Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits/Unresolved requests/2011

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

January 2011[edit]

Category:Japanese-coined CJKV characters used outside Japanese[edit]

It might be just me but this name seems a bit strange. -- Prince Kassad 16:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"CJKV characters from Japanese"?​—msh210 (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
That would better fit its parent category, Category:Japanese-coined CJKV characters. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

February 2011[edit]

built like a brick shithouse[edit]

To like a brick shithouse, keeping redirect, to include other uses equal to about 15% of longer phrase at bgc. DCDuring TALK 19:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Nah, just redirect like a brick shithouse here, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 17:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

March 2011[edit]


Claimed to be a conjunction. It looks like a preposition to me. Also to all OneLook dictionaries, except Cobuild. DCDuring TALK 14:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The same applies to times and other arithmetic operators. I am not as sure about truly mathematical binary operators, but in ordinary use there is a clear sense that the "minus X" modifies the quantity preceding. BTW, is the corresponding Japanese term considered a conjunction? DCDuring TALK 14:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Most binary mathematical operators (plus, minus, times, …) indeed behave like prepositions grammatically. Some are even named after prepositions: over (in the sense of divided by), of (function application: "f of x"). I would even go as far as to challenge anyone to come up with another grammatical analysis of mathematical expressions than that the binary operators are in fact prepositions. 13:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, the existing definition is in the form of a noun def and should be revised in any event. DCDuring TALK 14:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)



No practical difference is there? I suppose a draft proposal is further along than a think tank, but in reality, we use the two templates interchangeably here, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

April 2011[edit]

Appendix:Japanese given names (2)[edit]

Merge with Appendix:Japanese given names. Dunno what to say really, words fail me. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least we'd have just one troublesome Japanese appendix instead of two. By the way, the table in Appendix:Japanese given names is pretty incomplete too, random names, most romaji spellings can have several kanji spellings, etc. I've understood that these appendices are preliminary and will be deleted once somebody (bless him) (but will he ever arrive?) (shall our dictionary die out?) makes serious entries for Japanese names. There are few entries for common Japanese names now, most of them are for very rare female names. --Makaokalani 16:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

June 2011[edit]

Category:English aphaeretic forms[edit]

To Category:English aphetic forms, because aphetic is more than 10 times more common than the total of its alternative forms. DCDuring TALK 05:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Provided they are synonymous, yes. I trust your judgement on the matter; support. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:English disputed terms[edit]

Template:proscribed returns (proscribed) and categorizes the entry into Category:English disputed terms. I think a better category name would be Category:English proscribed terms. --Daniel 20:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Proscribed terms are always disputed as far as I know, though. So if it exists it would be a subcategory of disputed terms. Is narrowing it down that far really useful? —CodeCat 20:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be better to change {{proscribed}} to return (disputed usage). I find "proscribed" a poor choice of word, since it implies to me that we are proscribing the term, that we are declaring the usage wrong. —RuakhTALK 21:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Some languages have standards bodies that prescribe and proscribe certain usages. Presumably the idea is that people who call something 'wrong' appeal to an authority such as that. And I suppose people will appeal to us, too, if they want to. —CodeCat 22:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Ruakh's suggestion, especially for or at least for English. Even the most authoritative sources have more nuanced approaches than mere "proscription". Garner's Modern American Usage, for example, has five grades of acceptability. They do not claim much authority for themselves, but claim to be reporting and synthesizing the views of others. AHD organized a board of authorities. We have a difficult time supporting our claims that something in English is "proscribed" by others. We have even less basis for such declaring such proscription ourselves. DCDuring TALK 00:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
If we follow Ruakh's suggestion, someone should first check all current transclusions to see if any won't make sense after the change. (This is always true, but I seem to recall about this template in particular that there will be necessary edits to entries.)​—msh210 (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm pretty certain that some entries have things like {{sometimes|_|proscribed}}, producing (sometimes proscribed); we don't want that to become (sometimes disputed usage). —RuakhTALK 13:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes disputed usage is not terrible (parsed as "{sometimes disputed} usage") IMO, but I think there are uses with even worse results.​—msh210 (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


