Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others

(Redirected from Wiktionary:RFDO)
Latest comment: 3 days ago by Ultimateria in topic Appendix:Italian suffixes

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for deletion/Others

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for verification/English
add new English request | history | archives

Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.

Requests for verification/CJK
add new CJK request | history

Requests for verification of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.

Requests for verification/Italic
add new Italic request | history

Requests for verification of Italic-language entries.

Requests for verification/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for verification of any other non-English entries.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion 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.

Requests for deletion/English
add new English request | history | archives

Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.

Requests for deletion/CJK
add new CJK request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.

Requests for deletion/Italic
add new Italic request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of Italic-language entries.

Requests for deletion/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for deletion and undeletion of any other non-English entries.

Requests for deletion/​Reconstruction
add new reconstruction request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of reconstructed entries.

{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5
This page is for the nomination (for deletion) of non-main namespace entries. General questions about categories, templates and the like should be posted at Wiktionary:Grease pit. Remember to start each section with only the wikified title of the page being nominated for deletion.



Category:Kangxi radicals


Redundant to Category:Kangxi Radicals block. Has a table that might be worth keeping. —suzukaze (tc) 07:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Redundant to Category:Han character radicals. —suzukaze (tc) 07:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Redundant to Category:CJK Radicals Supplement block. Also it has a terrible name. Has a table that might be worth keeping. —suzukaze (tc) 07:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Keep - not in itself a rational for deletion. also yourself: is the category useful? does it fit into a schema of categorisation? is it likely that we are goingto have things to vategorise into it, inm the future? if the answer to anty ofthese is "yes", then we should keep it, rather than have to repeat the work later. respectfully, Lx 121 (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Delete all - the first one is more dubious than the rest though, as Kangxi Radicals block is just a Unicode block category. If the contents are the same though, there's little point in keeping them separate. — surjection??18:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply


This, that and the other (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Justinrleung since you are commenting elsewhere on this page, I wonder if you can advise how to proceed with the remaining component of this ancient RFDO request? This, that and the other (talk) 09:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
@This, that and the other: Entries seem to be automatically categorized into CAT:Han character radicals by {{Han char}}. I'm not exactly sure what the exact mechanism is. @Fish bowl, I'm wondering if you know. Some of the so-called radicals in CAT:CJKV radicals seem to not be Kangxi radicals but Shuowen radicals, like 共, so these would not be automatically categorized by CAT:Han character radicals. I do think that there should probably only one category for radicals, and I think CAT:Han character radicals is probably better as a name since Han characters are not exclusive to the four languages of CJKV. But we'll have to see if these radicals in CAT:CJKV radicals only should just be moved to CAT:Han character radicals manually or with changes to {{Han char}}. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Fish bowl we are waiting for your input here. Could you please state whether you agree with Justin's proposal to merge all of the radical entries in both categories to Cat:Han character radicals and delete Cat:CJKV radicals? This, that and the other (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
The mechanism is categorization if there are 0 residual strokes (Module:zh-han#L-125).
Whatever the difference between Category:Han character radicals and Category:CJKV radicals is, it's a poor one as the names are essentially equivalent. —Fish bowl (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree - let's merge them into Han character radicals. Theknightwho (talk) 09:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
So the entries requiring manual review are those only in CJKV radicals. It appears to me, as a CJK outsider, that many of these are essentially alternative forms of radicals. Many of these have corresponding radical appendices, and many of them have the residual strokes parameter set to "00", which I assume is meant to do something magical.
This, that and the other (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@This, that and the other It's a really badly-named category. It's added by {{ja-kanji}} if grade=r is manually set, which is (a) not what that parameter is supposed to be for, and (b) clearly not something that should be controlled by a Japanese template. I suspect this is a holdover from the very early days of Wiktonary.
The entire kanji grade system is something that's already handled via the back-end anyway and shouldn't have any kind of manual override since it's all strictly defined.
The reason the residual strokes parameter is set to 0 is because residual strokes are defined by reference to a character's radical (e.g. it's radical X + 3 additional strokes). This is useful for sorting purposes, as the radical is used as the primary sorting weight, with the residual strokes being used for fine-tuning within that. Naturally, characters which are themselves radicals have 0 additional strokes. Theknightwho (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Category:Japanese-only CJKV Characters


