Template talk:obsolete name of
I think this template should display "obsolete word for", rather than "obsolete name of". [[Gastūzis]], for example, is an obsolete word for the same thing that [[viesnīca]] is a word for. "Obsolete names" are like "Petrograd", an obsolete name for "St Petersburg". Even there, it would be better for "Petrograd" to be defined as "{{obsolete}} [[St Petersburg]]". Likewise, I think most entries which currently use this should have actual definitions, tagged {{obsolete}}; modern words should be in the Synonyms sections, like this. This is partly because a later word can develop new senses that an older term did not have, making the correspondence inexact. I suspect this is even the case with gastūzis. For linguistic and historical reasons, I suspect it referred to an "inn". "Viesnīca" can refer to a quaint inn, but also (judging by the picture) to a modern "hotel", which is at least somewhat distinct. - -sche (discuss) 00:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't disagree in principle. My only reason for creating this template was that I didn't like the way
{{obsolete}}categorized words into as "words with obsolete senses". In the cases I used this template with, the whole word was obsolete, not just one of its senses. (Other categories, like "archaic", don't do that.) I wanted a template that would categorize into "obsolete words" instead. --Pereru (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)- The use of "with obsolete senses" in category names will spread to "Category:English archaic terms" and other categories sooner or later; in fact, I've submitted a RFM now. The logic is that "with obsolete senses" covers cases where only some senses are obsolete and cases like "gastūzis", where all senses are obsolete. However, I would support separate templates or simply manual double-categorisation of "obsolete words", "archaic words", etc, where the entire word has fallen out of use. Separate templates would need to be more like context templates (to go beside definitions) than like this, though, in part because not every word which becomes obsolete is replaced by another word; sometimes, languages simply cease to have words for things. - -sche (discuss) 01:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I just noticed that Category:English obsolete terms exists, so it's presumably OK to create Category:Latvian obsolete terms and manually add it to entries which have no non-obsolete senses... or to write a template to automatically put terms into the category, but what should that template be named? I think we should ask in the Beer Parlour. - -sche (discuss) 01:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- The use of "with obsolete senses" in category names will spread to "Category:English archaic terms" and other categories sooner or later; in fact, I've submitted a RFM now. The logic is that "with obsolete senses" covers cases where only some senses are obsolete and cases like "gastūzis", where all senses are obsolete. However, I would support separate templates or simply manual double-categorisation of "obsolete words", "archaic words", etc, where the entire word has fallen out of use. Separate templates would need to be more like context templates (to go beside definitions) than like this, though, in part because not every word which becomes obsolete is replaced by another word; sometimes, languages simply cease to have words for things. - -sche (discuss) 01:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)