To Category:Seafood. So we can seem to know idiomatic English. See seafood. DCDuring TALK 04:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

But I eat seafoods all the time, fishes are goods. :) —CodeCat 14:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not quite wrong in this context, but searching for "kinds of seafood(s)" yields 10 times as hits for "seafood" as for "seafoods". DCDuring TALK 14:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

July 2011[edit]

Category:Terms derived from other languages[edit]

This isn't really a move because this category doesn't exist yet, but it will need to be created so I wonder what the right name should be. It should probably be placed in Category:All etymologies. —CodeCat 10:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

it doesn't cover all etymologies though, only those that involve another language. Keep that in mind. -- Liliana 18:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  1. Merge into Category:Terms with unknown etymologies by language like on fr.wikt. Otherwise it can become a source of error and redundancy. I'm not talking about it's subcategories, but about {{etyl|und}} and {{unk.}}. JackPotte 23:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:IPA symbols[edit]

move to Category:mul:Phonetics. This doesn't fit in the topical category system at all and causes various problems. Since IPA characters are by definition Translingual (and no other terms are), the {{phonetics|lang=mul}} tag is a nice replacement for it. -- Liliana 14:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

What problems? I think this exact move is a bad idea, because the current name is clearer and more intuitive. If anything, in my opinion, any category name should contain "IPA" in its title. --Daniel 14:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that with the new vote, these get moved to Category:en:IPA symbols, since such categories (without a language code) should no longer have any entries. -- Liliana 14:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
We also have Category:Translingual letters for these kinds of symbols. —CodeCat 14:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, are they letters or symbols? -- Liliana 14:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Many of these are letters. They represent sounds. "[" can be used in IPA too, but is not a letter. --Daniel 15:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
They're not English, so don't move them. Problem resolved. DAVilla 14:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, don't add en:. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

So, what should we do? We now have three categories which fulfill roughly the same purpose: Category:IPA symbols, Category:mul:Phonetics, and also Category:mul:Phonology (which shouldn't exist at all, because phonology by definition cannot be translingual). Should all be merged into the first? -- Liliana 08:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Languages of Aland[edit]

I think it's correctly spelled with a Å, but I don't really have that on my keyboard, and many others probably don't, either... -- Liliana 03:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Move it anyway, most people will click the link, not write it, and if you write it without a diacritic the search function suggest the version with a diacritic. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I wonder what makes more sense, to use an English spelling or the native spelling. I prefer Åland over Aland personally. —CodeCat 15:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe make Category:Languages of Aland a redirect to Category:Languages of Åland? - -sche (discuss) 08:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Category redirects don't really work well. -- Liliana 22:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
{{movecat}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

a cut above[edit]

Though the plural of this is not nearly as common as the singular, it is common enough to be found 4 times in the idiomatic sense, compared to more than a hundred at COCA for the singular. The entry is now called an adjective, but that is clearly wrong. DCDuring TALK 15:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the redirect should remain as the collocation is quite common. DCDuring TALK 15:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

transformational rules[edit]

Not really got the faintest idea what this means, but both the definitions read like definitions of plurals rather than plural only meanings. Anyone have the faintest idea? --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


