PIE-derived agentive suffix which is added to the same weak grade of verb as the past participle, hence it was reanalyzed as past participle + -or. This would mean that -trix is a real ending, formed from the weak grade of -tōr (-tr) + feminine ending -īk-. This would mean that the original formation would have either *-strīk- (added to a root ending in -s) or *-ttrīk- (added to a root ending in -d or -t). Unclear what the resolution of *-ttr- is in Latin but *-str- is a possibility. Even if the regular resolution is *-br-, that would have been reformed by analogy to something like *-str-; extensive analogy has applied to Latin morphology at various stages. Benwing (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Strange things tend to happen to dental stops in Latin around other dental stops and/or s. I think there's no question that -tor/-sor is the main source for Latin agent nouns ending in -or, including many with no explicit t, and that -trix is its feminine form. The PIE pedigree for these forms is quite solid- this isn't something I just dreamed up (see *-tōr and *-tḗr). Chuck Entz (talk) 08:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The affricate -ts-, which resulted from PIE -tˢt- and -ts-, was preserved at least into post-Proto-Italic times, because different Italic languages have different outcomes of final -ns, -nts and -nt (see w:Proto-Italic). Furthermore, the combination -sr- was really -zr- (like in *swezrīnos), so there was no danger of merging. I suppose it's possible that -tsr- > -str- is a regular development, but it's also possible that the split dates to post-PIE, with -tˢt- > -ts- normally but -tˢtr- developing to -str- rather than -tsr-. —CodeCat 13:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

November 2014[edit]

Khanty words with /ɬ/[edit]

Requesting a move of a dozen Khanty words:

These have /ɬ/, which is however written ӆ and not ԓ (this is instead, I believe, /ɭ/). Quite a few current entries are sourced from a dictionary (Kononova 2002) which uses a rather ԓ-like but regardless clearly el-with-tail glyph. --Tropylium (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

(Listed here in case anyone wants to argue that ԓ for /ɬ/ is actually a competing dialectal standard that should have precedence. --Tropylium (talk))
I think you are mostly going to talk to yourself in this section. Move, if Tropylium says so. --Vahag (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I would say just go ahead and move them yourself. Unless there's a chance that other languages will have terms using the original spellings, the redirects that you leave will actually be useful for those who make the same mistake when searching. Given the similarity of the characters, I have a hunch scannos from online books might be a major source of these. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, w:Khanty language uses both letters (Ӆ ӆ and Ԓ ԓ). Are you certain that these particular words are spelled with Ӆ ӆ? —Stephen (Talk) 15:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Update: apparently the normative glyph is in fact ԯ (el with descender). However, this has not been widely available in fonts, so ӆ or ԓ have been used as workaround solutions in some materials. (Can anyone reading this actually see the first glyph?) --Tropylium (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Tropylium: Just FYI, the free font Quivira supports Ԯ, ԯ ‎(Ԯ, ԯ). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

it does exactly what it says on the tin[edit]

Move to: do exactly what it says on the tin.

The single citation doesn't actually fit the pattern, since it apparently uses a noun in place of the first "it". But more importantly, "do exactly what it says on the tin", "doing exactly what it says on the tin" and "did exactly what it said on the tin" are all citable (as is the grammatically inconsistent but still logical "did exactly what it says on the tin"). This should be a verb, not a phrase, and the 'it' needs to go. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be even briefer: what it says on the tin, with redirects from and usage examples of the most common extended variations? Just alternates with exactly and neither is essential in use. BTW, the expression is surprisingly recent, apparently with 99% of the Google Books usage being after 2000. And substituting 'can' for 'tin' does not lead to clear examples of idiomatic usage. DCDuring TALK 14:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
One can also find "more or less", "pretty much", etc as qualifiers and what it says on the tin as object of verbs like deliver and as part of a predicate with forms of be. In whatever form the phrase gained its initial popularity, what speakers find peripheral seems to have been discarded or substituted for in a significant portion of usage. Also, it can be found in the past tense: "Many funds proved unable to do what it said on the tin: they could not hedge effectively against volatile markets." (about 'hedge funds') DCDuring TALK 15:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
That would also be a good solution, although the noun is a bit more nebulous to define (as with way out of a paper bag - while I understand why the noun was split off, the definition is quite weird since people think of it as a construction, not a verb + noun phrase). The recentness is not a surprise - the Ronseal adverts that coined the phrase only started in the late 90s. Also unsurprising is the fact that it appears to be about twice as common in UK writing than US writing according to Google Ngrams, and even more UK dominant from a random sample from Google books. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
There two kinds of definitions: gloss and non-gloss.
  1. A gloss might be: "the performance or characteristics implied by a label or name, especially for something whose characteristics cannot be otherwise immediately determined, as an item for sale in concealing packaging"
  2. A non-gloss might be: "Used in expressions that indicate that something is what it appears to be or performs as promised."
Improvements and/or suggestions welcome. DCDuring TALK 20:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The words on the Ronseal tin that are legible in the YouTube are: "Ronseal Decking Stain". Doesn't it seem odd that there should be possible multiple interpretations other than that intended, eg, 1., that Ronseal stains ("soils") decks; 2., that Ronseal is a stain that decks ("knocks down") (say, the person applying it, as due to toxicity of fumes). DCDuring TALK 20:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It's often shortened to "as it says on the tin". Donnanz (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]


I can't decide whether to move un drôle de to well, un drôle de or to somehow define it as an adjective and move it back into the adjective section. However, it can't stay as it is. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Dance and Category:Dances[edit]

Can these two categories be merged? It can be a problem deciding which one to use, or whether to select both. Donnanz (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

For some reason we have a bias toward toward using plurals of countable nouns in Category names. Clearly there are words connected with dance that are not dances. DCDuring TALK 13:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
In this case having Category:Dances as a subcategory of Category:Dance seems fine to me. DCDuring TALK 15:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not happy with that, it just adds needless complexity. I will use just Category:Dance for Bokmål and Nynorsk. Donnanz (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Terms for actual dances should go in Category:Dances. —CodeCat 19:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I feel that in some languages where there are few entries (at present) that can go into either category it is better to list them all under one category (Dance). Or maybe there should be a more comprehensive category named "Dancing", replacing both "Dance" and "Dances". Donnanz (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is going to go back when there are more entries, and recategorise them all. So they should be put in the category where they should eventually be, right from the start. —CodeCat 13:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
It shouldn't be a problem to change the category if necessary. I'll do it my way - Frank Sinatra-style. Donnanz (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


Lewis and Short do not have this. They have satin'. If you think this should be RfVed, I would not object. DCDuring TALK 19:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I doubt an RFV will be helpful here. The original manuscripts will definitely not have an apostrophe on this word; modern editions may or may not depending on the editor's preference. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
@DCDuring, Angr: See, for example, these two, which both omit the apostrophe. The trouble is, AFAICT, this contraction only occurs in the works of T. Maccius Plautus, which makes it Old Latin (itc-ola), as opposed to Classical Latin (la). Still, the form with the apostrophe and the form without are on all fours with regard to that issue, I suppose. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

Category:Probability, Category:Probability theory and Category:Statistics[edit]

The terminology of probability theory and statistics overlaps so much that there is little point in maintaining the two disciplines as separate topical categories.

I also cannot see the point of maintaining Category:Probability separately from Category:Probability theory — unless it is meant to contain terms used in informal discussions of probability (as opposed to mathematical formalisation thereof).

Also, Category:Linear algebra and Category:Vector algebra are one and the same. I would suggest deleting the latter, except I am too lazy to do a separate nomination for those.

Asking Msh210 to weigh in, just in case. Keφr 19:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, w:vector algebra, q.v., and linear algebra are identical. Probability theory is a far cry, to my mind, from statistics. In particular, their uses are different: lots and lots of people use statistics, and the words that are relevant to statistics, without knowing or caring anything about probability theory. Perhaps one topcat for statistics and applied probability and another for probability theory? But they'll share quite a few words. Perhaps instead one for statistics and one for probability? They, too, will share quite a few words. So I don't know the best course of action. Maybe we should keep the three categories we have now, but rename "Probability" to "Applied probability". If we do decide to have separate topcats for applied probability and for probability theory, then perhaps merge the latter into category:Measure theory?​—msh210 (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I have speedy-merged "Vector algebra" into "Linear algebra". Only three entries were affected: [[գրադիենտ]], [[ristitulo]] and [[vektoritulo]]. Keφr 18:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
As for "lots of people use words relevant to statistics without caring about probability theory" — can you clarify that with an example? Keφr 18:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Practical statisticians, like w:Gonçalo Abecasis and w:Nate Silver, probably know little (and care little) about σ-algebras and probability measures.​—msh210 (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I think these particular two terms would actually fit better in Category:en:Measure theory than in Category:en:Probability theory anyway (yes, even the latter). They are not "purely probabilistic" terms — in fact, I doubt any such terms exist, otherwise I would not propose this merger. Keφr 22:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe they would fit better there. As I said above, "If we do decide to have separate topcats for applied probability and for probability theory, then perhaps merge the latter into category:Measure theory".​—msh210 (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
In that case, the question to ask is what terms are characteristic to "applied probability" as opposed to "pure" probability and statistics. Right now Category:en:Probability contains terms like mgf, stochastic matrix and evens — of which only the latter seems rather non-statistical. On the other hand, it would be awkward to find probability distribution in a category whose name does not mention probability. Keφr 15:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
@Kephir I think you are wrong about no purely probabilistic terms existing. But, even if you are correct, that doesn't in and of itself mean that Category:Probability should be deleted. Msh and I have posited that statistics-only terms exist. Statistics-only terms shouldn't be in the same combination of categories as statistics-and-probability terms; probability could continue to exist as a subcategory of statistics even if no probability-only terms were found to exist. Purplebackpack89 00:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
In defense of the quote "lots of people use words relevant to statistics without caring about probability theory", there are lots of statistics that can be discerned without using probability. Rates, and to a certain extent averages, concern probability, but statistics is also enumerations and changes, which can be calculated without using probability. Purplebackpack89 23:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge appendix:proto-germanic/wisundaz to appendix:proto-germanic/wisundz[edit]

Most sources I found seem to reconstruct this word as a consonant stem (See talk page for *wisundaz before moving.) Some information regarding the etymology of the word may need to be looked over more (Not all the sources on the talk page agree on the etymology of this word.).Nayrb Rellimer (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Move *kelþą to *kelþaz[edit]

Orel 2003 pg. 212 reconstructs *kelþaz as the proto-form. The z-stem reflex of the noun survives into Modern English even to the present day. Note that already a discussion has started on the talk page for *kelþą about there being two conflicting entries for the same word.Nayrb Rellimer (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015[edit]


Into {{ast-noun}} by adding optional parameters, such as {{fr-noun}}, {{es-noun}}, {{it-noun}} (etc etc etc) have. Bit of a no-brainer. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah no brainer, do it. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


Into {{ast-adj}} by adding optional parameters, such as {{fr-noun}}, {{es-noun}}, {{it-noun}} (etc etc etc) have. Bit of a no-brainer. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah no brainer, do it. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

man of one's word[edit]

