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)

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)

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)
This doesn't seem to be a RFM issue...? - -sche (discuss) 23:29, 2 July 2016 (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)

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)

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)

Merged (whereas, the ISO, while retaining gon, split ggo into two new codes which have not been added). - -sche (discuss) 06:27, 24 February 2016 (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)
R. David Zorc and ‎Louise Nibagwire have an entire Comparative Grammar (2007, ISBN 1931546320) devoted to the differences between the two, which Google unfortunately only shows snippets of, including the TOC which lays out spelling differences, noun class differences, "word pairs, one matched, the other completely different", and false friends, as well as dialect-specific tonal marking. However, vocabulary differences and false friends exist even between English dialects (luck out), and tonal marking and other pronunciation differences which aren't reflected in the orthography can be handled in pronunciation sections, as with Iranian Persian vs Dari. The only thing that gives me pause is the point that dialects on the extremes of the continuum "may not" be intelligible with each other per WP, but then, if the dialects aren't split up along national lines / along the same lines as the codes, then that's not a good argument against merger. - -sche (discuss) 00:14, 7 March 2016 (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)

It looks like all the sub-sub-categories (i.e. the categories which are in "Category:[language] alternative forms") could actually just be moved to various other categories, and then the empty remaining categories could be deleted. - -sche (discuss) 05:01, 13 February 2016 (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)

@Wikitiki89 To do that, we'd need to change how Template:euphemistic spelling of and Template:euphemistic form of categorize. - -sche (discuss) 05:15, 13 February 2016 (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]

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)


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)

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)

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]

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)

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)
@Tropylium, do these still need to be moved? - -sche (discuss) 22:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
They do, though we never did settle here if we should move them to use ԯ or ӆ. Since the latter is attestable as well, and seems to render better, I would be okay with it (even if we might be setting ourselves up for replacing these again with alternate-spelling soft-redirects some years down the line). --Tropylium (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2016 (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)
Moved. - -sche (discuss) 03:16, 29 February 2016 (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: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)

I Agree with Keith the Koala about the Counties and Regions of England move Mr Taz (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2016 (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)
I've started to merge these. - -sche (discuss) 05:14, 29 May 2016 (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)

August 2015[edit]

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)

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)


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)

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)

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]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
Not moved. - -sche (discuss) 00:13, 30 June 2016 (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)
Not moved. - -sche (discuss) 00:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


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)

Support merger. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Support DCDuring TALK 11:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

November 2015[edit]

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)

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)

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)

January 2016[edit]

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)
Which is exactly why I endorse using it. Everything else we use is inaccurate. —CodeCat 22:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
The trouble is, that isn't really a natural class. As far as English spelling is concerned, there's no difference between the English used in European countries and the English used almost everywhere else in the world (except Canada, the U.S., and countries currently or formerly associated with the U.S. like Liberia, the Philippines, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau). There really is no fully accurate name for that (some people call it "Commonwealth English", but Ireland isn't in the Commonwealth, and Canada has distinct spelling but is in the Commonwealth). As for terminology, I'd be very surprised if there were any words used in all the European countries I mentioned above but not in any of the GB-spelling non-European countries. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:28, 21 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)
"English words with different meanings in different locations" is legitimately hilariously bad. I thought it meant deixis (i.e. "here" means different places depending on where I'm standing when I say it). Equinox 08:42, 8 July 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)
I'll withdraw my support for this proposal per CodeCat, but I don't want the proposal removed. Abstain in other words. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Should we perhaps avoid templates that include too much predefined text, in the future? You have more freedom if you can specify the text yourself in the entry. —CodeCat 22:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I definitely agree with that. --WikiTiki89 19:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Most used Icelandic verbs[edit]

The naming of this should be adapted to the naming of the other "basic words" (so, Category:98 basic Icelandic verbs), which should also be standardized: currently, there is Category:1000 English basic words (with 997 words) and Category:1000 Japanese basic words (with 933 words), but the "basic" is on the other side of the language name in Category:1000 basic Italian words (with 8 words), Category:1000 basic Spanish words (with 417 words), etc. - -sche (discuss) 09:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Rhymes:English/iːʒə and Rhymes:English/ɪziə[edit]

I was under the impression that we didn't have separate entries for the US and UK variants of the same rhyme. While it's true that one can't get one variant merely by substituting the constituent phonemes in the other variant one-for-one, I don't believe there are any words where the entire sequence for one can't be replaced with the entire sequence for the other, except when the rest of the word doesn't match. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

have it[edit]

2 definitions: "to have died" and "to be beyond repair"

These meanings only exist for have had it, which doesn't and should have these. The translations need to be moved and checked as well. DCDuring TALK 15:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

caught with one's hand in the cookie jar[edit]

Move to hand in the cookie jar (now a redirect to this), which is included in many more expressions than this one, eg have one's hand in the cookie jar, to catch someone with their hand in the cookie jar. I would be happy to add redirects and for all possessive determiners and for the various verb forms of catch and have and usage examples for a selection of these and perhaps others, such as put and keep. DCDuring TALK 21:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

As it is now a search for "catch with his hand in the cookie jar" does not find this entry. DCDuring TALK 21:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