Was this created to distinguish "exclusively" Japanese and Korean inventions from Chinese characters? The Chinese will use it anyway. —suzukaze (tc) 04:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Delete. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I note that Japanese has Category:Japanese-coined CJKV characters is fine, but there is no Category:Korean-coined CJKV characters. As such, I propose moving Category:Korean-only CJKV Characters to Category:Korean-coined CJKV characters if this RFD fails. —suzukaze (tc)

Delete - none of these have etymological value. Theknightwho (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I’m a language learner, not a linguist. Whether it’s Category:Korean-only CJKV Characters or Category:Korean-coined CJKV characters, I find this list interesting, and would like to be able to refer to it. W3steve (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Keep them, it is of practical value. Maybe Chinese will use it, or not, will understand it, or not, doesn't matter. What is important in it the Koreans / Japanese respectively and the lerners of Korean / Japanese respectively will find the respective category valuable. NoychoH (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree to keep per NoychoH, I found this Japanese-coined CJKV characters used outside Japanese and was surprised to see anyone wants it deleted. It's just curious, for which reason it's valuable. I just see no reason to delete it. Kiril kovachev (talkcontribs) 19:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep for the same reasons as Kiril kovachev.Auvon (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@NoychoH @Kiril kovachev @Auvon If its starts being used in Chinese, then it stops being a Japanese-only character. The big problem with the category is that it relies on other languages not using it, which is essentially impossible to keep track of. Theknightwho (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho Okay, good point. I could suggest removing a character from the category once we have a Chinese entry for it, but this would require more work on the part of Chinese editors. I don't necessarily oppose deleting the Japanese-only and Korean-only categories, but I don't know why Category:Japanese-coined CJKV characters used outside Japanese is being included in this RfD. That doesn't have the same problem in that it doesn't run the risk of misinformation, and is rather much more interesting for language learners. I say we should keep that one, delete the rest if that's what we want. Kiril kovachev (talkcontribs) 22:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
If this does exist, it needs to be done automatically, which would involve checking if there are entries for other entries on the page (excluding Translingual). I'm not a huge fan of that, but it could work, but I suspect it won't result in a very useful category since there will be many characters that see rare use in other languages. Theknightwho (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comment/Keep: I realize this discussion is old, but the deletion templates are still there, and I find these categories to be of novel educational interest and would hate to see them deleted. As expressed above, this might just be an issue of terminology. What's to stop us renaming Category:Korean-only CJKV Characters to Category:Korean-coined CJKV Characters and maintaining it along the same lines as the Japanese line, making no distinction as to whether it's used exclusively in Korean? 03:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply



Category:Reference templates


These should be placed in the appropriate language-specific categories. —CodeCat 15:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but the category shouldn't be deleted, as the lang-specific catgs should be kept here. Perhaps rename Cat:Reference templates by language if necessary. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Never mind, I didn't realize that's already a separate catg. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
I presume that such templates are categorized by the target language, not the language in which they are written. Do we not care about the language in which the reference is written? What about a multilingual dictionary? (There are at least two such templates.) DCDuring TALK 16:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
They're placed in whichever language they're relevant to as a reference. So the language it's written in is not taken into account, but they can be placed into more than one language category. —CodeCat 16:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Shouldn't this category be kept as a parent category for "Category:Reference templates by language"? Also, there may be translingual templates such as {{R:Reference-meta}} which I have been working on. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Why should Category:Reference templates by language be placed in this category? It already has its own parent category. And translingual reference templates naturally go in Category:Translingual reference templates. —CodeCat 18:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I didn't know "Category:Translingual reference templates" existed. However, isn't it usually the case that when there is a category in the form "X by Y", "X" exists as a parent category as well? At least that's what happens at the Wikimedia Commons. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Not on Wiktionary. I can't imagine Category:Nouns being very useful as a parent of Category:Nouns by language. —CodeCat 19:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In that case, delete according to the reason provided by the nominator. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Could some people help with clearing it out? —CodeCat 14:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@CodeCat: I'll do some work on it. — Eru·tuon 21:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
When it's deleted, where shall we put Category:Quotation reference templates? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
What about the templates not in another category, like Template:R:Wordorigins.org! Will they become orphant-templates upon deletion of Category:Reference templates? Thx, B Lemeukx (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Keep - obviously useful as a meta-category. Lx 121 (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