Why use a gender-neutral pronoun with man? Does anyone say "she was a man of her word"? It should be moved to man of his word (currently a redirect to this), and there should be a parallel entry for woman of her word. I'm not saying this should be a redlink, but there are only a few hits for man of one's word in Google Books compared to clear widespread use for man of his word, so the latter should be the lemma. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the "one" form was probably picked because "I'm a man of my word" and "You're a man of your word" are also pretty common. I wouldn't necessarily object to the move though. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Lots or redirects to one or more lemmas should it. I suppose person of one's word is gender neutral and would work with a lot of redirects. For "person" would we need "boy", "girl", "lady", "lad" in addition to "man" and "woman" and plurals including "people"? DCDuring TALK 23:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
It's like we need some kind of template language to allow snowclone headwords like person1 of pronoun-for-person1's word, which would then automagically match user searches for thing like "DJ of his word" and "woman of my word", etc and take the user to the right entry, whatever that might be. Pengo (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
For many of the most common constructions the invariant words are also stopwords for almost any search engine AFAIK, like articles and determiners, prepositions, and pronouns, ie, the PoSes that are virtually closed sets. In this case "a X of X's word" ("Xs of Xs' word" for the plural) gives the search engine only word to work with. We could have a construction space that had presumably fewer of these to work with, so the failed search screen would more likely yield what the search sought. If we educated users to look at derived terms and had a rigorous process for making sure that all derived terms appeared in the entries the search engine actually hit, we would have an adequate system for repeat users, if not for all users. DCDuring TALK 22:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking more for Wiktionary's own search engine, if someone entered "lady of her word" it could auto-redirect to "person of one's word" with an auto-redirect message saying "auto-redirect: matched this phrase pattern". Other search engines would probably be more useful though. Blue-sky stuff anyway. Pengo (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I was too, but I misremembered it as having stop words. (Apparently stop words have been an option for some Mediawiki search engines, but not so much lately). At present, searches for "woman/lady/girl/boy of her/his word" yield an empty search result page if enclosed in quotes and a long results page if not quoted, usually not including [[man of one's word]]. The simple expedient of including the single words woman, lady, girl, and boy would be an improvement. I am often surprised at the capability of Cirrus search, though the power is not displayed to those who don't know the filters and doesn't seem relevant for this matter. DCDuring TALK 01:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I would define it at person of one's word with redirects from man, woman, etc, as DCDuring seems to be suggesting. - -sche (discuss) 21:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I was suggesting, though I was hoping for a better idea. I suppose it doesn't really matter for most purposes what the lemma entry was, so we may as well be gender-neutral.
Perhaps the better idea I was awaiting is to make the lemma [[of one's word]]. Stripping gendered pronouns to the greatest extent possible approaches gender-neutrality to the greatest extent possible and leaves less uncertainty about might need to be attested. DCDuring TALK 22:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, I had thought about of one's word, too, as that would even cover rare cases like google books:"a company of its word". But perhaps that's too much stripping, too much abstraction. - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I still think we would need redirects at least from the singular personal pronoun versions. DCDuring TALK 23:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes (@DCDuring and @Pengo), like many highly variable idiomatic expressions, this one would need to have a lot of redirects pointing to it from common variants (and perhaps even uncommon but attested variants — redirects are cheap), including man of his word, woman of her word, gentleman of his word, lady of her word, (man?) of my word, of your word, of his word, of her word, and of their word. - -sche (discuss) 02:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Yep, not to mention the plural forms (men of their word, etc) Pengo (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd settle for the singular personal pronouns on the grounds that few would ever look up the others and that we could semiautomate the creation of redirects for many such MWEs so that we actually had the most common ones for many of these rather than just have a complete set for one or a few. This would seem like a reasonable item for Wiktionary:Todo. DCDuring TALK 13:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:English male given names from Celtic[edit]

Category:English female given names from Celtic[edit]

Celtic what? This gives the impression that there's something called "Celtic" from which names are derived. You can certainly find works from the 19th century that talk this way, but they're full of truly awful etymologies that are absolutely painful to read if you know anything about historical linguistics. These categories should be moved to the equivalents with "Celtic languages" rather than "Celtic" Chuck Entz (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:English male given names from Germanic[edit]

Category:English female given names from Germanic[edit]

Category:English male given names from Slavic[edit]

Category:English female given names from Slavic[edit]

As above. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Support the name change into Celtic/Germanic/Slavic languages, if somebody else does the job. That was just shorthand. --Makaokalani (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Support. - -sche (discuss) 01:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


to carborundum

While "Carborundum" is a trademark, as the cites I've added show, it's totally genericised in everyday use, and spelled invariably without the uppercase "C". Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Ngrams confirms that the lowercase form is more common. I've moved the content, but the uppercase form seems to be attested, too, so I've left it as a soft redirect. - -sche (discuss) 20:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


built-in and builtin are alternative spellings of built in. The former two entries should be "alternative form of built in" and nothing else.--Sae1962 (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

March 2015[edit]

Merge Category:Finnish semelfactive verbs into Category:Finnish momentane verbs[edit]

Finnish grammar does not contrast momentanes and semelfactives. For some reason most verbs are currently categorized in the latter, while the boilerplate at Category:Finnish verbs only links the former. --Tropylium (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015[edit]


This just sounds too silly, at least from a North American perspective, and is really not something I would ever think to type in if looking for the category. Is there anyone to whom Category:en:Toilet would not be equally or more intuitive than Category:en:WC? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I've complained about this one before, back when it was a template: I would hazard a guess that there are very few in the US that even know what WC refers to. It's also odd to see it categorized under Category:Rooms, especially since it's the only subcategory under it. That means that Category:Feces is a sub-sub-sub-category of Category:Buildings and structures- counterintuitive, to say the least. The other subcategory of Category:WC, Category:Toiletry is another oddity, since it has nothing to do with water closets, and contains Category:Cosmetics
The problem is that all of the common English terms are euphemisms, and most have had considerable evolution in meaning, so there's nothing really clear and obvious worldwide. Strictly speaking, a water closet is the plumbing fixture, but has apparently come to mean the room that houses it. This is also true of toilet, and, I believe, loo, as well (our entry is ambiguous about that). At least water closet isn't ambiguous- toilet also refers to grooming, washing one's face, etc. Another US term, bathroom can refer to a room containing a bath, and lavatory can refer to a sink. Terms such as restroom, and ladies' room/men's room are vague enough that anyone who doesn't already know what they refer to will have no clue from the name. We need to figure out which term is most recognizable in all parts of the world.
As I mentioned above, we really need to rethink this part of the category tree: feces have little to do with buildings, and cosmetics have nothing to do with feces. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
What he said, basically. The whole structure needs redoing. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

East Frisian Lects[edit]

This is an issue that needs to be resolved soon: there are 90 module errors related to it.

First let me lay out the linguistic details:

East Frisian, a language of Lower Saxony in Germany, is, along with West Frisian in the Netherlands and North Frisian in Germany, one of the w:Frisian languages. It has historically consisted of two dialect groups: one near the Ems River, and the other near the Weser River. The Weser dialects are all now extinct, with the w:Wursten Frisian dialect surviving into at least the 1700s, and the last speaker of w:Wangerooge Frisian dying in 1953. Although most of the Ems dialects died out by the 18th century, Saterland Frisian has survived to the present day. The extinct dialects were absorbed into Low German to become East Frisian Low Saxon.

The ISO has typically made a massive mess out of the Germanic languages, and they really screwed up in this case- until recently, it was impossible to tell if their code for "East Frisian", frs, referred to Frisian East Frisian or to East Frisian Low Saxon. If the first were true, it would overlap with Saterland Frisian, stq. If the second were true, it would be just another of the Low German lects that we decided earlier to treat as German Low German, nds-de (not Dutch Low Saxon, nds-nl, in spite of having "Saxon" in the name). Because of this ambiguity, the frs code was pressed into service for Frisian East Frisian in upwards of 140 etymologies and translations (there might have been entries, too, but I have no way to tell).

A few weeks ago, I mentioned to User:-sche that the online description of another lect had been updated. In the process of checking this out, he discovered that frs was now unambiguously described as East Frisian Low Saxon, and thus redundant to nds-de. After making the usual checks of the categories and changing uses of frs that he knew about, he removed frs from the data module. Unfortunately, East Frisian is mostly only mentioned in etymologies as cognates, and cognates don't show up in any of the categories, nor do redlinked translations. User:Leasnam (who added most of the frs references in the first place), -sche and I have been able to whittle it down from 137 entries in Category:Pages with module errors, to the present 90 just by getting rid of unnecessary ones and by changing recognizable instances of Saterland Frisian and East Frisian Low Saxon to the correct language codes.

As I see it, there are two halfway-decent options:

  1. Merge all of Frisian East Frisian into Saterland Low Frisian, stq, since the latter is the only surviving dialect of the former.
  2. Create an exception code for Frisian East Frisian, such as gmw-efr or gmw-fre.

There's also the possibilty of restoring frs as Frisian East Frisian, but that would put us in direct contradiction to the ISO standard, and leave things open for all kinds of confusion.

The first probably fits the linguistic facts best, but the second may be more practical, at least in the short run.

I've found no references on East Frisian Low Saxon, and very little on Saterland Frisian (there's a Saterland Frisian Wiktionary, but most of the remaining terms aren't mentioned there). There is, at least, one good dictionary of Frisian East Frisian available online. Those with better sources apparently don't have the time to work on this right now. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think restoring frs is a good idea for the confusion you mentioned. I think option 1 is the best; we would then treat Saterland Frisian as the main dialect of East Frisian. Option 2 would just introduce more ambiguity, since one language would suddenly become a part of another. This is why we eliminated the Low German varieties in the first place. —CodeCat 17:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it wouldn't make sense to have both "East Frisian" and "Saterland Frisian" (they are not sufficiently distinct), so option 2 would only make sense if we changed instances of stq to the new pan-East-Frisian code and {{label}}-ed them. But we do need to recognize that there are inclusible East Frisian words which are not Saterland Frisian (namely, all the words and forms that we know — from records — existed in the non-Saterland varieties of East Frisian). Precedent exists of us repurposing codes to refer to slightly more things than the ISO intended them to refer to, e.g. we use gcf to refer to both gcf and acf and we used en to refer to both en-proper and hwc (Hawai'ian Creole English) and pld (Polari). Hence, I would add "East Frisian", "Eastern Frisian" etc as alternative names of stq, and then change all remaining uses of frs to stq to solve the module errors. Then, at leisure, we can go back through the affected pages and specify, whenever possible, which precise dialect they are from. (It may look a bit ugly to have e.g. "Wursten Saterland Frisian foo" or "Saterland Frisian foo (Wursten dialect)", but it's probably the best we can do, since changing the canonical name of stq to "East Frisian" would just invite people to become confused about it and misuse it again.) - -sche (discuss) 16:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
By the way, with all these module errors on highly visited pages, we can't really wait for this to go through RFM procedure. I think whoever sees this next, if (s)he has the time, should implement -sche's temporary solution. (I myself will do it if I can get my work done in meatspace quickly enough.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

stand stock still[edit]