Ancient Greek prefix. Request for move to ἀπο-. Since the oxia won't always appear in the same place, the oxia shouldn't appear on the prefix, right? Pinging LlywelynII, Saltmarsh, Angr, and Erutuon (the non-bot users who have edited ἀπό- hitherto). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym: Why not move it yourself? --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
@kc kennylau: I wanted consensus to do so first. I'm not 100% confident when it comes to Ancient Greek, so I wanted agreement beforehand. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that prefixes shouldn't have accent marks. If you look through Category:Ancient Greek words prefixed with ἀπό- you'll see that not one single word listed there actually has an ό. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
A search at LSJ for words beginning with ἀπό shows many (7+ pages) beginning with ἀπό', but a search for ἀπο seems to yield all of those in the first search and 36 additional pages with no diacritic.
Why couldn't we have both, with the dominant one as a main entry, possibly with a brief explanation of the situation and the other as a redirect. DCDuring TALK 16:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
That would work too. It should be moved to ἀπο-, but there's no reason to uncheck the "Leave a redirect?" box. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I support the move. It's only by chance that the omicron in some compounds with ἀπο- has an acute, not due to any inherent accent belonging to the prepositional prefix. Accent is generally either recessive or on the ultima; when it's recessive, there's a chance of accent falling on the omicron (if the ultima is short and the omicron is in the antepenult). Accent falls on the alpha in rare cases, apparently (in ἄποδος "give back!", though the form ἀπόδος is also listed; not sure when each is used). So both ἄπο- ‎(ápo-) and ἀπό- ‎(apó-) could be brief entries that point readers to ἀπο- ‎(apo-). — Eru·tuon 20:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Sure, if most of the words using this prefix at LSJ are given without the accent, it makes sense (a) to have it at the unaccented form or (b) at least redirect from there. The prefix by itself should have the accent there, just like the preposition, nuh? What do the other dictionaries list it as? or do we have any general policy regarding treatment of accented prefixes? — LlywelynII 07:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
LSJ doesn't list prefixes; not sure about other lexicons.
Maybe this is information you already have, but here's my reasoning. In English, each part in a compound usually has its own accent. That's why Lieutenant Barclay in Star Trek: The Next Generation incorrectly said méta-thésis. He was applying the English stress rule: accent on first syllable, on each part of the compound.
Not how the Greek rules work. Only one of the last three syllables can have accent, even in compound words (at least according to the established rules of accent...). Accent is random: it can be based on the accent of the last element in the compound, or not. But prepositions are never the last element in the compound, so they always give up their right to have an accent when they become a prefix. So, ἀπό has its own accent as an independent word, but as a prefix it has no accent of its own. Different from English, where únder has accent on the first syllable whether it's a preposition or a prefix (únder-stánding). — Eru·tuon 08:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
A couple of points: (1) Prefixes are bound morphemes: they don't stand by themselves, so in Ancient Greek they don't have their own accent (even some free morphemes don't have accents of their own in grc). The preposition ἀπό ‎(apó) has a stress of its own, but the prefix ἀπο- ‎(apo-) doesn't. (2) It was Data who said "méta-thésis"; he was talking about the mispronunciation of Lt. Barclay's name as "Broccoli". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Oops, you're right, it was Data talking about Barclay. Perhaps I need to rewatch TNG. :-) On your other point, are English disyllabic prepositional prefixes then not bound morphemes, because they have their own accent? — Eru·tuon 18:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't draw that conclusion. English stress rules are different from Ancient Greek accent rules. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@kc kennylau, Angr, DCDuring, Erutuon, LlywelynII: The trouble with including entries — even redirects — for ἄπο- ‎(ápo-) and ἀπό- ‎(apó-) is that doing so would encourage linking to those non-morphemes, which would lead to derivations being split between three different derivations categories (namely the correct Category:Ancient Greek words prefixed with ἀπο- and the erroneous Category:Ancient Greek words prefixed with ἀπό- and Category:Ancient Greek words prefixed with ἄπο-) and is likely to give the wrong impression of why the oxia is in the place that it is (which, as Erutuon explains, is nothing at all to do with the prefix, and is rather due to the rules of the Ancient Greek recessive accent). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel like that's a huge danger. Irish suffixes generally appear in two forms, one after "broad" consonants and one after "slender" consonants, e.g. -óg and -eog, yet we have just one Category:Irish words suffixed with -óg. If anyone's tempted to add a word to the nonexistent Category:Irish words suffixed with -eog, the fact that it's a red link is probably reminder enough to categorize it under the alternative spelling instead. Surely once Category:Ancient Greek words prefixed with ἀπό- is deleted, its redness will also be reminder enough to people to use Category:Ancient Greek words prefixed with ἀπο- instead. It's not as if we have masses of inexperienced newbs falling over themselves to add Etymology sections to Ancient Greek entries. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
@Aɴɢʀ: I'm not so sure. If the prefix itself were blue-linked, I would take that to be a sign that the derivations category should also be created. The Irish -óg and -eog aren't analogous, because those are two forms of the same suffix; the Ancient Greek ἄπο- ‎(ápo-) and ἀπό- ‎(apó-) are not forms of ἀπο- ‎(apo-), because the oxia is in no way part of the prefix. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Your point w/r/t redirects misleading editors w/r/t categories seems entirely mistaken.
More importantly, the conversation above was reaching the conclusion that ἀπό- ‎(apó-) is prima facie illegitimate, not that it had a separate meaning. Were they mistaken? — LlywelynII 14:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
@LlywelynII: AFAICT, no one in this discussion believes that ἀπό- ‎(apó-) has a separate meaning from ἀπο- ‎(apo-). The (IMO mistaken) belief held by some (again, AFAICT) is that ἀπό- ‎(apó-) and ἄπο- ‎(ápo-) are alternative spellings of the prefix ἀπο- ‎(apo-). As Erutuon has explained, where the oxia goes has nothing to do with the prefix, and is rather down to the rules of the Ancient Greek recessive accent. At this point, I think we're all agreed (pace, perhaps, yourself) that ἀπο- ‎(apo-) should be lemmatised; the discussion now, I think, concerns whether ἀπό- ‎(apó-) and ἄπο- ‎(ápo-) should exist as redirects thereto. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone have any thoughts about the situations which would lead to the use of ἀπό- ‎(apó-) and ἄπο- ‎(ápo-)? Are there any? DCDuring TALK 01:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@DCDuring: As Erutuon wrote above (in his post timestamped: 20:30, 27 February 2016), “Accent is generally either recessive or on the ultima; when it's recessive, there's a chance of accent falling on the omicron (if the ultima is short and the omicron is in the antepenult).” Epistulâ citato, he mentions ἄποδος ‎(ápodos, give back!) as an example word where the oxia falls on the prefix's alpha in combination; this is merely an application of the same rule of the recessive accent, mut. mut., viz "[the] accent fall[s] on the [alpha] if the ultima is short and [alpha] is in the antepenult" (such a situation is rare because it only occurs in trisyllables). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
This is a dictionary. It is not a model of languages, except in support of its function as a dictionary. It has users. In what situation would a user get something out of the redirect? DCDuring TALK 02:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@DCDuring: I misunderstood your earlier question. Re "In what situation would a user get something out of the redirect?", I don't know; copying and then pasting into the search box the first three letters of a given word? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 03:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
That sounds like it might happen. So why not have the redirects? DCDuring TALK 03:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@DCDuring: The thing is, that user would need to remember to add a hyphen after those first three letters, which means that that user would have to have a pretty good idea that those first three letters constitute a prefix. How likely is it that a user will know that those first three letters constitute a prefix without knowing anything about what that prefix means? For someone that unfamiliar with Ancient Greek, I would think that the best (and perhaps only) indicator that those first three letters constitute a prefix would be their being linked to independently in an Ancient Greek entry's etymology section. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I would expect a wide variety of levels of knowledge of Greek, of questions being addressed, and even of basic computer skills among users. Redirects are cheap and abundantly used in other modern online dictionaries. So why not? DCDuring TALK 00:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
@DCDuring: For the reasons I gave in my post above (timestamped: 02:15, 1 March 2016). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
That seems somewhat far-fetched and, in any event, the consequences are not horrible. This monument to correctness that we are building does need to have users who find it useful. DCDuring TALK 02:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @DCDuring: IMO, the scenario I outlined is not as far-fetched as the circumstance in which someone actually uses these redirects.
What form will these redirects take? Hard redirects? Full alternative-form entries? Will they be listed in the Alternative forms section of ἀπο- ‎(apo-)? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Users found those forms so readily that the prefix was created at those forms of the word. Of course there should be redirects. For that matter, there should be redirects from our standard romanized form of the Greek letters, but that's an entirely separate kettle of fish. — LlywelynII 20:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
@LlywelynII: With all due respect, your "proof" isn't very convincing, since it was you who created the entry for that prefix two years and seven months ago. "Of course there should be redirects." is pure assertion, devoid of any argumentation. Your desire to have Romanisation entries for Greek terms is far more justifiable from the point of view of accessibility than is your desire to have these redirects, given that a user unfamiliar with Greek is really quite likely to come across Romanised Greek terms (especially if they're mentioned in the running text of some other, Latin-script language). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
@Μετάknowledge: Thank you. Where do you stand on the issue of whether or not to have redirects from the two forms with the oxia? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
From my experience with Special:WantedCategories, I would say that the most likely scenario is that people will create what they want to create regardless of link color. What's more, if the form they're using is a redlink, they're just as likely to assume there's no prefix entry, and create one. That will mean not just a bluelink and multiple categories, but multiple lemmas, as well. The deletion message for this form may deter them, but there would be no such message on the form with the initial accent. Usually, we avoid redirects for most entries for the reason that they would discourage page creation in cases where some other language has a term with the same spelling. In this case, we want to discourage page creation, so redirects are a good idea. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I concur with Chuck. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Chuck Entz, Metaknowledge: Very well; the consensus seems to be in favour of redirects (by which I assume hard redirects is meant). What's the best way to handle cases of incorrect categorisation brought about by users calling ἀπό- ‎(apó-) and/or ἄπο- ‎(ápo-) as etyma? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Rename Template:Q to Template:quote[edit]