A species epithet. Should be a Latin adjective, not a Translingual proper noun. DCDuring TALK 18:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Depends if it's used in Latin; some called taxonomic Latin 'pseudo-Latin', that is to say it looks like Latin but isn't; don't move to Latin if it's unattested. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
EP makes the argument such things are Latin because a binomial (and trinomial) species names are in fact Latin noun phrases, following the applicable Latin grammar rules. Apparently New Latin is falling/has fallen out of use for species descriptions, but had been the matrix in which such noun phrases had a fuller linguistic role. The argument is straightforward and reflected in most or our practice affecting such terms. Are we retrograding to the "arbitrariness of the sign" to dismantle such arguments? DCDuring TALK 04:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I still want attestation. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that any New Latin coinages have attestation that we can find unless we accept the two part names themselves as attestation. DCDuring TALK 13:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe (due to comments made here) that EP was in the minority when he made that argument, however. - -sche (discuss) 08:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
But his vote was as the vote of ten because his arguments were cogent. The consistent system he seems to advocate is that all species epithets are Latin, that two- and three-part taxonomic names don't belong at Wiktionary. This is consistent with the standard practice of italicizing two+-part taxonomic names. That is, the community that uses the whole range of such names views and treat them as if Latin. That New Latin in all its forms (medical, legal, taxonomic, inscriptions and seals, ecclesiastical) deviates from classical Latin and is treated infra dig by many seems an interesting phenomenon of prescriptivism. DCDuring TALK 13:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
DCDuring, If you doubt that it can be attested, why propose the move? --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Because I think that attestation by usage in species names is sufficient. If no one else does, then I have no idea what to do with such terms. I leave it to those who haven't worked in the area and know little about such usage to solve for themselves as they see fit. DCDuring TALK 22:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011[edit]

quasi adjective[edit]

Shouldn't this be moved to quasi-adjective? Googling about suggests that this is (almost?) always spelled with the hyphen. (Discussion moved here from WT:RFV#quasi adjective.) -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 19:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes, and I'd have said it's uncontroversial enough to just do it. I updated the introduction of the page a few days ago to suggest that moves should only be proposed here if they may be controversial. This one, probably not. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Moved. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 22:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Appendix-only constructed languages[edit]

I'd like to rename this category to Category:Minor constructed languages.


  • Similarly named categories, such as Category:Appendix-only nouns, are gone. We deprecated this pattern.
  • "Appendix-only" is too technical to appear in the name of the category; "minor constructed language" is all that matters in the first moment.
  • The description of the category already explains that all the languages are "appendix-only", what that means, and why that happens. That description is much better than the short and vague "appendix-only" shoehorned in the title.
  • I created the category in question.

--Daniel 05:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

But minor is inherently POV, which we should avoid. I wouldn't consider Quenya or Klingon any more "minor" than Novial (which we do include). -- Liliana 11:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Burmese script[edit]

This doesn't exactly fit in here, but I don't know where else to put it. Basically, whoever created the letter entries failed to realize that the letters and are merely typographical variants of each other. Therefore, the numbering of the characters is completely incorrect for most of these entries, and must be fixed. -- Liliana 17:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand this request, isn't this an RFC? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011[edit]

obstructing the field[edit]

Move to obstruct the field. This is not an adjective either. Second opinions? —Internoob (DiscCont) 18:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Citations would help, I suppose it's a specific rule in cricket, I actually just thought it was called obstruction. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
A lot of the cricket dismissals are difficult to parse. The rule is called "Obstructing the field", but in a sentence it can be rearranged in several ways:
  • A while ago he was given out "obstructing the field", an incident that has an air of alienating weirdness about it. [1]
  • Law 37 states that a batsman will be given out obstructing the field if they wilfully obstruct the opposition by word or action, and this is what the umpires adjudged the veteran Surrey batsman to have done during the match at the historic Festival. [2]
  • Surrey beat Gloucestershire by two wickets despite Mark Ramprakash being given out for obstructing the field on the final day at Cheltenham. [3]
  • Michael Clarke, the stand-in Australia captain whose form goes from bad to worse, asked umpire Marais Erasmus whether Trott had obstructed the field after he became tangled with Brett Lee on 30. [4]
  • A batsman who has a runner but who is not himself the striker will stand behind the striker’s end umpire and become involved only if he handles the ball, obstructs the field or commits any other unfair act. [5]
So it seems that sometimes it is a fixed term obstructing the field, sometimes it is inflected as the verb obstruct the field. The same variation occurs with other methods of dismissal (handled the ball, hit the ball twice etc.) as well as other terms like carry the bat (which often appears as "[he] carried his bat"). The definitions for all those seem confused as to what POS they are. 11:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

October 2011[edit]

I'm allergic to nuts[edit]