Should be a stock still. One could lie/be/sit/remain/become/go stock still. There are probably more. The redirect could be retained, I suppose. DCDuring TALK 17:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in fact I'm surprised you nominated it instead of moving it. What was the rationale behind that? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I thought that's what this page is for: making-sure-there's-agreement/publicizing/making-a-precedent-of a type of change. DCDuring TALK 17:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Move per nom. - -sche (discuss) 17:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

June 2015[edit]

Category:Spanish words with ze or zi[edit]

To Category:Spanish terms spelled with ze or zi, following the format of the other categories (e.g. Category:Spanish terms spelled with Ç). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Strictly following that format would mean Category:Spanish terms spelled with ZE or ZI. Perhaps Category:Spanish terms spelled with Ç should be moved to Category:Spanish terms spelled with ç. --WikiTiki89 01:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
This is something of an exceptional case, because the rest are individual characters. But perhaps moving all of the rest to lowercase would be good; it would certainly be a much greater hassle, as that format is standard across all languages. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Move to Category:Spanish terms spelled with ze or zi. - -sche (discuss) 04:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Terms having red links in their inflection table by language [edit]

I feel like this was pointed out by someone before, but I can't find where: first of all, proper number agreement would be "Terms having red links in their inflection tables", but secondly, a name like "Terms with red links in their inflection tables by language" would sound more fluent. - -sche (discuss) 04:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I suppose they might all share an inflection table, and have their red links arranged therein by language... ;) Honestly, though, without punctuation there's not much hope of anything even close to sounding fluent. I like your version better, even so. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Kiyaka language[edit]

There are two problems here: First, we currently have the code yaf referred to a language we call Kiyaka, but which Wikipedia calls Yaka (without the noun class prefix) and which authors on Google Books seem to agree to call Yaka as well. There are a couple other languages sometimes called Yaka, but fortunately they all have other names that are more common and therefore there is no conflict, and the principal name of yaf should therefore be modified; there are very few categories associated with this one, so it should be easy to change.
Secondly, the Wikipedia article states that the codes noq, ppp, and lnz refer to its dialects, but Glottolog seems to consider them separate languages (possibly just following the ISO rather than actually making a judgement). Therefore we should consider merging these codes, if in fact there are not enough differences (some data would be helpful). @-scheΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

axk currently goes by "Yaka"; if yaf were renamed "Yaka", yaf would need to use a disambiguator or axk would need to be renamed, but to what? axk's alt name of "Aka" is taken (by soh), and I haven't offhand found evidence that anyone calls it by its alt name "Beka".
Ethnologue, although it grants Ngoongo a separate code (noq), labels it a dialect of Yaka in its entry on Yaka. I can find a German reference stating "Eng mit den Yaka verwandt sind die Lonzo, Pelende und Suku." ("Closely related to the Yaka are the Lonzo, Pelende and Suku", the last of which WP and Ethnologue consider to speak a separate language.) A French reference says "Les Pelende ont un accent linguistique propre, mais ils s'entendent avec les Yaka, Suku, Lonzo, Luwa, Hungana, Tsamba, Ngongo, Mbala et Kongo." ("The Pelendes have their own linguistic accent, but they get along with / can understand the Yaka, Suku, Lonzo, Luwa, Hungana, Tsamba, Ngongo, Mbala and Kongo.") Another says "Le kipelênde comme le kiyaka est un dialecte du kikongo commun. Plus répandu, «Le kiyaka comprend quelques neuf dialectes distincts, présentant parfois des variantes assez considérables.»" ("The Kipelênde like Kiyaka is a dialect of the common Kikongo. More widespread, "The Kiyaka includes some nine separate dialects, sometimes with quite considerable variations.")
I can find a small Yaka corpus, but not any comparison of the different [might-be-]dialects.
A conservative approach might leave the codes separate until such time as someone comes along with words in them. - -sche (discuss) 16:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, re names: soh is also called (Jebel) Silak, or (Jebel) Sillok; Wikipedia uses the name Sillok, but I'm not finding many resources to assess how common that is (and some refer it by a hyphenated string of dialects). If we can move soh (and perhaps should anyway), then we could move the rest down without disambiguating (so axk would be Aka, and yaf would be Yaka). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I sometimes wonder if we should start preferring disambiguators to alt names: they'd be annoying to type, but I think the mere fact that we're discussing a three-link chain of renames (language A takes B's name, B takes C's name, C takes D's name) shows how much clearer they'd be. I pity the new user who e.g. adds aja content under an ==Adja== header, and I pity the veteran user who has to notice that that has happened.
In this case, I can't find evidence of soh being called Sillok, but the people who speak it and the place they live are called Sillok, so at least it wouldn't be unclear. Perhaps we could just rename axk and soh to have disambiguators, though: "Aka (Congo)" and "Aka (Sudan)". - -sche (discuss) 02:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I suggest renaming axk and soh to "Aka (Central Africa)" and "Aka (Sudan)", and then renaming yaf as originally proposed. - -sche (discuss) 06:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Renamed as proposed. What to do with the [might-be-]dialects remains to be determined. - -sche (discuss) 03:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
@-sche: I've generally followed the guideline that we avoid such parenthetical geographic locators; were we to use them in general, it would change a great deal of our names. I know few others care, but perhaps we ought to put this to the community at large in the BP? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
In this specific case, I think there is compelling reason to deviate from the general practice/guideline of preferring alt names to parentheticals even without changing that guideline: in order to use alt names here, we'd have to chain-rename ≥3 languages such that the name each one most often went by was assigned to a different one, and one of them would end up with an unattested name, which would all be extremely confusing.
As for whether/how to change the general guideline: I'll think the matter through more thoroughly before I post anything in the BP. I don't think I'd propose switching to parentheticals in all cases (I think, for instance, that Pyu/Tircul and Riang/Reang use different scripts and so are unlikely to be mixed up). I would only prefer parentheticals where people would be likely to mix up which language was meant by a given name, and where the mix-up would be likely to go unnoticed (e.g. because the script was the same). - -sche (discuss) 21:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Convenient links to previous discussions:
--WikiTiki89 21:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Perching birds[edit]

Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2015/June#Category:Perching_birds.

This used to be at Category:Passerines, but was moved a few months ago - I would like to suggest it be moved back. Passerines is the more commonly used term (Google Ngram), particularly in the bird community. I doubt perching birds is in particularly common use; the common term is probably songbirds, which is technically inaccurate as it is usually taken to mean only the oscines. Keith the Koala (talk) 11:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I've moved this to the proper venue for such requests. I'll comment on substance shortly. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for redefining the meaning of "shortly"... I renamed the category in the first place in an effort to make it more accessible to general users: I remembered seeing the Passeriformes referred to in various encyclopedias and bird books over the years as the "Perching Birds", and I also wondered if anyone would be confused by the fact that "-ines" names for animals are usually reserved for subfamilies (which end in -inae). Given that most users of this dictionary are probably not "in the bird community" and probably have never heard of terms such as passerines or oscines before coming here, I'm not sure how important it is to reflect usage in this case. That said, there are probably only a handful of languages with enough bird names to even need an intermediate category like this, so it's not really that big a deal. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
"Passerines" is uncommon, but it's not some obscure technical term - turn on Springwatch and you can hear Chris Packham talking about passerines until your wings fall off. "Perching birds" is really no better - nobody actually says "perching birds" except to try and explain what "passerines" means, on top of which it's not SoP (lots of other birds perch) so people might think they understand it when they don't. tbh, I'd be happiest with just lumping all birds in Category:Birds, I think it's easy to overcategorize these things. Keith the Koala (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
"Passerines" remind me of the often-used fungus group, the LBMs (little brown mushrooms).
If we continue to develop vernacular names and taxonomic names in parallel (to the extent that they are parallel), we can have the luxury of different classifications in different languages, not to mention the structure that emerges from Derived terms and the semantic relations headings. The relationships among taxonomic names are likely to diverge increasingly from those among vernacular names.
Among bird names, though, there is a major effort to have vernacular language names that correspond to taxonomic names and relationships. (Similarly with mammals.) The IOC birdname website has English bird family names (sometimes in form like "Kites, hawks, and eagles" or "Pheasants and allies") that seem designed to be in one-to-one correspondence with taxonomic family names. There are frequent correspondences at genus and species level as well. I'm not sure about higher levels.
Birds (Aves) are a class (or a clade) that we have fairly well covered AFAICT. It affords us one of the best opportunities to have good vernacular categorization and naming. I don't see why we don't have categories that correspond to multiple levels of groups of birds, though I would prefer that "bird" be left to at least one of the definition, image, and Hypernyms in the entry to communicate.
Both 'Passerines' and 'Perching birds' seem like high levels of categorization that don't well correspond to words in vernacular language usage. The IOC doesn't help much with terms like 'Oscines' and 'Suboscines'. A vernacular type-based name like 'Sparrow-like birds' would be communicative, but has little else to recommend it. DCDuring TALK 23:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
The birding equivalent is LBJs (little brown jobs). Chuck Entz (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:en:Counties and regions of England[edit]

We also have Category:en:Counties of England - suggest Category:en:Counties and regions of England should be moved to Category:en:Regions of England to cover just things that aren't counties. Keith the Koala (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

(Proto-)Western Malayo-Polynesian into (Proto-)Malayo-Polynesian[edit]

As discussed earlier this year. Western Malayo-Polynesian is a solely geographic group, it is not recognized by our language categorization system, and a proto-language appendix seems to be superfluous.

In addition to the mentioned durian issue, we have currently 13 Proto-WMP lemmas, with a breakdown as follows:

  • 10 entries are fully identical to corresponding Proto-MP entries (e.g. *huaji = *huaji, *wada = *wada)
  • 2 entries (*huaji-ŋ, *qari-mauŋ) are reconstructed from very scarce data, and the most likely situation is that they were just randomly lost in Central-Eastern MP.
  • 1 entry (*azak) is, per the cited source (Blust's dictionary), probably a late Wanderwort originating in Malay(ic) and not inherited.