{{Q}} differs only from {{q}} which is confusing and should be remedied. The name {{quote}} is short enough, especially for a template that isn't used that frequently (compare {{usex}}). —CodeCat 21:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Using {{quote}} as the full name is OK as long as the change quote -> blockquote is accepted (although that should have been RFM'd). However I'd suggest {{quo}} as a shorter alias. Benwing2 (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I oppose this renaming. For starters, {{q}} has only been here for one month and is a redirect (to {{qualifier}}), whereas {{Q}} has been here since December 2013 and is a true template. I use {{Q}} all the time in Ancient Greek entries, which language has (as far as I'm aware) the most well-developed Quotations data module of any language on this project. {{Q}} is much more useful than {{usex}}/{{ux}} and this project as a whole would benefit greatly from its increased use in entries for languages other than Ancient Greek. If this confusion needs to be remedied at all, move {{q}} to {{qual}} or such (though I don't know why {{i}} isn't convenient enough). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh look, {{qual}} already exists! In that case, either delete {{q}} or leave things as they are. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Support. - -sche (discuss) 04:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Support. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose per I.S.M.E.T.A. For the record, {{q}} was created by Daniel Carrero on 28 January 2016‎. A recent vote showed general preference for short template names; this goes in the opposite direction. Using AWB, I find {{Q}} transcluded on 1488 pages. Note that {{quote}} was recently renamed to {{blockquote}} by Dixtosa, on 28 May 2015‎. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. Like I.S.M.E.T.A., I constantly use {{Q}} to give examples of Ancient Greek words. — Eru·tuon 17:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Support. I would be OK with getting rid of both and forcing the use of {{quote}} and {{qualifier}}. Saving a few keystrokes results in confusion and illegible wiki markup. - TheDaveRoss 17:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. per ISMETA. —JohnC5 19:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. --WikiTiki89 19:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. Opposite of TheDaveRoss: it's fine to move this unhelpfully named template to something more descriptive but short forms should be maintained. — LlywelynII 20:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. Enosh (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Malay lects[edit]

I propose to merge the following Malay lects into Malay [ms]:

  • Jakun [jak]
  • Orang Kanaq [orn]
  • Orang Seletar [ors]
  • Temuan [tmw]

These are all mere dialects of Malay with no written tradition and perfectly mutually intelligible. Even Ethnologue says they should be considered dialects of Malay rather than separate languages. -- Liliana 23:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Support. - -sche (discuss) 02:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Support. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. - -sche (discuss) 04:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Renaming nxg[edit]

This language is far more commonly called "Ngadha" than "Ngad'a"; the latter spelling is so rare that when I was trying to verify our "Ngad'a" translation of water using that spelling for the language name, I couldn't find any references at all (they all spell it "Ngadha"). This rename entails moving a few categories and updating a handful of entries. - -sche (discuss) 02:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Should Eastern Ngad'a be merged? - -sche (discuss) 04:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

in lieu[edit]

I didn't find any use at COCA of this except in in lieu of (1,045) and (Canada, legal) pay in lieu (2). There was one use of in lieu thereof. The other seven instances included the name of a band, an incomplete spoken utterance, and similar.

I suspect that the translations belong at in lieu of or perhaps at fr.wikt. DCDuring TALK 04:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Move to in lieu of per nom. - -sche (discuss) 05:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
There are hits at Google Books for in lieu appointment]. Note that not all of them actually contain the phrase: some have "... in lieu. Appointment...". The same is true of in lieu payment], though it seems to be more common with a hyphen. It may not be that common, but in lieu does seem to be used as a legal/accounting term without any form of "of". Chuck Entz (talk) 06:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I see. That would merit a reworking of the entry for in lieu, which looks to be limited to legal contexts. It seems that in lieu is often an abbreviation of in lieu of (something obvious from the context). In its prepositive attributive use "substitute" seems like a synonym or definition. DCDuring TALK 15:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
There's also a day off in lieu [3] although I've no idea whether this would be better treated by a separate entry or an additional sense ("substitute") at in lieu. --Droigheann (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
To me it seems that the uses that are not in lieu of are derived from use of in lieu of in a legal context including labor law. They all seems to have become completely conventionalized in meaning – therefore dictionary-worthy – though sometimes the meaning might turn out to be restricted to a specific context. I think this might work presented as a non-gloss definition with each of the most typical applications illustrated with a usage example and possible with a subsense. DCDuring TALK 17:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


We currently include both the macrolanguage Bontoc (code: bnc) and its dialects, particularly Eastern Bontok (not even using the same spelling, you notice! code: ebk) which we have about ~35 translations in. IMO, it rarely makes sense to include both a macrolanguage and also all of its dialects; we should usually have one or the other but not both. Ethnologue says the dialects are "reportedly similar", as if they split bnc into dialects in 2010 without without knowing enough about them to tell whether they were similar or distinct. The International Encyclopedia of Linguistics considers Central Bontoc to be only 56% intelligible with Eastern Bontoc, which is only a few percentage points better than the intelligibility of the various Bontocs with Ilocano, suggesting that at least Central and Eastern Bontocs, if not the others, are different languages. Our ~15 "Bontoc" (bnc) entries seem to be Central (Igorot) Bontoc and could be relabelled accordingly if we deprecated bnc. - -sche (discuss) 07:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@-sche: Relabelled "Central Bontoc" or "Igorot Bontoc"? And is it "Bontoc" or "Bontok"? Whatever the details, I support the idea of reducing the macrolanguage Bontoc (bnc) to an etymology-only language in favour or having translations and entries for the various Bontoc languages. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
"Central Bonto(c|k)" is more common than "Igorot Bonto(c|k)" or "Bontok Igorot", and "Bontoc" is more common than "Bontok". I've tweaked the canonical spelling of Central Bontoc (lbk) accordingly; I suppose the other Bontocs which are currently spelled with k should also be updated. - -sche (discuss) 01:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@-sche: "Cental Bontoc" it is, then. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
A number of works refer to "the Bontoc language" without specifying which of the Bontoc languages they mean, and we couldn't easily include words from these works if we deprecated bnc; there are even books like Clapp's Vocabulary of the Igorot Language as Spoken by the Bontok Igorots which conflate all the languages of the Igorot people (perhaps understandably, given the point above that the Bontocs and e.g. Ilocano are equally different from each other). However, if we accept that being barely halfway mutually intelligible makes Central vs Eastern Bontoc separate languages, then we're not losing anything of quality by not following (and not being able to easily add content from) books that fail to distinguish such different lects. - -sche (discuss) 03:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@-sche: Quite. Though, there will be occasions when it will not possible to work out easily from which of the Bontoc languages a given term in a borrowing language will have been derived. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 03:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Split. - -sche (discuss) 04:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

