Appendix talk:Conjugations
Latin edit
All the appendices for latin conjugation are missing the whole subjunctive section... maybe someone could fix?
99.226.86.57 02:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Does it make sense like this? verba.org already has all thge conjugations in all the languages, we will never make it that far here. And wikibooks already has or plans to have study guides from all languages to all languages, so this here to me seems to be just redundant. Get-back-world-respect 16:22, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
- Many words, yes. But all words? No. I quickly found that there are a few swedish verbs not in their lists, but I won't do any extensive search for more... \Mike 10:21, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This is not appendix material. Is there a "Grammar" namespace. I think this was discussed before, but I can't remember what the outcome was. Ncik 02:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- If it were up to me I'd put it in Help: ... but it's not up to me ;) —Muke Tever 11:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's not help pages stuff. Grammar does not help you navigating through or handling Wiktionary. It is actual content which I think would make sense to include here (also, some print dictionaries do so). One argument againt inclusion (maybe the main argument - I don't remember) at the time was that grammar is Wikipedia's business. Ncik 12:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
If anyone can be bothered, this could do with a 2010 update. But with only three linked pages (and now this one) leaving it alone seems ok too. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Seems rather redundant to me. People are unlikely to look for something like that when they need information about a specific language. They'd probably look for that language's main appendix first. —CodeCat 19:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. —RuakhTALK 20:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oddly enough, I didn't nominate for this for deletion, because it's so orphaned in all namespaces, if we deleted it, nobody might notice. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. —RuakhTALK 20:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted per RFDO. --Bequw → τ 04:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Deletion debate edit
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Five incoming links, none in the mainspace, one from requests for cleanup and one from this page! I can't imagine anyone searching for this; content is mainly red links and redirects. Note: if kept, should go back to rfc. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't see any good use for this and it takes too much effort to maintain all those pages that list other pages. The same goes for Wiktionary:Inflection templates and Wiktionary:Conjugation and declension templates to an extent (yes I know I created the latter). —CodeCat 10:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted. --Bequw → τ 04:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)