--Tropylium (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Even if there are regional differences, you don't have to resort to separate protolanguages to explain them: for one thing, the substratum languages encountered off of Southeast Asia had to have been vastly different from those farther east. As for animal (and to a lesser extent plant) names, there's the matter of the w:Wallace Line and other such boundaries: the farther east you go, the fewer non-marine Asian species you find. By the time you get to Polynesia, the only flightless land animals (New Zealand is an exception, or course) are human-transported creatures such as pigs, chickens, dogs and rats, and the only widely-distributed plants are those with seeds that can drift on the currents, or Polynesian canoe plants- if you don't have wild beasts, you're not likely to preserve inherited names for them. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]

Category:Telugu years[edit]

User:Mglovesfun tagged this on 17 May 2012‎. I suppose he meant that it should be moved to Category:te:Jovian years. There are sixty Telugu years, based on the Jovian cycle that repeats every 60 years. Originally used in Sanskrit, see w:Samvatsara. —Stephen (Talk) 06:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:sandbox and Template:Sandbox[edit]

Template:sandbox is a redirect to Wiktionary:Sandbox/Please do not edit this line and has a name very similar to Template:Sandbox; at least, similar enough to confuse me. Since the sole purpose of the former seems to be to display an explanation on Wiktionary:Sandbox, could it not be moved somewhere else? And then I'd like that Template:Sandbox be moved to Template:sandbox, because templates are usually in all-lowercase. If this is not possible, I'd like to edit Template:Sandbox/Please do not edit this line to include a note reminding editors to keep the capitalisation in mind.__Gamren (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I've simply updated all links to Template:sandbox to use Wiktionary:Sandbox/Please do not edit this line instead. I've moved Template:Sandbox to Template:sandbox, leaving a redirect. - -sche (discuss) 04:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]

Category:Regional Min Nan, Category:Regional Cantonese -> Category:Regional Chinese[edit]

--2600:100F:B00C:B5A2:D918:882B:CD2B:9B3 04:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Also Category:Regional Mandarin? —suzukaze (tc) 23:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
@Wyang, Atitarev do these categories or their contents (still) need to be moved/deleted, or are they OK where they are? - -sche (discuss) 04:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
They are OK where they are. We can add Category:Regional Chinese to these categories. Wyang (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

the Kewa lects[edit]

I propose to merge [kjy] "South Kewa"/"Erave Kewa", [kjs] "East Kewa" and [kew] "West Kewa"/"Pasuma Kewa" into [kew] as "Kewa". AFAICT most literature treats Kewa as a single language, and the only effect having three codes has had upon us so far is that our Kewa content is duplicated under several headers (as in ipa and utyali). There seems to be a far more marked difference between normal Kewa and its pandanus avoidance register than between South, East and West. - -sche (discuss) 06:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Tingal and Tegali[edit]

In 2011, the ISO retired the code for Tingal [tie], merging it into Tegali [ras]. I think we should follow suit. Wikipedia notes that there is dialectal variation in Tegali, but it's not between Tegali proper and Tingal, it is rather between Tegali proper and Rashad (but even those dialects are "nearly identical"). - -sche (discuss) 06:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Loarki and Gade Lohar[edit]

Ethnologue encoded this language twice: once as lrk "Loarki" (the name its 20,000 Pakistani speakers call it), and a second time as gda "Gade Lohar", the name its ~500 speakers on the Indian side of the border call it. (The International Encyclopedia of Linguistics entry on Gade Lohar conservatively only says the languages "may be the same" as Loarki, and notes its long list of other names: Gaduliya Lohar, Lohpitta Rajput Lohar, Bagri Lohar, Bhubaliya Lohar, Lohari, Gara, Domba, Dombiali, Chitodi Lohar, Panchal Lohar, Belani, and Dhunkuria Kanwar Khati. The IEL entry on Loarki is more explicit, breaking down the population by country and countain Gade Lohar's 500 speakers as Loarki speakers, because Loarki is "probably the same as Gade Lohar in Rajasthan, India, a Rajasthani language.") I propose to merge gda into lrk. - -sche (discuss) 20:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

West African Pidgin English varieties[edit]

Ethnologue has assigned codes to some but not all of the varieties of West African Pidgin English, and we in turn have incorporated some (e.g. pcm) but not all (e.g. not gpe) of those codes. As WP notes, the "contemporary English-based pidgin and creole languages are so similar that they are sometimes grouped together under the name 'West African Pidgin English'" (a name which also denotes their predecessor which developed in the 1700s). WP's examples are illustrative, particularly in that its Ghanaian and Nigerian Pidgin English examples are identical. I propose to merge at least the following three varieties into wes, renaming it "West African Pidgin English":

  1. Ghanaian Pidgin English (gpe)
  2. Nigerian Pidgin English (pcm)
  3. Cameroonian Pidgin English (wes)

We could also discuss whether or not to merge Sierra Leone Krio (kri, which WP notes its often mistaken for English slang due to its similarity to English, but which has a somewhat distinct alphabet), Pichinglis / Fernando Po Creole (fpe), and Liberian Kreyol / Liberian Pidgin English (lir). - -sche (discuss) 21:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The question is a very complex one. Firstly (but of least importance), scholars are divided on which lects have creolised and which have not, but it is generally agreed upon that at least some of the language you mentioned are not pidgins, which would make the name "West African Pidgin English" somewhat of a misnomer (the more neutral name "Wes-Kos" have been suggested as an alternative, but even linguists haven't fully adopted it). Secondly, all these lects are remarkably similar on a lexical level, but that's unsurprising; after all, they resulted from separate but very similar language contact events, and then probably modified each other (one scholar posits that Krio and Cameroonian Pidgin English relexified each other to some degree after pidginisation). The similarities are also obscured by the fact that there is nothing close to an agreed orthography for most of these, and pronunciation does differ a bit across West Africa. Linguistically, I'd probably merge them all, but practically that may not be the best decision. I know we have entries in pcm, but probably next to nothing for the rest, and if somebody wants to add them, given how each lect is very neatly assigned to a certain West African country, at least it won't be confusing for them to do so. Conclusion: the literature is schizophrenic, the lects mutually intelligible, and the existing situation remarkably unproblematic. Therefore I abstain. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge Category:(language) proper noun forms into Category:(language) noun forms[edit]

This is a bit like categorising countable noun forms separate from uncountable noun forms. Proper nouns are just nouns, so we should just put their forms in the common noun forms category. —CodeCat 20:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Unlike countable vs uncountable nouns, we distinguish proper from common nouns on the level of POS (as reflected in the different L3 headers). As long as we maintain that distinction for the lemma forms, it makes sense to maintain it for the inflected forms. - -sche (discuss) 20:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
We also have categories for past participle forms in several major languages, but no ===Past participle=== header either. Also consider that "Proper nouns" are still a subcategory of "Nouns". We don't treat any other "header-level" part of speech like that in our categories. —CodeCat 20:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a wee difference in that all Past participles are associated with a Verb lemma. Most Proper nouns are not associated with a Noun lemma. Not to mention that the PoS header for Past participles is largely attributable to the desired to remove the inflection tables from the already bulky Verb inflection tables.
The persistent jihad on all fronts against Proper nouns with such highly flawed rationales is tiresome. DCDuring TALK 21:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Re "but no ===Past participle=== header": that supports my point. We do have ===Proper noun=== headers, distinguished from ===Noun=== headers; we have traditionally treated proper nouns and nouns as different parts of speech (like adjectives and adverbs). As long as we're distinguishing proper noun lemma forms from common noun lemma forms on the level of headers and categories, I don't think it makes sense to remove the distinct categorization of the inflected forms. Also, as DCDuring notes, "past participles" may be categorized as "verb forms" because they are inflected forms of verbs (the lemma entries are headered and categorized as verbs), which is different from the situation of proper noun forms. I am sympathetic to the idea that we should reduce the prominence of the distinction between proper nouns and common nouns / stop considering them different parts of speech (reducing the information to a note on the headword line, for instance), since all other dictionaries seem to not distinguish them, but until consensus is obtained to do that, I oppose efforts to do it piecemeal like this. - -sche (discuss) 21:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose merger. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support merger for what feels like the tenth time. The distinction between proper and common nouns is artificial, unnecessary, and nowhere satisfactorily defined. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Provisional oppose merger; I basically agree with -sche. As for the distinction between proper and common nouns, for Arabic at least there are sometimes grammatical ways of diagnosing proper nouns: Morphologically indefinite proper nouns (i.e. proper nouns without al-) are still grammatically definite, whereas morphologically indefinite common nouns aren't. This same class often takes diptote marking regardless of the vowel template of the word, when in general common nouns have to belong to certain templates (e.g. CaCāCiC, CaCCān, CaCCāʾ) to be diptote. This is how, for example, we know that months in Arabic are proper nouns. Benwing (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per -sche: as long as we distinguish common nouns from proper nouns on the lemma level, we should also do it on the inflected form level. Furthermore, this venue is inappropriate, IMHO. For a discussion on the same subject for lemmas, se Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-12/Merging_proper_nouns_into_nouns, which failed 6-8-2. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


I suggest renaming this to Wikisaurus:glans penis to avoid ambiguity. "Glans" can technically also mean the clitoris, but there is already Wikisaurus:clitoris for synonyms of that term. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Support. - -sche (discuss) 20:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Moved; links still need to be updated (I left a redirect so they still work). - -sche (discuss) 10:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Renaming sur[edit]

The name "Sura" is ambiguous (as noted on Talk:am), and the name "Mwaghavul" seems to be more common (compare google books:"Sura language", google books:"Mwaghavul language") — and is, in any case, quite common — so I propose to rename sur from "Sura" to "Mwaghavul". - -sche (discuss) 20:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Support. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Appendix:Glossary of collective nouns by subject[edit]

Appendix:English collective nouns[edit]

Appendix:Glossary of collective nouns by collective term[edit]

(Appendix:English collective nouns is edit protected, so I can't place the template there, but I guess that would be the more sensible target location)

Redundant to each other. Both pages have serious clean-up issues, of course (has anyone ever actually called a group of cheetahs a "coalition", or is that a joke at the expense of perhaps the British coalition government? (Apparently it's in use!) Will anyone ever have need of a collective noun for Jezebels?). Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Most of these fancy collective nouns floating around the Internet are artificial words that amateur philologists pull out of their asses in order to look “cool”. Most of them have never been used and will probably never be used. If you think the ones listed at the page are bad, look at the edit histories. For this reason it is important that the validity of collectives added to these appendices (and to the mainspace) isn’t taken for granted.
On topic: Appendix:English collective nouns looks redundant to Category:English collective nouns, so I favour deleting it. But I think Appendix:Glossary of collective nouns by subject is useful to keep around due to its presentation advantages over a category page. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

(Added Appendix:Glossary of collective nouns by collective term - the sorting issues that led to these appendices being split would be better resolved with a sortable table). Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikisaurus:pros and cons[edit]

This is a newly created Wikisaurus entry which was populated almost entirely with SOP phrases, but there's a potential for something having to do with pairing of opposites- if we don't already have it. Any suggestions? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that would work better as an appendix rather than a Wikisaurus. Then we'd have entries like ups and downs, hot and cold, yes and no, etc. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Old Italian language[edit]

Per WT:RFV#ananasso (which will be archived to Talk:ananasso), it seems that not all users are in agreement as to whether Old Italian (roa-oit) should exist as a separate L2 language from Italian on Wiktionary, and if so, what year to use as the cutoff. It appears that GianWiki has been behind our Old Italian entries and used 1582 as the cutoff (now codified at WT:About Old Italian, but as Prosfilaes notes, that makes Dante's work Old Italian, which 1) is strange, because he has been considered the first modern Italian author and 2) is problematic, because it seems SemperBlotto has already added words from Dante and works of similar age and marked them as Italian (it). I think that moving the cutoff back to before Dante would be the best solution, but it would require reviewing the entries in Old Italian, and perhaps merger would be easier. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