March 2016[edit]

Linear A[edit]

Strangely enough we have a language code for Linear A [lab], even though Linear A is a writing system and not a language. I have no idea why it was encoded or why we have it. -- Liliana 15:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It's very odd. The script code for Linear A is "Lina"; the language code for Minoan is "omn"; but there's also a language code "lab" for a language called "Linear A". I have no idea what ISO and SIL were thinking, but I'm in favor of deleting "lab" from our modules. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll bet their thinking is that the language written in the script may be an unknown language, which would be consistent with w:Linear A. There do seem to be a large number of hypotheses about Linear A, nearly on the same order as the total number of recorded instances of the script. DCDuring TALK 18:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I see. Reading Minoan language more carefully, I see that it's written in both Cretan hieroglyphs and Linear A, but since neither writing system has been deciphered, it isn't known whether it's the same language in two writing systems or two different languages. So maybe "omn" means Minoan in Cretan hieroglyphs and "lab" means Minoan in Linear A, and they may or may not refer to the same language. Given that the language is unknown and undeciphered, I wonder why we have one Minoan lemma: kuro. How do we know this word was pronounced "kuro" and that it means "total"? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
It's in the wrong script anyway (it was added before Unicode covered Linear A), but afaik Linear A can be read simply by using the known values for Linear B syllables, which are visually similar. This word is always found at the end of lists, followed by a number, so the meaning was easy to figure out. -- Liliana 10:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


New Latin suffix, non-gloss defined as "used to form taxonomic names, often from non-Latin stems". Request for move to its own Translingual section. It forms taxonomic names, which are Translingual, and, as the definition states, sometimes forms them on non-Latin bases. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Move to -ianus#Translingual. "Translingual" sometimes follows its own rules. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

April 2016[edit]

Baïnounk Gubëeher[edit]

This obscure lect does seem like a separate language, but wasn't described until Cobbinah (2013). The Wikipedia article follows his lead and calls it thus, but it seems odd for us to do so, given that all the other Bainouk languages are given names starting with Bainouk. We also need to decide on a code, perhaps alv-bgu. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Renaming bzj[edit]

The name we use, "Belize Kriol English", is certainly among the more uncommon names of this language. Much better would be just "Belize Kriol"; there might also be argument to be made for the more dated term "Belizean Creole" (which is the title of the Wikipedia entry). There is one entry which would have to be changed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Books/Greek Anatomy Terms and Wiktionary:Books/ukrainianverbs[edit]

I'm not really sure what these two are supposed to be. Should they be moved somewhere? or should they be deleted? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Conrad.Irwin/editor.js to something better[edit]

This hasn't been Conrad's personal project for many years, so we should give it a name that reflects its full status on Wiktionary. I don't know what name should be used, or if there is a naming scheme for these kinds of things. I know very little of our JS infrastructure overall. But I do think this should be renamed. —CodeCat 16:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Renaming aig[edit]

We currently call this "Antigua and Barbuda Creole English" — names containing and are suspect, in my opinion. Wikipedia calls it "Leeward Caribbean Creole English". The most common name in literature seems to be "Antiguan Creole", which is what I suggest renaming it. - -sche (discuss) 03:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The country is called Antigua and Barbuda, so I don't see anything suspicious about the name per se. Nevertheless, I prefer Wikipedia's name, since it's also spoken in Montserrat, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Anguilla. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I concur with Angr, although I have hesitations about changing it. The use of "Antiguan Creole" seems to be mainly by scholars who are just studying the lect spoken on that island and not worrying about what is and isn't considered the same language. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


"Adverb" Passing by, especially without stopping or being delayed.

  1. Ignore them, we'll play past them.
    Please don't drive past the fruit stand, I want to stop there.

This seems to me to be a preposition sense, possibly identical to one already under that L2. DCDuring TALK 11:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Frankfurt-an-der-Oder and Frankfurt an der Oder[edit]

Frankfurt-an-der-Oder was marked for deletion by an IP because the entry itself doesn't use the hyphens, and there's already an entry at the un-hyphenated spelling. In this case, though, they both have long histories, and the hyphenated spelling has more content. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The hyphenated version shouldn't be deleted, but it should be marked as an alternative spelling of the unhyphenated version. The hyphenated version is occasionally used in English, e.g. [4]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

May 2016[edit]


Nobody calls them "eevolutions". It has always been "eeveelutions", in the fandom and eventually in-series.-- 07:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Eeveelution looks citable (from Usenet), and Google's count (of said posts) suggests it's about three times more common than eevolution, so yes, this entry could be moved. - -sche (discuss) 16:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
The citations seem to show that Eevolution has been used as an at least occasional variant. We probably should simply have an entry for eeveelution as well, with eevolution given as an alternative form. --Tropylium (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016[edit]

unlicenced and unlicensed[edit]

Should these be merged? -- 11:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done. At first I thought it was a simple en-GB/en-US split, but then I remembered that the verb is spelled license even in en-GB and therefore only unlicensed is the correct spelling. I've marked unlicenced as a misspelling. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Finnish passive verbs[edit]

Nonsensical: these are not verbs "usually used in the passive" (I would suppose they are used in the passive more rarely — verb forms like kaaduttiin 'there was falling down' aren't needed too often) but rather a collection of intransitive verbs with some kind of reflexive or middle semantics. Probably should be merged with Category:Finnish intransitive verbs. --Tropylium (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Translation requests (X) to Category:X translation requests / Category:Translations to be checked (X) to Category:X translations to be checked[edit]

Unintuitive names that don't match the rest of the category structure or other maintenance categories, hence require totally different code to parse and can't use {{auto cat}}. DTLHS (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Support. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Support. I hope it makes a difference to new contributors. DCDuring TALK 02:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Other categories[edit]

@DTLHS, Metaknowledge, DCDuring:

Suggestion: Make all the request categories in all languages use the same naming system, per the same reasons given for the categories above.

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Is it me, or does "attention requests" sound a bit odd? Might there be a better noun to use for that one? Equinox 20:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Category:English review requests? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@DTLHS, Metaknowledge, DCDuring, Daniel Carrero, Equinox: Might not Category:English requests for … be better nomenclature? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
That's probably the best suggestion! —CodeCat 13:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe that's a good idea. I believe this would be the full list, please check if it's ok:
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I think "Requests for etymologies" ought to be singular "etymology", same for "pronunciation", "transliteration", maybe also "translation". —CodeCat 14:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
For the record, the full names of these 4 categories would be:
And do you think these other 4 categories don't look as good in the singular and should be plural:
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I support getting rid of "needing" and going to "English requests for"; I also support the singular, and thus, "etymology" instead of "etymologies", "image" instead of "images" and the like. Since so many categories are involved, this should be done via a vote, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe this discussion could serve the purpose of reviewing what exactly are the category names we want (as we are discussing right now), for a vote to be created later.
For the record, I believe it's been 5 years since we had votes for changing the names of many categories at once. Some of the passing votes were: Wiktionary:Votes/2011-04/Derivations categories, Wiktionary:Votes/2011-04/Lexical categories and Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-05/Add en: to English topical categories, part 2. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
These are good votes, providing relatively strong evidence of consensus. The current "needing" category names are a result of the use of this very RFM process without strong evidence of consensus, as far as I remember. The good thing about this RFM is that it was announced via Beer parlour, but still, the vote pages create the strongest evidence of consensus in part since there are never too many votes running concurrently, which is not true of RFM. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I support getting rid of "needing". (though I'm still thinking whether the singular or plural looks better IMO) As discussed in the 2015 vote "Language-specific rfi categories", @Dan Polansky said, and I quote: "The category tracks where an image was requested, not where it is needed."
For the record, the RFM discussion that introduced "needing" is: Category talk:English entries needing definition#RFM discussion: August–September 2014. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Suggested names for the parent categories:

Cross-language umbrella categories:

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

+a few categories:

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

w:Huarpean languages[edit]

These are three extinct languages of Argentina that lack ISO codes, but two of them have recorded material (the third, Puntano, seems pointless to add). The only problem is that some linguists consider these to be dialects of the same language, although that is debated and cannot be satisfactorily resolved with the limited preserved lexica from each. I would prefer we follow es.wiktionary's lead in adding separate codes for Allentiac (sai-all) and Millcayac (sai-mil). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


Another language we need a code for, presumably sai-mat. Is there a more efficient way to find languages we've missed than my current method, which is simply happening upon them? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I suppose you could go through w:Category:Languages without ISO 639-3 code but with Linguist List code. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Renaming bvx[edit]

The di- in its current name, Dibole, is one of those language prefixes, but curiously enough, the most commonly used name for this language is actually Babole, with a different prefix. (Luckily, unprefixed Bole isn't used, because it's taken up already by bol.) We should rename this to Babole accordingly. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

If I know anything about Bantu languages, "Babole" refers to the people who speak it rather than the language itself. Is this really what they call it? —CodeCat 18:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I noted that it was odd. You're welcome to compare google books:"Dibole language" and google books:"Babole language" yourself. Not much work is done on it, but when it is, it's called Babole. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, searching google books:"Dibole" language turns up nothing relevant, and searching google books:"Bole" language and google books:"Bole" language Nigeria OR Congo finds only references to the Nigerian Bole. Whereas, google books:"Babole" language is well attested. Rename. - -sche (discuss) 03:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Ancient North Arabian[edit]

Next up, the Ancient North Arabian lects. They are understudied, their scripts are not yet in Unicode, and it's not entirely clear what their relationships are. I think the conservative way to add codes for them, given that they are long-extinct and have relatively small, finite lexica, is to assign a code assuming that each one is a separate language from each other and from Arabic. (This will also be helpful down the line when their scripts are encoded.) There appear to be multiple languages being called Thamudic, but that's a bridge that we can cross when the scholarship does. I'd suggest sem-dad (Dadanitic), sem-dum (Dumaitic), sem-has (Hasaitic), sem-his (Hismaic), sem-saf (Safaitic), sem-tay (Taymanitic), and sem-tha (Thamudic). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Why sem-dud for Dumaitic? Benwing2 (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Support. - -sche (discuss) 03:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016[edit]

More languages without ISO codes, part 1[edit]

I have gone through w:Category:Languages without ISO 639-3 code but with Linguist List code (thanks, Angr), and the languages listed below still need exceptional codes. I have not listed those that have no recorded material or toponyms, or those that are treated as a dialect of another language in the linguistic literature (like Akokisa). I have put suggested codes after them, and notes where I'm unsure (please correct me if I made any mistakes). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Amarizana: add per nom. Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald in Languages of the Amazon cautions that "many languages in Amazonia have 'namesakes' [and] more than one group may hide behind the same name", and more than one language has been called Amarizana: "one of the clans of the Piapoco is the Amarizanes (and the name is sometimes applied to the whole group). A now extinct language, also called Amarizana, and from the same Arawak family, used to be spoken in the Meta territory of modern Colombia." Nonetheless, the only references I find unambiguously mean this language. Čestmír Loukotka, Johannes Wilbert, Classification of South American Indian Languages (1968), page 131, lists some Amarizana words alongside and hence obviously distinct from Piapoco, including nuita "head", notuy "eye", nukagi "hand", kaxü "house", sietai "water", eriepi "fire" and keybin "sun". Julian Granberry's A Grammar and Dictionary of the Timucua Language even provides some etymology, connecting Amarizana eri(-...) "fire" to Achagua eri "sun, day", Arekena ale "sun".
  • Amasi: this happens to highlight what a mess our African language family codes are. Several codes use the prefix nic- even though their most immediate superfamily is alv, e.g. nic-vco should be alv-vco. Fortunately, fixing the nic- codes should not require updating very many pages. One that is done, precedent would have us use alv-bco-... rather than alv-... (compare nai-yuc-tip, qfa-ctc-cat), although the argument in favor of a shorter code is obvious. :-/ Some words are listed in a 1973 article in Africana Marburgensia ('AM') and in a pre-draft working paper cited by WP ('B'), including (AM) / bu (B) "dog", ázɔ́lí (AM) / azɔle (B) "tree", ɣà-nēm (AM) / ɣanim (B) "man", ɣà-zhyī (-zhyì?) (AM) / ɣaʒɛ (B) "woman", mwɔ̄ (AM) / muɔ (B) "water".
  • Anauyá: add per nom. Also called Anauya, but the version with diacritic is more common. [5] has uni "water" and ahiri "sun", the latter confirmed by I Simposio Antonio Tovar sobre Lenguas Amerindias: Tordesillas... (Emilio Ridruejo Alonso, ‎Mara Fuertes, ‎Carlos González-Espresati; 2003) and both are seemingly in the aforementioned Classification of South American Indian Languages, although I can't see the exact snippet.
  • Atanque(s): out of the various names WP mentions, namely "Atanque (Atanques) or Cancuamo (Kankuamo), also known as Kankwe and Kankuí", plus others I ran across (Atanke), "Atanques" seems to be most common, at least as the name of the language. ("Kankuamo" is quite common as a placename(?) that forms part of the designation of a tribe.) A 1962 article in Anthropological Linguistics has some words, including jo̱ke "gourd cup", cognate to cho̱kue ‎(gourd cup), and mo̱ga "two", cognate to mo̱ga ‎(two), and the 1981 Comparative Chibchan Phonology has more words (and may drop the underline from the os of those words; it is hard to see, because all words are underlined), including ji "worm", jinua "six".
  • Ayomán (rarely also Ayoman): I've added a code for Jirajaran, sai-jir, so this language's code should be sai-jir-ayo.
- -sche (discuss) 07:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
@-sche: Can't we just do two-part codes so we don't have to feel obligated to create these horribly long ones? It wouldn't clash with all of our preëxisting practice, despite there being some precedent. Also, I'm worried that your careful work on this is going to make this RFM section far too long, and also cause you to burn out. Perhaps this should be a user page that this section links to? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Where an existing ISO family code like alv exists, I suppose we could go with two-part codes, but then what should be done with languages that have no ISO family code but instead belong to families for which we've had to create qfa- codes? I suppose they can be treated the same as they are now. But if we accept nai and sai as family codes for this purpose, I suppose that means some qfa- things like Salvadoran Lenca and Catacao can be re-coded. I will update the existing three-part non-proto-language codes if we go that route. I've started Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2016/July#Shortening_some_.27exceptional.27_language_codes.
Yes, I considered as probably should start storing long comments and information on addable vocabulary in userspace. I wouldn't worry too much about burnout; we can take time; the only reason there would be a rush to add these codes ASAP is if we wanted to add words in particular ones of them, and if we wanted to add words, we'd need to do some research to find words to add. - -sche (discuss) 17:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Regarding Burgundian, what should we do about Burgundian language (Oïl)? Add it, too? - -sche (discuss) 01:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I assumed that it could be subsumed under fr, as the Oïl languages usually are, but we probably ought to address it separately. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I mean, is it separate from fr? I don't know. In any case, I guess on further consideration it doesn't stop us from adding the Germanic language as "Burgundian", because if the Romance language needs to be added, it can be Bourguignon. (And since they're from different (sub)families, it should be easy to tell which one was meant if someone enters a word from one incorrectly as the other.) I'll collect information about them at User:-sche/Burgundian. - -sche (discuss) 16:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Btw, I found and added another one we were missing, Macoris, attested in one word (baeza) and some placenames. - -sche (discuss) 06:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, there are tons more. This is only the low-hanging fruit; a lot more languages with paltry data are waiting to be dealt with. I'm avoiding the Bantu ones for now, because pretty much all of them are in dialect continua and probably should be left alone unless good scholarship on their mutual intelligibility can be found (which I suppose I should go about finding). There's a pile of Australian ones that I'll get around to listing at some point (I thought maybe I'd give you time to digest all this first), and then even more messier ones from South America. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, re 'time to digest', I'd feel free to post any others you have the data to post (except the ones you mention are parts of dialect continua ... might as well leave them alone, as long as some part of the continuum has a code, although if no part does, then we should probably rectify that). There's no harm in it sitting around on the site unattended-to for a while, whereas letting it sit on one's computer sometimes (at least for me) means forgetting where one put it. (I can no longer find the information I thought I had collected on the separability vs mergeability of Haida dialects.) - -sche (discuss) 16:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Regarding Ch'olti': The oldest stage of the language (written in so-called hieroglyphs), sometimes confusingly just called "Ch'olti'" but more often called by other names, has its own code emy. The Colonial- and post-Colonial-era stage is considered distinct from emy, and also considered distinct from the more recent stages of Ch'orti', e.g. one reference says "In the Mayan classificatory tradition, the Ch'olti' language, as recorded in the 1695 grammar of Pedro Moran, is generally held to be related to but separate from the modern language of Ch'orti' (see Kaufman's 1976 classification, for example)." Post-Epigraphic-era Ch'olti' and modern-era Ch'orti' (caa) are theoretically distinguished from each other as different branches of Eastern Ch'olan (and from ctu, as it is a Western Ch'olan language), but the size of the difference between Ch'olti' and Ch'orti' is hard to ascertain, especially because, quoth WP, "the post-colonial stage of the language is only known from a single manuscript written between 1685 and 1695" (as afore-mentioned). For that matter, the size of the difference between Epigraphic Ch'olti'an and Colonial Ch'olti' is not obvious to me; Søren Wichmann, The Linguistics of Maya Writing (2004), page 271, says "In this section we show how Classic Ch'olti'an became seventeenth-century Ch'olti'. The chief grammatical difference between the grammars of Classic Ch'olti'an and Ch'olti' is the difference between straight- and split-ergativity." As an example, mi "father" is used in Classic and Colonial Ch'olti'(an) and in Ch'orti'. Nonetheless, given that the corpus of post-emy Ch'olti' is small and well-defined, it shouldn't be that hard to include it separately from emy and caa. - -sche (discuss) 21:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I also added Wanham. - -sche (discuss) 22:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I've split the discussion so that ones that are done can be archived. - -sche (discuss) 19:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