I'd like to move this to I'm allergic to and redirect (and hence merge) I'm allergic to aspirin, I'm allergic to penicillin, and I'm allergic to pollen. The reason is to be more inclusive. It would be possible to link to nut#Translations and any other noun where there are common allergies. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I think we should do the same for the 'I need' phrases. But we should indicate how to use the proper grammar, because some languages may need a special case form, and the translation may be less straightforward than just the translation of 'I'm allergic to' along with the translation of 'nut'. Finnish for example would translate 'to nuts' with the allative plural case of pähkinä (nut), while Icelandic translates 'nuts' in the dative plural of hneta, and French uses aux to translate 'to' before plural words. —CodeCat 11:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Phrasebook entries more or less only exist to have translations, so putting lots of grammatical detail in translation tables shouldn't be a problem. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Most phrasebooks are just bilingual, making things much simpler. DCDuring TALK 15:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't endorse the idea of merging the entries. But, if people decide to have only one English sentence, as only one entry, under the subject in question, then I'm allergic to pollen would be a much better title than just I'm allergic.

The reason is: we absolutely don't need incomplete sums of parts. They just aren't more helpful than the words alone. If a reader is able to find I'm allergic to + aspirin, and recognize how to make sentences by joining the pieces and applying the grammar of the target language... Then, she might as well do the same thing by joining I'm + allergic + to + aspirin. --Daniel 12:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue is that sentences like this are an open class. As long as there are new nouns to put at the end, you can keep creating new sentences. —CodeCat 12:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
It's easier to join the parts I'm allergic to pollen - pollen + aspirin than it is joining the parts I'm allergic to + aspirin. The entry "I'm allergic to pollen" would show complete translations fully adapted to the grammar of other languages, while the entry "I'm allergic to" would show only a piece (an unfinished sentence) translated into pieces (unfinished sentences) in other languages. --Daniel 14:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have any facts to support these assertions about what is or is not easier for the class of users of an on-line phrasebook? What are some typical profiles of such users? What proportion of users fit each profile?
If we don't know these things what model of a successful phrasebook (on-line or otherwise, translating or not) would we follow? DCDuring TALK 15:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I maintain we should have one such entry and hard-redirect the rest. I would think it should be I'm allergic to, but perhaps Daniel's right that it should be I'm allergic to pollen (or some other): I don't know.​—msh210 (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

If we go with Daniel's method (keep the one entry at I'm allergic to pollen or the like), then I think the headword and translations should all include pollen (and its translations) in parentheses or the like, much as we do with the headword at keep somebody posted.​—msh210 (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

December 2011[edit]

Inflection-table subcategories[edit]

For a long time, we've only distinguished the categories Category:Gothic conjugation-table templates and Category:Gothic declension-table templates. The former is used for verbs, the latter is used for everything else. I don't think this really makes much sense, because in most languages adjectives need different templates from nouns. That's why I created Category:Gothic noun declension-table templates and Category:Gothic adjective declension-table templates. For a while those two categories were still added to the main declension-table category, but as that category came to be left empty I decided to change it so that noun declension-tables goes directly in Category:Gothic inflection-table templates, and deleted the now-empty category. The examples about Gothic here apply to many languages, too. So I would like to propose renaming and restructuring these categories:

The reason I propose to name the new categories 'inflection templates' is because they could eventually contain headword-line templates as well. I realise this goes back to the situation we had long ago, where Category:English headword-line templates used to be called Category:English inflection templates, but this new category is supposed to be for anything inflection-related, headword-line, table or otherwise. A template such as {{got-adj}} could be categorised in both headword-line templates and inflection templates in the new situation. —CodeCat 17:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless someone has any objections I'll go ahead with this soon... —CodeCat 12:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Hang on (for a bit), I think the addition of 'table' was to make it clear that only tables go in these categories, like {{fro-decl-noun}} but NOT headword-line templates like {{fro-noun}}. So you're effectively proposing to annul that change. Having said that... why not? It's another way of splitting the templates up, by part of speech instead of by the type of template. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Merging inflection-table and headword-/inflection-line categories is counterproductive, in my opinion. --Yair rand 20:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not proposing to merge them. Headword-line templates will still have their own category like they do now. The only change to them is that they would also be added to the corresponding inflection template category. This makes sense because it keeps all the inflection-related things together, and makes it easier to see all templates that are concerned with noun inflection at a glance, for example. I like the idea of looking in Category:Catalan verb inflection templates and seeing both {{ca-verb}} and {{ca-conj-ar}} there. On the other hand, {{ca-verb}} would also be located in Category:Catalan headword-line templates as it is now. —CodeCat 20:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I oppose the change from "inflection-table" to "inflection", since headword-line and inflection-table templates are very different types of template that are already sometimes difficult to distinguish by name. (Imagine you encounter {{he-prep-inflection}} in a category called Category:Hebrew inflection templates. Which type of "inflection template" do you expect it to be?) And headword-line templates don't always have inflection information, anyway. But I'd definitely be on board with "see also" links between headword-line and inflection-table template categories. I am neutral toward any change in the POS-wise subcategorization of (e.g.) Category:Gothic inflection-table templates; I think it makes sense for each language to handle that differently, and I have no dog in Gothic. —RuakhTALK 20:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, mostly per Ruakh. Let us keep headword-line templates separated from those templates that belong to any of "Inflection", "Declension" and "Conjugation" sections, which turn out to be templates that show tables. If "Category:Gothic noun declension-table templates" gets renamed to "Category:Gothic noun inflection templates", the resulting name nowhere suggests that the category cannot contain headword-line templates. --Dan Polansky 13:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I used Category:Lithuanian noun declension-table templates because of the sheer number of them. Eventually, I'll have another for adjectives, but that'll be a huge undertaking, considering the number of forms per table, the 4 stress patterns, numerous declension patterns, optional comparatives and superlatives, etc. I think splitting the categories is a very smart idea for languages like Russian and Lithuanian, who have such concerns. — [Ric Laurent] — 16:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I oppose the cross-language recategorization, per Ruakh.​—msh210 (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused. What exactly do you oppose? The proposition renaming the categories or the proposition of adding headword-line templates to those categories? —CodeCat 23:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Adding headword-line templates to the same categories as the inflection tables. I assumed the renaming was only to be done if that was to be done (i.e., that this was one proposal not two).​—msh210 (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
No, even if that doesn't go through, the renaming could still be done, or with 'inflection-table' instead of 'inflection'. —CodeCat 01:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand. When you started this discussion, you said that you had already implemented the "inflection-table" renaming for Gothic, and you didn't ask for any input about that; so that seems to imply that this discussion is inherently not about renaming categories to "inflection-table". (And no one seems to be objecting to the "inflection-table" part, anyway.) Furthermore, in that same discussion-starting comment, you also wrote, "The reason I propose to name the new categories 'inflection templates' is because they could eventually contain headword-line templates as well"; which seems to imply that you are not proposing that rename except for that purpose. Have you changed your mind? That's fine, if so, but in that case I think you should start a new discussion with your new proposal(s), or else it's just hopelessly confusing! —RuakhTALK 02:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh... maybe I wasn't that clear then... I was proposing to rename the categories, and I was saying we could drop 'table' from the name, so that in the future we could possibly also add headword-line templates to those categories. I haven't made any changes to Gothic yet, as you can see from the red links above. Sorry for the confusion. —CodeCat 02:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please vote for one or more of these options:

Keep the current inflection-table category names[edit]

  1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose generally: let each language decide for itself.​—msh210 (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Rename to (POS) inflection-table templates[edit]

  1. Symbol support vote.svg SupportCodeCat 01:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose generally: let each language decide for itself.​—msh210 (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Rename to (POS) inflection templates[edit]

  1. Symbol support vote.svg SupportCodeCat 01:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose generally: let each language decide for itself.​—msh210 (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Rename to (POS) inflection templates and also add headword-line templates to them when applicable[edit]

  1. Symbol support vote.svg SupportCodeCat 01:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose altogether.​—msh210 (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)