As I noted in the RFV discussion, I took the 1582 date from our dictionary definition of [[Old Italian]], the only definition of it I could find that provided a date. It's based on the establishment of the Accademia della Crusca, the body which standardized Italian. The fact that Old Italian does not even have a Wikipedia article, whereas e.g. Old Spanish, Old Portuguese (mentioned at RFV) and Old French do, does not bode well for Old Italian being an independent language. One of the only reference works to use the string "old Italian" as a language name (rather than "old Italian or Turkish gold coin"), the 1860 New American Cyclopædia, outright says "There is no old Italian, in the sense of the old French; for the ante-Dantic only differs in form from the idiom which he created." Other uses, e.g. Rhotacism in the Old Italian Languages, and the Exceptions, are referring to the old Italic languages (Latin, etc). I would merge it back into it. - -sche (discuss) 05:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the onus is on the person (or people) wanting to split off Old Italian from Italian to prove on the balance of probability that it's correct to do so. So I say merge. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I think we shouldn't use languages not in ISO 639-3 without solid argument for up front. I certainly think we shouldn't use roa-oit; we should either get a new sublanguage tag via RFC 5646 (from ietf-languages), or a new language code via ISO 639-3 (and SIL), if we see fit to make this distinction.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I will begin to merge Old Italian into Italian. - -sche (discuss) 10:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The sole reason - in my point of view - for the existence of a distinct "Old Italian" category is that it's perhaps better suited to contain terms and forms that have little to no place in Modern Standard Italian (except as archaisms or poeticisms), having either been replaced by other terms and forms, or simply fallen out of use.
That said, if such a distinction happens to be regarded as inaccurate or incorrect, merging could indeed prove a solution to the issue. -- GianWiki (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Italian is not really meant to be exclusively Modern Standard Italian; whether or not we separate out Old Italian, it's going to include archaisms and poeticisms and any word used in Italian in the last few centuries. Even, to some extent, dialects, though a lot of Italian lects have their own codes. Words that aren't Modern Standard Italian should generally have a context label.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I understand that. I have no qualms about merging the two, either, because I can see how the distinction is much more faint than that between - say - French and Old French. Also, I can help with the merging process. -- GianWiki (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the solution is to use context labels like {{lb|it|obsolete}}, rather than a separate header — especially because the words would generally have to be present under an ==Italian== header even if we were to consider "Old Italian" a separate language and duplicate the content also under that header, because the words usually continued to be used past the proposed cutoff date. The entry which started this discussion, ananasso, is a case in point (in fact, all uses of it seem to be from after the proposed cutoff date). - -sche (discuss) 00:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Appendix:English words by Latin antecedents[edit]

This is really messy, poorly executed, and overall a "hodgepodge page" (as EP put it). But it shouldn't be improved, because it doesn't really make sense as a lexicographical project, even for our appendices; the 'Descendants' and 'Etymology' sections of individual entries should (and do) serve this function instead. It should be moved back into userspace, namely Dan Polansky's, since at least part of it once was located there and he requested on the talkpage that it should be moved there should it be removed from the Appendix namespace. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep it in the Appendix namespace; if not that, move to my user space. I find it very nice and useful, serving as an analogue of a thesaurus, albeit not for semantic relations but for genetic relations. It is really a portion of the prospective Related terms section of the mainspace, but relatively complete--as far as Latin etymons go--and in one place. The evaluative claims above (e.g. "messy", "poorly executed") are not supported by any verifiable descriptive statements. The appendix cannot be "moved back to mainspace", since (a) no material was removed from mainspace in its making, and (b) in its making, I used material that is not in mainspace at all, including Century 1911. Even if this were just a single-page report on what can be in the mainspace, this report cannot be produced from today's state of the mainspace since the base information is not there. Those who claim otherwise should show a script or automated method for producing this report. Even if the script is made (a huge if), the results of the script are not automatically available to the reader, unlike the appendix. Those who find this report uninteresting should consider that others can find it interesting. From what I remember, a similar page used to be at http://www.bartleby.com/61, suggesting that Bartleby readers found interest in this type of report at least at the time; a link to bartleby is still in Appendix:Latin verbs (A to K). --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015[edit]

Merging Twi and Fanti into Akan[edit]

It's bizarre that we currently have all three of Akan (the macrolanguage) and Twi and Fanti (its two dialects). References, even old ones, tend to treat Akan as one language with two or three dialects — from Johann Gottlieb Christaller's 1875 A Grammar of the Asante and Fante Language all the way through Florence Abena Dolphyne's 1988 The Akan (Twi-Fante) Language and the 2011 Modern Akan: A Concise Introduction to the Akuapem, Fanti and Twi Language. The dialects have always been mutually intelligible when spoken, and in 1978 speakers established a unified orthography to make them intelligible in writing, too. - -sche (discuss) 01:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I support this. I meant to propose a merger when I posted WT:RFV#gyeografi, but I never got around to it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Merged. - -sche (discuss) 01:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:English verbs with two objects[edit]

Discussion moved from WT:FEED.

What about calling it 'English ditransitive verbs'? As far as I can tell they are exactly the same - one object is dative and the other accusative. —This comment was unsigned.

On the one hand, the current name is probably clearer to the average person, although even better would be "which take" instead of "with". On the other hand, the format the anon proposes would fit how Category:English transitive verbs and Category:English intransitive verbs are named. - -sche (discuss) 03:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I oppose the use of ditransitive, bitransitive, and ambitransitive in any content visible to ordinary users in any entry except as headwords, ie, in ditransitive, bitransitive, and ambitransitive. DCDuring TALK 13:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with DCDuring. Would be better as Category:English verbs which take two objects. Also, it should have a lot more than four entries. e.g. book, get, cook, keep, bring, make, pour, save, find, lend, make, offer, owe, pay, promise, read, show, sing, teach, fix, leave... —Pengo (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

German goitre[edit]

This is the lemma, and German goiter is given as an alternative form. I would like us to make German goiter the lemma: this is apparently local to the US, and goiter is the normal US spelling (at least in modern usage). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Support per nom. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Renaming ki[edit]

This is a hard one, and I'm not advocating one way or the other, just wishing to raise the issue. Ngrams reveal that in 1992, "speaking Gikuyu" and "Gikuyu language" became more common than "speaking Kikuyu" and "Kikuyu language" (as well as becoming the linguistic standard), yet overall the spelling "Kikuyu" is still more common, presumably in speaking of the people, who are less obscure than their language. We follow Wikipedia in using the spelling "Kikuyu", but this spelling is clearly no longer favoured for the language (if you're curious, the "g" is to reflect the etymon, Kikuyu Gĩkũyũ). Should we change it? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Translations of adjective sense of autumn[edit]

These need to be moved / merged with those at autumnal. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:The Gambia to Category:Gambia[edit]

I know that the country generally takes the definite article in speech, but somehow it feels different when used as a category or title, when just "Gambia" sounds more appropriate. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Μετάknowledge: Would you prefer Category:Gambia, the? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: I hope that was a joke. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
@Μετάknowledge: I'm afraid not. :-S Category:Gambia, the would appear (correctly) under 'G' in the category for these categories, rather than under 'T'. I wanted to propose an alternative that you would be happy with, rather than just posting a vote in opposition. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Why should we have Category:The Gambia when we don't have Category:The United Kingdom, Category:The Netherlands, Category:The United States of America? Chuck Entz (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: Those three are not analogous, in my opinion. Category:The Gambia is more like Category:The Hague. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Nobody ever says "Hague", while people do say "Gambia". So that comparison doesn't work either. —CodeCat 21:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Support Category:Gambia. —CodeCat 14:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Support Category:Gambia. "In the Gambia" is only slightly more common than "in Gambia" (and the latter is, in any case, very common). "In the Ukraine" has historically (until the 1990s) been far more common than "in Ukraine", but we correctly have Category:Ukraine without the article. - -sche (discuss) 04:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
@-sche: What should we do about Category:The Hague? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Do we have enough content to justify creating it? We don't have very many city categories; we have a London category with a respectable 94 entries, but not a Paris, Seattle, Chicago or Beijing category. - -sche (discuss) 19:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
@-sche: Well, it's pretty clear where this vote is going, so it doesn't really matter. But I'd like to know what you would do if we had a Category:The Hague. There's every chance that it'd come up. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
It's hard to get a sense of how commonly the place is referred to without the article, but it's well under 1/6th of the time, since "in Hague" vs "in the Hague" gets a 1/6th ratio in Google's Ngrams Viewer and most of the hits of "Hague" are of it as an author's last name or a reference to the Hague Convention ("in Hague Convention states"). So, I would retain the article as part of the name there. - -sche (discuss) 02:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
@-sche: As Category:The Hague, Category:Hague, the, or something else? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
"The Hague". - -sche (discuss) 01:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
@-sche: Thanks for the clarification. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose; I prefer Category:The Gambia. The The is an integral part of its name, more so than the the of the Netherlands or the Bahamas. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I've always called it "Gambia", so I guess you're mistaken. —CodeCat 14:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
For years I called the capital of Indonesia "Jaktara"; that doesn't mean someone who says "The capital of Indonesia is called Jakarta in English" is mistaken. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
"In the Gambia" is just slightly more common than "in Gambia", and likewise for "to [the] Gambia". In contrast, "in the Netherlands" is roughly 20 times more common than "in Netherlands", and likewise for "to". Compare (the) Ukraine. - -sche (discuss) 01:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The numbers are, currently:

 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 07:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Support Category:Gambia. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Category:Gambia per -sche, especially since in Gambia, in the Gambia at Google Ngram Viewer gives similar rates and I seem to prefer to drop "the" when the rates allow it. I also would not oppose deleting the category since it has too high granularity, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Considering war and wrz[edit]

Our current situation is to call war "Waray-Waray" and wrz "Waray"; this is not necessarily an optimal solution. Wikipedia chooses to call war "Waray" and wrz "Warray"; although "Warray" is less common than "Waray" to refer to wrz (as far as I can tell), this gives the commonest name of war to that language, which probably deserves priority due to being much more studied. At Template talk:war, you can see that the idea to rename war to "Winaray" was rejected and Liliana's choice of "Waray-Waray" won out. However, it's clear that our current situation has caused some confusion (User:DTLHS/cleanup/mismatched translation codes shows a lot of misuse of wrz when war was intended). Basically, what we have now isn't bad, but the fact is that it's resulted in mismatched codes, so we might want to try a different approach. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer minimizing ambiguity by calling war "Waray-Waray" and wrz "Warray" so that no language at all is called by the ambiguous name "Waray". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
To be fair I think most of the mistakes were caused when the language was renamed but the translations weren't edited, not by whoever added them in the first place. DTLHS (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Words from Shakespeare[edit]