More languages without ISO codes, part 2[edit]

{—Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC))

I've split the discussion so that ones that are done can be archived. - -sche (discuss) 19:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
There may be two lects called Guachí. Wikipedia places a Guachí / Wachí, which it considers possibly Guaicuruan, in Argentina. Glottolog places a possibly-Guaicuruan Guachí in southwestern Brazil, in Mato Grosso do Sul, where Opaie is also spoken. The index to Čestmír Loukotka, Johannes Wilbert, Classification of South American Indian Languages (1968), says they describe Guachí is two places: pages 51-52, which I can't see, and page 66, which says: "Opaie or Ofaie-Chavante - spoken on the Ivinhema, Pardo and Nhandui Rivers in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso, now by only a few individuals. [Nimuendaju in Ihering 1912, pp. 256-260; Nimuendaju 1932b, pp. 567-573; Ribeiro ms.a.] The so-called language 'Guachi' on the Vaccaria River in the same state is only a dialectal version of Opaie. [Nimuendaju 1932b, pp. 567-573.]" Opaie is not Guaicuruan. It is possible that pages 51-52 describe a different lect. It is separately possible that the more recent (2004) Guaicurú no, macro-Guaicurú sí: Una hipótesis sobre la clasificación de la lengua Guachí (Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil) knows more than Nimuendaju in 1932 and Loukotka in 1968 about the separateness and familiar relationships of Guachí. [6] lists two Guachí words, [iava] ‘diente(s)’ and [iacté] ‘pierna’. - -sche (discuss) 04:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
As of now, with the addition of Tataviam, we include codes for 7900 languages, and will soon have codes for over 8000, including artificial languages and proto-languages. Wiktionary talk:Milestones#We_have_words_from_21.25_of_languages. - -sche (discuss) 07:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I can find a number of sources attesting Yupua words, but none strike me as reliable: Peruvia Scythica: The Quichua Language of Peru mentions "wui" as the word for house, but does so as part of trying to connect a huge number of unrelated languages based on chance sound correspondances. Brinton's 1898 Studies in South American Native Languages has a list of words which he sources to Martius (surely referring to the Wörtersammlung Brasilianischer Sprachen) and compares to Curetu words sourced to Wallace (surely referring to A Narrative of Travels on the Amazon and Rio Negro), but I haven't located the Yupua words in the originals; the words Brinton gives are: blood: thik (Yupua), dü (Wallace); bow: patopai, patueipei; earth: thitta, ditta; flesh, ga'hi', se'hea'; finger, moh-asoing, mu-etshu; fire, pieri, piure; flower, pagari, bagaria; foot, göaphoe, giapa; hair, poa, phoa; hand, moho, muhu; head, co'ëre, cuilri; house, wu'i, wee; mouth, thischüh, dishi; sun, hauvä, aoué; tongue, toro, dolo; tooth, gobâckaa', gophpecuh; water, thäco, deco; woman, nomöa, nomi; he also offers the additional Yupua words hóggoa "water" (sic), göaphae "foot", ga'hi "meat", jih "jaguar", ikama "deer", jocheo' "star". Ruhlen has manapẹ "husband / man", apara "we two", ti "this", -mai- "we", tsīngeē "boy", pilo "fire", poa "feather". - -sche (discuss) 05:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Balkan Gagauz Turkish[edit]

