Template talk:trees

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Not a context. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep Use to place useful context in the entries, like taxonomic names, images, links to sister projects, then delete. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 12:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by then delete? And I'm not proposing them mindlessly, I can't see how this can be turned into a context label as (botany) isn't a suitable label for oak, ash, beech etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Almost any sense-level discrimination has value. Merely removing a context template (even in accordance with a vote), effectively eliminates content. I think all the sense-level context tags that were voted down should not be deleted, but deprecated. It would even be possible to render them invisible. The actual deletion would follow an effort to exploit the transclusion list for upgrading the entries. As the entries marked by such tags are somewhat homogeneous, it should be possible to use tools such as AWB or even a thoughtful human being to generate method of entry improvement that would be much more productive than waiting for some other process for entry improvement which would work over much larger and less homogeneous classes of entries.

IOW, rather than discarding such tags, why don't we deprecate them and recycle them as clean-up/improvement indicators. I see no substantive value whatsoever in deleting them. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 15:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I do, as their use muddies the distinction between definition and context of a definition. Delete. If people are unable to write "oak tree" in a definition, but feel instead that it must be written as "(tree) oak", then we need to educate our editors on English grammar. --EncycloPetey 17:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing as to the desirability of the endstate in which they do not exist, nor to preventing people from using them.

DCDuring, are you saying orphan, rename and change the content? That sounds like a de facto deletion to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that orphaning them without taking advantage of them is a waste. They represent a more homogeneous group of entries about trees than we can generate by any other means. As such they are a useful tool for efficiently improving the content of such entries. Using some editing tool, one could more rapidly apply a set of insertions and standardizations using the template transclusion list than by any other means. For example, searching for the word "tree" does not yield such a large and homogeneous set, nor does a search for any one tree genus word or tree vernacular name word.

I would think that we could add the transclusion list for this template to our cleanup list and suggest how such a class of entries might best be improved. If this does not remove the odiously placed word "trees" quickly enough, the template could be modified to not show that label. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 18:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the presence of {{trees}} in an entry is any more helpful a cleanup tool than browsing the contents of Category:Trees. --EncycloPetey 18:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It could allow one to go directly to the sense involved. DCDuring TALK 01:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Then you're saying that our standard placement of category tags at the end of the section could be improved? Then let's do that.

I'm in favour of replacing these kinds of tags with categories or whatever makes sense. But please let's identify a real problem that's solved by doing this. Let's not just put stuff in these entries because the tags are already there. Complicating the markup, layout, and categorization of entries without purpose will not improve the dictionary. And adding things that offer no improvement worsens the dictionary.

Oh, and Delete This is not a restricted-use label. —Michael Z. 2010-03-23 23:58 z

Found in the following entries. —Michael Z. 2010-03-29 21:26 z

(List removed as completed) All done. --EncycloPetey 04:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Fails. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned and deleted. --EncycloPetey 04:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)