I'd prefer Category:Terms from Shakespeare. Or something better --Zo3rWer (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Support switching "words" to "terms", additionally support clearer naming such as Category:Terms coined by Shakespeare. --Tropylium (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Also support switching to something like Category:Terms coined by Shakespeare. Note that we also need to update Wikipedia Shakespeare's influence § Vocabulary. Enosh (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Support Category:Terms coined by Shakespeare. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Support Category:Terms coined by William Shakespeare. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Support Category:Terms coined by William Shakespeare, but is there a Category:Words first attested in Shakespeare too? —Pengo (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
In a lot of cases, the words are first attested in Shakespeare. The claim that he coined them is different... so I think something like Category:Terms first attested in Shakespeare would be more accurate. - -sche (discuss) 23:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Support moving it to Category:Terms first attested in Shakespeare per -sche (I don't think we can distinguish those that he himself coined). @Tropylium, Enoshd, Daniel Carrero, I'm so meta even this acronym, Pengo, how do you feel about doing that instead? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Support moving it to Category:Terms first attested in Shakespeare rather than "coined". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Support in this case. Maybe with English prefixed, not to be so ethnocentric and for consistency. Enosh (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Support, though I'm not sure if specifying English is required. Suppose though we had similar categories for other authors who had written in multiple languages: would we want to have distinct categories like "English terms first attested in McShmoo" versus "Scots terms first attested in McSchmoo", or would a single "Terms first attested in McSchmoo" do for both? --Tropylium (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I prefer using the language name for clarity and consistency with other categories. I wouldn't mind having Category:Chinese terms first attested in Romance of the Three Kingdoms and Category:Portuguese terms first attested in Guimarães Rosa. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Support Category:English terms first attested in the works of William Shakespeare. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The current category's text says:

This category includes English words and phrases coined by Shakespeare, or otherwise derived from his works.
Note that this is not “Words which are first attested in Shakespeare”, which may have existed earlier in speech, but words plausibly created by Shakespeare

...which is why I thought "coined" was more appropriate, and "attested" would be a separate category. I'm not fussed about the particular category name change. Just pointing that out. Pengo (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose anything except current title and Category:Terms from Shakespeare: For one, my general opposition to needless moving and merging. For two, shorter title generally equals better title. Purplebackpack89 16:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Ipadguy (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Ipadguy moved it to Category:Terms from Shakespeare, despite that not being supported by consensus as far as I can tell. This move was inappropriate, so I have deleted that page for now. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The Tonga languages[edit]

There are far more Tonga languages than anyone would want to have to deal with, but I am excluding all but two of them in this discussion for the sake of ease. We currently call toi and tog "Tonga" and "Chitonga", but both languages are called by both names, and use of alternative names seems to be vanishingly rare. Our current system is leaving me (and at least one person who tried to give a translation in one of the languages) thoroughly confused, so as much as I find them ungainly, I'd much rather we use parenthetical geographic identifiers than have to go through this madness. (Pinging @-sche as usual (and you ought to take a look at the other ones I've posted recently on this page when you get a chance, if you are so inclined.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of parenthetical disambiguators, but what should they be? Wikipedia calls toi Tonga language (Zambia and Zimbabwe) and tog Tonga (Nyasa) language, but that seems suboptimal to me since the parentheticals aren't parallel. Ethnologue suggests the majority of toi speakers are in Zambia and all tog speakers are in Malawi, so how about "Tonga (Zambia)" and "Tonga (Malawi)"? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Support a rename of toi to "Tonga (Zambia)" and of tog to "Tonga (Malawi)". While we're at it, I think we prefer (do we?) to drop "ki-", "chi-", "gi-" and such African language-name prefixes, so toh could be renamed from "Gitonga" to "Tonga (Mozambique)". Happily, to is distinct as Tongan, and we don't have tnz yet, but it seems to be consistently called "Ten'edn" or "Maniq" (the latter being properly an ethnonym) by its speakers, who SIL says are totally unfamiliar with "Tonga" as the name of a language. - -sche (discuss) 23:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@-sche: I don't know if we've talked about it before, but I think in general we should avoid language-name prefixes. However, there are some exceptions; I prefer "Luganda" to "Ganda", for example, because it's far more commonly used. I'm fine with renaming Gitonga as you suggest. By the way, thanks for dealing with some of these language issues; Kikuyu and Rwanda-Rundi are still lingering on this page, so please give them some love/research when you have a chance.Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


Should be renamed to {{he-l}} (along the lines of other language-specific templates of this kind, such as {{ja-l}} and {{ko-l}}), leaving the current name as a redirect. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Support. Plain redirects are very easy to orphan, I already have a bot script to do it. Do we need to keep it? —CodeCat 23:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, another thing. {{l}} is actually a shortcut redirect; the full name of the template is {{link}}. Should we rename it {{he-link}} instead and make {{he-l}} a shortcut? —CodeCat 23:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Support. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Pretty neutral about this, I guess it'll look a bit weird in list having {{l|he}} and {{he-l}} mixed (we try to only use it when it's needed). Don't forget there's also {{m/he}}. Enosh (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


--Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hold on. I never noticed this discussion, but I have expressed my opposition to this at WT:RFDO#Template:l/..., Template:link/.... I am still opposed, partly for the reason Enoshd stated above. {{he-l}} would only make sense if all Hebrew links were to use it, but it is only intended to be used by a minority of Hebrew links that can be mixed in with ordinary {{l|he}} links. --WikiTiki89 04:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]

Category:Capital cities > Category:Country capitals[edit]

Assuming that Category:Capital cities is for capitals of countries, such as Paris, Rome, etc., then the name Category:Country capitals would be more specific.

We have Category:US State Capitals for some "capital cities" that are capitals of states, not countries; and today I created Category:State capitals of Brazil as a similar category, so I would appreciate if the "Capital cities" category used a clearer name. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Capital cities should be kept as a container category, at least. And you're going to have to create a lot more subcategories if you want capital cities to be empty. Purplebackpack89 05:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


Wonderfool made this template years ago. Doesn't seem to be used much. Maybe there's a better template around...--Zo3rWer (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Merge translations of drunk (noun sense) and drunkard[edit]

But I don't know which one to merge them to. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think they mean the same thing. A drunk is someone who is drunk at a particular time. A drunkard is drunk many times. —CodeCat 01:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Drunk can be used both of someone who is intoxicated at the reference time and of one who is habitually or frequently intoxicated. I would think that merging everything into drunk would be better as it would facilitate contributors' making the same distinction in translations. DCDuring TALK 03:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
We should put the translations at the word that is most commonly used to convey a meaning. So is "drunk" or "drunkard" more common to refer to someone who's often drunk? —CodeCat 00:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Why? By some abstract concept of correctness? Are you going to do the work to separate the various homonyms and definitions of drunk? DCDuring TALK 10:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I've never heard "drunk" as a noun meaning "someone who is drunk", only as a noun with the same meaning as "drunkard". With the latter meaning, I support merging the definitions. If the former meaning exists, it should have a separate translation table from the latter meaning. --WikiTiki89 21:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose merging the translations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
    Care to give a reason? --WikiTiki89 21:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Merge per DCD. - -sche (discuss) 01:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:ast-adj-mf and Template:ast-adj[edit]

These should be merged into Template:ast-adj, IMHO. --Zo3rWer (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Support. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:en:Exonyms -> Category:English exonyms[edit]

Per Wiktionary:Votes/2011-04/Lexical categories, move:

Rationale: This makes these categories nominally consistent with all other categories that describe the words ("Category:English blablabla") rather than their meanings ("Category:en:blablabla"), such as all categories listed in Category:English terms by etymology.

In fact, I believe Category:English exonyms should be a subcategory of Category:English terms by etymology.

It's interesting to note that Category:English terms by etymology was once called Category:en:Etymology before it was moved multiple times. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Being an exonym is not a matter of how a word was created. In fact, terms often don't start off as exonyms, but become exonyms as the languages diverge and evolve. So it's not appropriate to put it under etymology. —CodeCat 00:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

*Oppose: Exonyms should remain as a category and English exonyms should be a subcategory of it. Purplebackpack89 20:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I nominated specifically "Category:en:Exonyms -> Category:English exonyms", you mentioned "English exonyms should be [] ", so I don't see how this would work as an oppose vote to my nomination. I don't suppose you wanted the category to remain named "Category:en:Exonyms", right?
In any event, the format that other umbrella categories use according to Wiktionary:Votes/2011-04/Lexical categories is "Category:Exonyms by language" -> "Category:English exonyms". Like "Category:Nouns by language" -> "Category:English nouns". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I missed the "en" in there. Retracting my vote. Purplebackpack89 00:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
No problem, thank you. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
This should not be controversial, but it's wise to check. DCDuring TALK 23:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Music genres -> Category:Musical genres[edit]

I am requesting that this page be moved to Category:Musical genres. Nobody refers to the contents of this category as "music genres", the common term is musical genres. Purplebackpack89 20:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. The claim made in the nomination is blatantly false. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV How often have you heard a Native English speaker use the phrase "music genres"? Cuz I'm a Native English speaker; I hear "musical genres" and "genres of music" often, but almost never "music genres" Purplebackpack89 20:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Very, very often. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep. The rationale given makes no sense, as Ungoliant mentions. —CodeCat 20:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The rationale is that the phraseology "musical genres" is more common than "music genres". How the hell is that not a sensible reason for a rename? Purplebackpack89 21:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
It would make sense if it were obviously true. —CodeCat 21:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I guess it's true, CodeCat Purplebackpack89 21:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't look like it's obviously true, nor did it appear so when you first made your claim, nor is your claim that nobody refers to it as "music genres" accurate, as we can see now from the data. —CodeCat 22:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Why does "obvious" have to be the threshold? If it's 60-40 or 70-30 in favor of musical, the title should be musical. And the data say's it's musical by better than 2-1. It doesn't have to be 99-1, though in my circles it's damn near that. Purplebackpack89 22:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this threshold is big enough to consider renaming. "Music genre" is clearly widespread enough as well, and easily understood. We don't always have to use the exact most common phrasing. And "obvious" is a threshold because how else would we make a decision based on your claims? You never gave any evidence, so all we could go by was that your claim was not obviously true. Obvious would be if someone said that "a bird in the hand" is a lot more common than "a mouse in the hand". —CodeCat 23:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, like you've never renamed anything primarily because the name change was "obvious" to you. Right... Purplebackpack89 00:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I find a 2:1 difference recently and a larger difference earlier at Google N-grams, favoring musical genre(s). It seems more natural to me though I often think of senses of musical other than what is intended when I hear this. DCDuring TALK 23:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support moving per DCDuring: GNV prefers Musical genres in 2:1 ratio in 2008 and in 3:1 in 2000 ((music genre*3),musical genre at Google Ngram Viewer). The GNV picture until 1940[2] is even more striking. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:English countable nouns > Category:English nouns with countable uses[edit]

And the same for "uncountable" and for all other languages. A fair proportion of nouns is categorised in these categories through context labels like "countable". In fact, it has been remarked by people over time that many entries only use this label to contrast countable and uncountable senses, so that both labels are used in the entry for different senses. Consequently, a disproportionate amount of the nouns in these categories may actually be both countable and uncountable. Therefore, I propose renaming these categories to better reflect how we actually use these terms, and to make better sense when it comes to context labels. It is also my hope that we can offload countability information from the headword line and into labels, but that's not the point of this proposal. —CodeCat 20:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. If {{en-noun}} would automatically add nouns to one of the countability categories, then the disproportionality problem will be solved. And then I don't see a problem saying that a noun is both a countable noun and an uncountable noun, so there is no need to use this kind of circumlocutory language. --WikiTiki89 20:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
{{en-noun}} can't determine whether nouns are countable or uncountable, if I understand what editors have said before. Apparently, lack of a plural is not a measure for uncountability; uncountable nouns seem to be a subset of nouns with no plural. —CodeCat 21:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per Wikitiki, and because there's no need for this category's title to be two words longer. Purplebackpack89 23:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Wikitiki. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:English transitive verbs > Category:English verbs with transitive uses[edit]

And the same for "intransitive" and for all other languages. Pretty much for the same reason as the "countable" proposal above. —CodeCat 20:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't see a problem saying that a verb is both a transitive verb and an intransitive verb, so there is no need to use this kind of circumlocutory language. However, the disproportionality problem is harder to solve here than for countability of nouns. Nevertheless, I don't think renaming the category is relevant to the disproportionality problem. --WikiTiki89 21:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per Wikitiki, and because there's no need for this category's title to be two words longer. Purplebackpack89 23:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Wikitiki. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

"mélange" and "melange" are the same[edit]

Proposal to merge the pages for mélange and melange, as they're basically the same. They have the same meaning, same etymology, same pronunciation, etc.