I see no evidence that this exists as a separate language, and move that it be merged with tr. The literature which references it seems to describe the dialect of Turkish which may be spoken by Gagauz people in the Balkan Peninsula. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia, citing Ethnologue, insists that Balkan Gagauz Turkish, Gagauz, and Turkish are all separate, and a few sources do seem to take that view, e.g. Cem Keskin, Subject agreement-dependency of accusative case in Turkish, or, Jump-starting grammatical machinery (2009) speaks of "Balkan Gagauz Turkish, Gagauz, Turkish, Iraqi Turkmen, North and South Azerbaijani, Salchuq, Aynallu, Qashqay, Khorasan Turkic, Turkmen, Oghuz Uzbek, Afshar, and possibly Crimean Tatar". Other references speak of Balkan Gagauz Turkish as a variety of Gagauz, e.g. James Minahan's Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations says "The Gagauz speak a Turkic language [...] also called Balkan Gagauz or Balkan Turkic, [which] is spoken in two major dialects, Central and Southern, with the former the basis of the literary language. Other dialects [include] Maritime Gagauz" (which comports with w:Gagauz's list of its dialects). Matthias Brenzinger's Language Diversity Endangered also treats Balkan Gagauz "or slightly misleading, Balkan Turkic" in his entry on Gagauz, but says it that the Balkan "varieties might deserve the status of outlying languages but very little information is available about them." (A few generalist references seem to subsume all gag into tr.) I would leave them all separate, pending more conclusive evidence that they should be merged. - -sche (discuss) 23:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I think there's some confusion about what exactly we're talking about, and whether it's Gagauz or Turkish. Just because they use the term "Balkan Gagauz Turkish" doesn't mean that they're referring to the language with ISO 639-3 code bgx. When I look at who's citing the references listed for bgx at Glottolog, Manević (the reference for its classification) is cited in papers clearly talking about the dialects of tr. These are the only actual words attributed to this lect that I can find. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Yokutsan languages[edit]

We seem to have this as a single macrolanguage, yok, despite the fact that the constituent lects seem to constitute at least a few languages. -sche added some entries, but it's all tagged by (dia)lect, so it will be easy to separate them. I think we should retire yok and replace it with exceptional codes to reduce confusion, but I am not sure what those divisions should be. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the difficulty is in deciding how to divide it. Christopher Loether cautions that although e.g. "Gayton (1948) listed 26 named groups or 'tribelets'[,] many of these named groups speak dialects which are nearly identical phonologically, lexically and syntactically, while others speak varieties which are indeed quite distinct from their neighbours' speech. Kroeber [...] divided [what he considered a single] language into two main divisions: Valley and Foothill Yokuts. He further divided the Valley Branch into Northern and Southern, and the Foothill branch into Kings, Tule-Kaweah, Poso, and Buena Vista. Newman (1944: 5-3) agreed with Kroeber's analysis of a single Yokuts language and stated that his data corroborated Kroeber's dialect divisions."
Kroeber lists 20+ dialects, of which 21 are named in [[ˀilik']]. Wikipedia has a tree/bush diagram from Whistler and Golla of 23-28 dialects, including all of those 21 plus Koyeti, Merced "(?)", Noptinte (Nopchinche(s), Nopthrinthre(s), Nopṭinṭe, Nopthrinte, Noptinci), Yachikumne a.k.a. Chulamni, Lower San Joaquin Yokuts, and Lakisamni "(?)", and Tawalimni. (Several have multiple names, e.g. Ayticha is also called Kocheyali as well as Ayitcha; Palewyami is also Altinin and Poso Creek Yokuts in addition to Paleuyami. And Hometwoli is also Taneshach?)
For Yawelmani and Chukchansi, decent resources exist; in addition to those two, Wikchamni and Tachi are also being taught according to WP, and in addition to those four, Choinimni and Kechayi also have at least some speakers according to WP.
WP says the Yokutsan family consists of "half a dozen" languages, but evidently not the six just named, because those six leave out several major branches that Kroeber, Newman, and Whistler and Golla all agree on.
I suggest we create a family code nai-yok for the Yokutsan languages, and then distinguish the following branches which Kroeber, Newman, and Whistler and Golla all consider distinguishable, without splitting them further at this time:
  1. Palewyami (nai-ply — or putting the y at the start so the codes sort together and are more apparently connected — on further thought, nah) a.k.a. Poso a.k.a. Poso Creek
  2. Buena Vista Yokuts (nai-bvy) a.k.a. Tulamni-Hometwoli
  3. Tule-Kaweah Yokuts (nai-tky) a.k.a. Wikchamni, Yawdanchi
  4. Kings River Yokuts (nai-kry) a.k.a. Choinimni, etc
  5. Gashowu (nai-gsy), which Kroeber and Whislter/Golla agree is intermediate between Kings River and Northern Valley, though Kroeber considers it ultimately/genetically Kings
  6. Southern Valley Yokuts (nai-svy) a.k.a. Yawelmani, Tachi, etc
  7. Northern Valley Yokuts (nai-nvy) a.k.a. Chukchansi, Kechayi, etc
  8. Delta Yokuts (nai-dly) a.k.a. Far Northern Valley Yokuts
A more conservative approach would keep Southern Valley Yokuts, Northern Valley Yokuts, and Delta Yokuts together as "Valley Yokuts", but Delta Yokuts is relatively divergent. - -sche (discuss) 22:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Pinging @Chuck Entz in case you have insight or input on this Californian language family. - -sche (discuss) 04:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Not much, I'm afraid. A couple of decades ago I read everything I could find on the Wikchamni, who used to live in the area where my brother lives now. I read all of the sources you mentioned above, but I was more interested in the ethnobotany of the Yokuts than their languages, per se, and that was a long time ago.
On a side note, I remember one of my professors at UCLA back in the 80s saying that Yawelmani was one of the best-understood languages in the world at the time from a theoretical perspective, because so many linguists had been publishing papers on it- it was sort of the linguistic equivalent of a model organism. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done [7]. - -sche (discuss) 06:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Ersu languages[edit]

We follow the ISO in covering this as a single macrolanguage, ers. Following Yu (2012), we should keep ers as Ersu, but also create sit-tos for Tosu and sit-liz for Lizu. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Renaming pgd[edit]

We currently have this as "Gāndhārī". This spelling is indeed used frequently in the literature, but we try to avoid difficult diacritics, and this spelling can be seen as using IAST to render the native name of the language, whereas "Gandhari" is the corresponding English. I think that switching to "Gandhari" would be the better choice. @Aryamanarora, -scheΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the IAST diacritics are unnecessary. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 15:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, rename. - -sche (discuss) 22:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Even more languages without ISO codes[edit]

This next batch is of languages from lists other than Ethnologue and LinguistList. As before, I've tried to vet them all beforehand, but I will have doubtlessly made some mistakes. NB if you want to find more: I've avoided dealing with most of the Loloish languages, because all the literature seems to be in Chinese. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Australian languages[edit]

Re your comment on Gallaecian: Celtiberian, perhaps? (But WP says they are distinct.) Or was its name "Hispano-Celtic" reminding you of Hiberno-Scottish Gaelic (ghc), which we deleted and subsumed into Irish and Scottish? - -sche (discuss) 06:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


This Pama-Nyungan lect seems to have been given an exceptional code with no discussion, for its use at one transwikied entry, ngargee. It's by no means clear that we should be giving it a separate code rather than treating it as a dialect of Woiwurrung wyi; Wikipedia claims they are 90% mutually intelligible, but doesn't cite that claim directly. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I noticed this a while ago, but left it alone because I could not at the time find a reference (i.e. outside WP) that confirmed that they were mutually intelligible, probably because the huge variety of spellings made searching for information difficult. However, I can now find references that suggest we should be merging more than just these two. Leigh Boucher and ‎Lynette Russell's Settler Colonial Governance in Nineteenth-Century Victoria (2015, ISBN 1925022358), page 8, speaks of "...the Woiwurrung (Wurundjeri), Boonwurrung, Wathaurung, Taungurong and Dja Dja Wurrung with mutually intelligible languages that share up to 80 per cent of their terminology." A paper by Barry Blake and Julie Reid on Sound Change in Kulin, in the La Trobe Working Papers in Linguistics, v 6-8 (1993), speaks of a single Kulin language, with "material available on three dialects: Boonwurrung (B), Woiwurrung (W) and Thagungwurrung (T)" (emphasis mine). Dja Dja Wurrung = dja, and Taungurong / Thagungwurrung = dgw, and Wathaurung = wth, all of which we currently treat as separate. Kulin suggests that at least the four eastern ones, if not also Wathaurung, could be merged. - -sche (discuss) 06:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Gail/Gayle (gic)[edit]

The Gayle language is a gay argot lexicon that can be used in English or Afrikaans. Words should be under whatever language they are found in, as argots are not independent languages, and this code should be removed. We have precedent for excluding gay argots based on our deletion of the code for Polari (discussion, most of which is off-topic). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Sanglechi [sgy] and Warduji [wrd][edit]

It appears from Sanglechi language that these names are synonymous. As "Sanglechi" is vastly more common, I move that we remove Warduji. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Constructed languages[edit]

This family category is being treated as if it were also, simultaneously, a topic category. No other family category I can find does this. What should we call the topic category when we split it off? - -sche (discuss) 14:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I propose renaming the top-level (non-language-specific) topical categories to something that avoids clashes like these. —CodeCat 17:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
In this particular case, perhaps we could name the topic category "Artificial languages". But yes, a general solution is desirable. what do you have in mind? A "topic:" prefix? - -sche (discuss) 19:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
That seems ok, though not all topical categories are strictly topical. Perhaps this is an opportunity to more clearly distinguish topical and set categories. —CodeCat 19:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, yes, sorry; I forgot that that very subject of "topic:" and "set:" had been discussed in the BP. for now I am just going to solve the specific issue by renaming to "Artificial languages". - -sche (discuss) 02:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Dungan is technically Mandarin, or a dialect of Mandarin[edit]

Hi, I'm not sure whether this is the right venue for this discussion, but I would like to bring up Dungan, which is spoken in Central Asia. According to Wikipedia, Ethnologue, and Glottolog, this is a Chinese language, specifically Mandarin. There are only 20 entries in Wiktionary that are for Dungan, and all of them are Mandarin words, with some from the Gansu and Shaanxi dialects. The difference, however, is that, Dungan is written in Cyrillic. In Wiktionary, all Chinese dialects are merged into one single Chinese entry, and pronunciations are listed. Shouldn't we do that, or at least partially, for Dungan? Please feel free to comment. Thanks. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Re venue: this is indeed a venue where discussions of merging/splitting language codes and categories and entries take place. I tend to put my "biggest" proposals (ones that needed votes in the past, or that concern major or controversial languages that I suspect will need votes) in the WT:BP, but here is OK.
Wiktionary:About Chinese#The_Chinese_lects and Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-04/Unified_Chinese intentionally left lects that don't use Hanzi separate from Unified Chinese, but I don't know if that was because Chinese editors felt they should never be merged, or just felt that merging them would be difficult and best attempted after everything else had been merged. It would obviously be possible to merge Dungan and other such lects if Chinese editors wanted to; we have plenty of other languages which use multiple scripts (e.g. Afrikaans). However, the various Chinese lects which are distinctive to the point of potentially being not-mutually-intelligible when spoken were able to be unified here because they share a written form in which they are theoretically mutually intelligible. If Dungan is potentially not intelligible with lects from other areas (lects that differ from Mandarin enough that speakers don't understand it without study) in either speech or writing, then what would be the basis for unifying them? - -sche (discuss) 15:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, Shaanxi and Gansu Mandarin is mutually intelligible with Dungan. Furthermore, a large majority of Dungan vocabulary is from Chinese, which therefore, has Chinese equivalent entries written in Chinese characters. There are Russian and Turkic vocabulary. My suggestion is to leave Dungan loanwords from Russian and Turkic as written in Cyrillic, and merge the Dungan Chinese words with Chinese entries, and perhaps leaving the Cyrillic entry of those words like how Chinese pinyin and Japanese romaji are left. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, I speak Mandarin, and I tried listening to Dungan videos in Youtube. They're actually understandable for the most part. As in I can write down what they're saying in Chinese, except for some words though (presumably Russian and Turkic loanwords). --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I am not opposed to this, but it would require that Dungan orthography be incorporated into the relevant Chinese templates, so @Wyang's aid and support will be critical. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I support this. Cyrillic Dungan forms can be added to {{zh-pron}}, under Mandarin. Wyang (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • The main caveats are that Cyrillic is apparently the standard script for Dungan, unlike with Pinyin or Romaji, and there may be some vocabulary that only exists in Cyrillic. I suppose the writing systems for Hokkien might be analogous, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This doesn't feel right to me. I think it would be like folding Maltese into Arabic, or merging Hindi and Urdu. I foresee a lot of complaints from anons if entries like дянхуа and شِيَوْ عَر دٍ have a ==Chinese== heading, and I would find it disconcerting myself, too. And what would the definition then say? {{lb|zh|Dungan}} {{form of|Cyrillic script|電話|lang=zh}}? I think readers would find that more confusing than helpful. And then what about the Russian and Turkic loanwords that don't exist in China? They would have to have full definitions without a link to a Hanzi entry, and that would probably baffle readers even more, despite the {{lb|zh|Dungan}} tag. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    Hindi and Urdu should be merged — they are separate for political reasons. Remember, we allow for Afrikaans entries in Arabic script, Old French entries in Hebrew script, and other odd happenstances of historical script usage. We can continue to use the Dungan header for words only existing in Cyrillic form, just like I believe we do for Min Nan. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Undecided for now. There are pros and cons. Cyrillic and Arabic spellings could potentially be added to each Mandarin standard pinyin syllable (non-standard could also be considered if confirmed). Multisyllabic only for confirmed ones.
Mandarin pinyin (with tone marks and monosyllabic tone numbered syllables), Min Nan POJ, zhuyin characters have not been "unified" under the Chinese umbrella for various reasons. Some are described above.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be more convenient for editors if Dungan were part of unified Chinese, since it would be easier to edit. It would just feel like too repetitive if I made a new Dungan entry that technically already has an equivalent Chinese entry. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Should I bring this somewhere else to a vote whether Dungan should be merged into the unified Chinese? --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


Maridan [zmd], Maridjabin [zmj], Marimanindji [zmm], Maringarr [zmt], Marithiel [mfr], Mariyedi [zmy], Marti Ke [zmg]: should these be merged? References speak of a singular Marrithiyel language. - -sche (discuss) 21:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)