They're not the same. mélange has an entry for a French word on it; melange doesn't. However, since the English entry for mélange just says "alternative form of melange", I think we could delete the Etymology and Pronunciation sections, since they're redundant to the main entry. We should definitely delete the "Alternative forms" section. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Currently our Etymology sections match. Ideally they shouldn't: each should indicate dates of entry into English usage (and those presumably won't coincide). Perhaps one day we'll have that info; right now, we don't even have which word preceded the other (in English). Getting rid of the Etymology section is good in this case at this juncture, but doesn't represent the ideal and hopefully will be reverted with the addition of new info as it's available.But I think both entries should have Pronunciation sections even now. Whereas etymology (to the extent we have it) is fairly clear from the combination of "…form of…" and the lemma's etymology, pronunciation is not. There's no way for a reader to know the pronunciation of a word merely from knowing that it's a form of another word.​—msh210 (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Pronunciation shouldn't be deleted for alternative forms, only for alternative spellings. Alternative forms, by our definition, differ in more than just the spelling. —CodeCat 20:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
This is defined as "alternative form of". Perhaps it shouldn't be. Or perhaps whoever did that did it because (he or she thinks) it's not pronounced the same.​—msh210 (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Namely, Circeus.​—msh210 (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
This is an alternative spelling and should be listed as such. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
There's an {{alternative spelling of}} template? I didn't know that back then. In fact I still didn't know until I read this conversation. Circeus (talk)


This category is barely used (4 entries as of now). It seems too specific; Category:Peninsulas could include all types of peninsulas. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

November 2015[edit]

Category:Fictional locations[edit]

These categories include words like Asgard and hell, which are not exactly fictional locations (or rather, they are not fictional in the same sense of fiction that we use in our context labels). We should rename it into something like Category:Fictional and mythological locations. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Support renaming the category into any name that is more accurate than "Fictional locations". Maybe Category:Fictional, mythological and religious locations?
I suppose calling Heaven and Hell "mythological" is bound to offend someone who believes in these places? If that's not an issue, I'd be happy enough with Category:Fictional and mythological locations. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
You’re right about that. The name religious locations describes words like Vatican and Holy Land, which are not what this category is about, but I can’t really think of something else. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Possibly we could have three separate categories, if that's not too much granularity: Category:Fictional locations, Category:Mythological locations and Category:Afterlife locations. I'm aware that it would lead to some repeated categorization: Hades is both "mythological" and "afterlife". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
This might be a good use of finer granularity than we would normally have, ie, for something like the 'afterlife' category. However, I would think that the Garden of Eden would belong in a category that had heaven, limbo, and hell, so 'afterlife' is too restrictive if we are to have such a religious category. DCDuring TALK 00:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Interestingly, Wikipedia's w:Category:Mythological places does contain subcategories named "Garden of Eden" and "Heaven", in addition to the article "Tower of Babel".
The category description starts with: "Mythological places are legendary places from a relatively cohesive set of myths." Well, if it's good enough for Wikipedia, maybe my comment above about offending people is really not an issue as I thought? We could simply have 2 separate Category:Mythological locations and Category:Fictional locations, without any "afterlife" distinction. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps so. Is Asgard mythical because the religion it is associated with was polytheistic and is no longer practiced (apologies to heathenry)? DCDuring TALK 02:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't try to split "religious" from "mythological", since the distinction is (as DCDuring suggests) pretty much just "do (m)any people still practice the religion?" (and the answer to "any" is usually "yes"). I don't know whether it would be better to have one category for "fictional and mythological places", or two. - -sche (discuss) 04:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: There should be a category with this title and it should contain at least some of the entries currently in it. Maybe we need additional categories such as Category:Mythological locations and a supercategory for both fictional and mythological locations, but the current category should remain and should contain entries. Purplebackpack89 21:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
    I actually agree with Purplebackpack89 that the category should be kept, but some of its entries removed. --WikiTiki89 22:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Renaming skc[edit]

Currently called "Sauk", but Wikipedia, SIL publications on the language, and work by Alexandra Aikhenvald all call it "Ma Manda". A happy side effect of the move would be that we could add "Sauk" as an alias for sac, as it is probably the second most common name for that language. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Continuation of #Category:en:Names into Category:English names[edit]

Reviving the earlier discussion, I'm still bothered by the fact that we have two different categories for names. But the previous discussion also made it clear that it's not as easy as just merging them.

CodeCat 00:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, what I am going to say is somewhat off-topic and maybe I'm minority on that, but I would not mind using the naming system "Category:English xxxx" for all topical categories: Category:en:Chess -> English terms related to chess. (or any better name along those lines) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
"Category:en:Transliteration of personal names" could be renamed to "Category:English names transliterated from other languages", I suppose. What's the matter with the demonyms category? It contains demonyms, as expected. Would it be better titled "English demonyms", on the model of "English phrases"? - -sche (discuss) 06:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
"Category:en:Transliteration of personal names" would be better named "English transliterations of (foreigners') personal names". Notice the existence of e.g.Category:Latvian transliterations of English names.‎ Names of non-English speakers are not English names. I agree with CodeCat that place names belong to topic categories.--Makaokalani (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Wiktionary:About English to Wiktionary:English editing guidelines, or similar[edit]

And likewise for other languages. "About English" doesn't really reflect the purpose of these pages, they are really a collections of rules and guidelines specific to a single language. So I propose to rename them to something more descriptive. The name "editing guidelines" is up for debate, I'm mainly concerned about changing the name, not about what the name should be in the end. Other possibilities I could suggest include "English entry guidelines", "Editing English entries". —CodeCat 19:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably a good idea, despite longstanding practice. I guess "entry guidelines" is the best out of the possibilities you suggested, but I don't love the sound of any of them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah English entry guidelines sounds good to me. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

the Lega lects[edit]

We currently have separate codes for three lects considered part of the Lega macrolanguage: lea, lgm, and khx. These are reasonable to separate into two languages, lgm (which should be called Lega-Ntara) and lea (which should be called Lega-Malinga) as there is 67% mutual intelligibility, but khx is clearly a variety of lea. All this is per the treatment of the Beya dialect of lea in The Bantu Languages. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Support; merge khx into lea, with lgm remaining separate, and name everything per nom. I'm not sure why Wikipedia names the two main dialects using placenames. The full array of alternate names I encountered in (cursorily) researching the matter:
  • Mwenga Lega = Lega-Ntara / Lega Ntara (variously translated in refs as "Lower Lega", "Upper Lega" or "Eastern/Northern Lega") = Isile, Ishile, Kisile; Mwenda-Liga
  • Shabunda Lega = Lega-Malinga / Lega Malinga (variously translated in refs as "Upper Lega", "Lower Lega" or "Forest Lega" or "Western/Southern Lega") = Lega (Kilega) / Liga (Kiliga) proper; dialects: Kanu (Kikanu), Gala (Kigala), Yoma (Kiyoma), Sede (Kisede), Gonzabale, Beya (Beia), and possibly (Ki)Nyamunsange and Banagabo and Kabango and Bene
- -sche (discuss) 22:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Renaming lua[edit]

This language is currently called "Tshiluba", which is a really awful choice. First of all, tshi- is that good ol' language prefix that we often try not to have in language names (which I think is ci- in modern orthography), and there are in fact two Luba languages (the other is lu "Luba-Katanga"). To avoid confusion, we rightfully give neither the name Luba, but this is not much better, and we should rename it to "Luba-Kasai", as Wikipedia does. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

On the one hand, we do try to avoid prefixes. On the other hand, "Luba-Kasai" seems to more often be a placename and an ethnonym than a language name, and "Tshiluba" seems to be about twice as common. - -sche (discuss) 21:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The issue is that, AFAICT, "Tshiluba" is more commonly used because it refers to both Luba languages! This is not so much about prefixes so much as the issue of the name being exceedingly ambiguous in its referent. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

December 2015[edit]

Wiktionary:Blocking policy -> Wiktionary:Blocking [edit]

Suggestion: move Wiktionary:Blocking policy -> Wiktionary:Blocking.

Reason: "policy" is redundant. We could have Wiktionary:Entry layout policy as well, and maybe Wiktionary:Policy for criteria for inclusion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Good point; furthermore the page contains some non-policy information. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
X mark.svgN Not done Ipadguy (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Renaming or merging sta[edit]

Settler Swahili (known as Kisetla in Swahili) is one of the "morphosyntactically impoverished varieties" (to quote Mufwene's description) of Standard Swahili formerly spoken by white colonists in East Africa in order to conduct basic communication with the locals. Although somewhat pidginised, I think it can be considered a divergent and once dynamic part of Swahili (sw) rather than a truly separate language (and all the other so-called Swahili-based pidgins, like KiKAR, lack an ISO code altogether). If we do decide to keep it separate, however, it should certainly be renamed from its current "Kisettla" (sic) to "Settler Swahili", the more neutral name that Wikipedia uses as well. @-sche, if you're interested —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Goodness, there do seem to have been a lot of 'impoverished' varieties of Swahili. Abdulaziz Lodhi calls Kisetla / Settler Swahili / Kitchen Swahili a "social dialect" and compares it to Kibabu or Asian Swahili, a "broken" Swahili used by Kenyan and Ugandan Asians (he also mentions Cutchi-Swahili, a Cutchi-based Swahili creole). Harold Nelson additionally mentions Kihindi or Indian Swahili and Kishamba or Field Swahili as other dialects; someone else mentions Kimanga or Arab Swahili. Thomas Albert Sebeok calls Kisetla a "pidginized form", along with Kivita or Army Swahili (why does the army have its own Swahili?). A 1944 Geographical Magazine article calls it "a less grammatical dialect [...] which is easy to learn". At least one publication, the East African Standard, is said to have used a "happy medium between high-falutin' Swahili and Ki-Settler Swahili"!
Joseph Muthiani (as part of rejecting the idea that Kisetla is just or originated as babytalk) writes that "Kisetla was formed by [adult] European settlers as a functional communication tool. [...] Anyone who can speak 'standard Swahili' could use [the reduced] rules [that Kisetla used] and produce perfect Kisetla." He gives some examples, e.g. for the present tense he says "just use the verb stem": yeye fanya kazi sana instead of yeye anafanya "he works hard" and karibu fika instead of karibu kufika "almost arriving", likewise for simple subjunctives: kwenda pika chakula instead of kwenda ukapike chakula "go and cook food"; for negatives use "no" + the verb stem: hapana simama hapa for usisimame hapa "don't stand here"; ... in general it seems to involve using verb stems rather than more complex things. (Another example: "A terrible business. Shouri baya sana." "Shouri ya Mungu, memsahib kidogo." "Don't talk to me about God's business, Kamau.") Hence, even though on a practical level merging the dialects into Swahili (a WT:WDL) would likely have the effect of excluding them, it seems like people might still be able to figure out dialectal texts based on our (standard) Swahili content. (Also, a few Kisetla words / phrases might meet WDL CFI and still be includable even as ==Swahili==.)
I agree that it should be renamed if kept. I am not sure if it should be merged or kept separate. On the one hand, the fact that it seems to have rules suggests it could be considered its own thing. On the other hand, the comparison to babytalk (adults using less complex grammar to speak to children) and the fact that other varieties like Kihindi don't have codes, suggests that it could be merged.
- -sche (discuss) 23:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
@-sche: Well, firstly I really appreciate your scholarship on this issue, and your continued attention to the many language issues we have. Your findings support my opinion above that it ought to be merged into sw and that we would lose little or no coverage by doing so. (Some of what we lose is oddly transcribed material by non-native speakers that's lost anyway, as a product of nonstandard ad hoc spellings like shouri for standard shauri in your quote above, or use of <c> or <ck> in place of standard <k>.) I'm not sure if anyone else cares enough about this to comment, though — @Angr, perhaps? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Me? I don't know anything about this. From -sche's description, I'm inclined to merge it, but there are sure to be more facts that I'm unaware of. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone still speak it? It seems like the differences in verb conjugation could be covered in a short appendix (maybe I'll write one). And any unique vocabulary words that aren't attested three times are probably not important enough to include outside of another appendix like the ones we have for English nonces and such (although words that are attested three times but in different spellings will constitute annoying edge cases, as they always have). So, let's merge it. - -sche (discuss) 03:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Merged. We don't seem to have had any entries or translations in the language that would have needed updating. - -sche (discuss) 20:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:rfe and Template:rfelite[edit]

Both of these templates serve the same purpose, the only difference is in looks. So I think they should be merged. I have no particular preference for which we should keep, just that one of them should go. —CodeCat 23:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Provisional oppose, although I may change my mind; I'd like to see what @DCDuring, DTLHS think. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
They should either be merged (with one redirecting to the other), or kept. Since I generally don't like templates being needlessly consolidated, I'll say keep Purplebackpack89 23:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't really care. DTLHS (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Looks is a personal preference, so one of them should go. The "lite" one doesn't let an editor add reasoning (and I can only imagine reasoning awkwardly tacked onto the end of the notice), so I think that {{rfelite}} should be deleted. —suzukaze (tc) 23:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
@suzukaze-c Comments can always be added directly to the etymology section or as an unnamed parameter in any template that does not rely on such parameters for its functionality. DCDuring TALK 00:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any particular benefit to tidying by combining them. The templates differ by their look. That is not an insignificant consideration to whatever normal users may use our work, should there be any.
I think all of the big-display-box templates are hideous and potentially distracting to normal users. I'd bet that most contributions of etymologies are generated by contributors (not normal users) who find the entries by means other than noticing {{rfe}} (or {{rfelite}}). The same is probably true of {{rfi}} and {{rfc}}. I'd further bet that the main function these boxes serve is to steer a contributor to the particular part of the entry that needs work. A big box seems unnecessary for that function. In contrast, in the cases of {{rfd}} and {{rfv}}, arguably the distraction is intentional and constructive, as it serves as a warning to users that there may be something wrong with the definitions or that they might want to participate in the discussion about them.
I'd love to hear the thoughts of others, 1., on the effect of the differing displays on different types of normal users and, 2., on whether we still have the prospect of gaining such users in sufficient numbers to be of any concern to us. DCDuring TALK 00:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I think for clarity I'd merge {{etystub}} into {{rfelite}} rather than the other way around. But we should have both etystub and rfelite as they do the exact same job. {{rfe}} should really only be used when no etymology is present because it doesn't interact well with either text that's before it or after it. But it is more obviously visible, being in a box. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
{{etystub}} has a different message. It allows for the possibility that the etymology exists but is incomplete. Neither of the other two do that. Perhaps at least one of the two others should have a switch that changed the display to indicate the etymology, though present, is incomplete. The problem with not having such wording is that some new contributor could view {{rfe}} or {{rfelite}} as not having been removed when the etymology was added. Converting {{etystub}} to have a more modest appearance like that of {{rfelite}} would be an improvement. The big-box look it now has is enough to make me occasionally miss the presence of the stub etymology that is there. DCDuring TALK 22:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the nuance is much too small to be worth keeping. Just change it to 'absent or incomplete' and you're done. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


And Category:Cities in Czechia. Our own entry states that the term Czechia is a "rare" synonym of Czech Republic. Many educated Americans will never have even heard of the word Czechia. These should clearly be moved to Category:Czech Republic and Category:Cities in the Czech Republic. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I agree; the term "Czechia" is very rare. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I also agree. I've never encountered the word Czechia apart from on Wiktionary. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Ipadguy (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Ipadguy moved the category, but did not fix Category:Cities in Czechia nor the language subpages, and he did not fix the entries. Additionally, a month hasn't even passed yet. I have moved it back. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Range blocks[edit]

Move to Help:Range blocks, leaving the redirect. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Moving/merging it to Help:Blocks would be better. —CodeCat 20:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Ipadguy (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]


  1. A performer who demonstrates feats of strength.
  2. A man who competes in contests of physical strength.

These sound similar enough to be merged. Basically one is doing it as an entertainer and one's doing as part of a competition. You could say the same thing about a dancer, some participate in competitions, while others don't. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I've copied this from Talk:strongman to Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree. How about "Someone who performs feats of strength, sometimes in competitions."? - -sche (discuss) 04:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. - -sche (discuss) 06:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Appendix:Word formation verb -en noun -ness[edit]

Bad title. Need the word English in there, and something more 'fluent'. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As creator of this apx, I totally agree. Just wish I could think of something !! :-/ -- ALGRIF talk 15:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Hows about Appendix:English adjectives with derived terms in -en and -ness? Also, I think the derivation "strong" => "strengthen" and "strongness" may not be accurate and, in any event, is the weakest exemplar. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Resurrected out of the archives; anyone have ideas for a better title? - -sche (discuss) 04:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Appendix:Swadesh lists for Austronesian languages etc[edit]

and Appendix:Swadesh for Malayo-Polynesian languages - Appendix:Cognate sets for Austronesian languages

These overlap a lot, and should be merged in some way. -- Prince Kassad 17:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Added another one I found. -- Prince Kassad 10:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Resurrected out of the archives. - -sche (discuss) 04:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

February 2016[edit]

Category:European English[edit]

This category should either be deprecated in favour of, or should exist only as a container for, the British English and Irish English categories, and the label "European" should be deprecated from English entries in favour of "Ireland|UK". Compare how Category:North American English is just a container for the American English and Canadian English categories. - -sche (discuss) 02:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I wholly agree. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, perhaps a bit speedily, since there were only a dozen entries in it to begin with, and several of them were using "Europe" not to indicate that the word was restricted to European dialects, but just that the word denoted a European thing (like the ESA, which Americans also talk about whenever it launches stuff into space). - -sche (discuss) 16:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I actually prefer "Europe" over "UK, Ireland". —CodeCat 16:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
That dilutes British English entries (and ditto Irish English entries) into two categories — most in "British English", and then a few squirrelled away in "European English" — instead of one category. It also seems inaccurate, in that the only consistent "European" Englishes are British and Irish; English speakers outside the UK and Ireland in e.g. Germany might use either a US or a UK form depending on whether they studied British English in school, or spent time abroad in America (and in either case, they're using a UK or a US form). - -sche (discuss) 17:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
But we do the same with other languages as well. Compare Category:Southern Dutch versus the more specific Category:Brabantian Dutch. We also have Category:European Portuguese. —CodeCat 17:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Presumably, "Southern Dutch" exists as a dialect. Hence, the Dutch categories are comparable to Category:Southern US English + Category:Virginian English. Things which are used in both Southern US English and Midwestern US English (e.g. gullywasher, break bad) go into two separate categories for those two separate dialects, however; we don't lump them into a category "Category:Southern and Midwestern US English", and we shouldn't lump Irish and British together. - -sche (discuss) 18:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
European Portuguese isn't really a parallel case. That's the normal term for Portuguese from Portugal as opposed to Brazil (Angola, Mozambique, etc.). But "European English" is not a normal term for anything, however convenient it might be to have a term that means "UK + Ireland + Isle of Man + Channel Islands + Gibraltar + Malta English". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:English words with consonant pseudo-digraphs[edit]

Category:English words with vowel pseudo-digraphs[edit]

Category:English words with pseudo-digraphs[edit]

Category:English words with optional capitalisation[edit]

Category:English words with vocalic W[edit]

comment from the archive of unresolved discussions that went stale in 2010

Should be Category:English terms with consonant pseudo-digraphs. Ditto for Category:English words with vowel pseudo-digraphs. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added some categories. These categories, and the terribly named Category:English words with different meanings in different locations, are the only ones that begin "English words with..."; everything else we have is "English terms with...". Could someone with a bot please rename these to use "terms"? - -sche (discuss) 04:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Incidentally the pseudo-digraph categories are probably woefully out of date and possibly infeasible to maintain. - -sche (discuss) 04:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


As with other philias where the prefix is a nationality, the first letter should be a capital letter. Lilac pig (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Wait until it passes RFV. —CodeCat 16:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Please discuss. Lilac pig (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


I think national prefixes should start with a capital letter. Lilac pig (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


Move to {{borrowed}} like {{derived}} and {{inherited}}. For consistency. Will change virtually nothing as everyone use {{bor}} anyway. It's just a neatness exercise. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Support, kind of. The template itself actually says "borrowing"... —CodeCat 17:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I think the template text should be changed to "Borrowed from" anyway. --WikiTiki89 17:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I would support that too, but many entries use the template as part of a larger sentence, and changing the text would break that. —CodeCat 17:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of that. Like CodeCat says, "a Medieval borrowing from" would become "a Medieval borrowed from". Renard Migrant (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
We could get rid of the text from the template altogether, and add it manually to the entries instead. Then it would work like {{der}} and {{inh}}, which don't include text either. There's also {{calque}}, which has a similar issue. —CodeCat 17:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)