You haven't read the discussion. There are currently two such categories. —Rua (mew) 14:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
I've seen both categories, & they seem to serve different purposes. this one is general-purpose (any template related to references), & the other one Wiktionary: Reference templates seems to be narrowly-defined (a list of dictionary-reference templates). So either merge or differentiate them better? & 'Reference Templates' is still the obvious meta-category for ALL reference templates. Lx 121 (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
After some more cleanup, the category now has only six members. —Rua (mew) 16:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Category:English four-letter abbreviations


There are only two pages that are in this category right now and all of the edits of this page were by the same person, so it should probably either start being used or be deleted. 18:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The page isn't showing up for some reason it's https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_four-letter_abbreviations never mind I figured it out 19:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Delete - this category is not useful. - TheDaveRoss 13:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
TIFLL (anyone guess the meaning of this?) --Java Beauty (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
I am going to take a guess. "This is five letters long.". John Cross (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Mild keep - can we just auto put in all four letter words that are all in uppercase letters? Facts707 (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Delete, not useful. Ultimateria (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Delete. — Fytcha T | L | C 21:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
We also have two-letter abbreviations with 12 entries and five-letter abbreviations with 5 entries. (Three has over 300, but it looks like they have still been added manually.) - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 17:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete, not useful enough to maintain. Fay Freak (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply


Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits#Category:en:Directives.

This is a newly created (September 2017) topical category. It should be renamed to something that does not imply that it contains expressions that are directive. It contains terms that relate to direction or, more frequently, terms that can be confused with direction. I recognize that Direction would not be a suitable category name. I don't have any suggestion. It may be that the category is ill-conceived. DCDuring (talk)

I see nothing wrong with it. If it contained directive expressions, it would be called Category:English directives or similar. We have voted in the past to keep topical category naming distinct from other categories, so the naming scheme is considered indicative of its use/meaning/function. —Rua (mew) 20:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
I'm not surprised that you see nothing wrong, what with the cat scheme being otherwise so perfect.
I favor keeping topical categories as far way as possible from our other entry categories.
But, unlike other categories that have names that are plural in form, Category:en:Directives contains neither examples nor names of the referents of its category name, ie of directives. It contains a dog's breakfast of terms that the categorizer, User:, thought to be connected to some sense of the noun(?) directive. One mistake was to pick as name for a concept/category a de-adjectival noun. Probably the name was made plural to avoid confusion with the adjective.
If you can make sense of the rationale for the membership in the category of ban, bare minimum, beckoning, behest, besaiel, beseeching, bidding, bill, blacklist, blackmail, bloodlust, blueprint, booty call, boundary, boycott, breve, bribe, and bytecode, you, Gunga Din, are a better man than I. I am at a loss to understand the common element among these terms. Is each suppopsed to be a type of directive? If no one can come up with a better name for the category, or prune membership rationally, or split it into multiple comprehensible cateogries, or RfDO it, I will RfDO it. DCDuring (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Bytecode in the sense of compiler directive! Really pushing it a bit. Equinox 02:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Delete. This category seems ill-conceived to me. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree with the nominator. (I cannot always make that claim after a multi-year gap.) DCDuring (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think the category should either be renamed to CAT:Commands or at the very least, entires should be moved up to CAT:Communication. -- Sokkjō 06:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete: it seems unclear what the category should contain. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Ill-conceived. Benwing2 (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply



Category:Languages of the Caucasus


Another one of these regional, rather than national, holding categories. See Category talk:Languages of the Middle East. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Delete --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Metaknowledge: Couldn't you just speedy delete them at this point? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps. I think they deserve due process. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Unlike the Middle East, the Caucasus is close-knit linguistic area with many shared traits. This is why one hardly ever hears about the “Middle Eastern languages”, but the Caucasian languages are very often referred to as such in linguistic literature. Guldrelokk (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
While regional groupings of languages are of course useless in general, I think they have their merits in the case of Sprachbünde. The current name is poorly chosen and this category should be deleted but a category like Category:Languages belonging to the Caucasus Sprachbund is something I'd support. — Fytcha T | L | C 10:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep a shorter name like CAT:Caucasian languages. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

February 2019


Russian non-rhymes


(Notifying Atitarev, Benwing2, Cinemantique, Useigor, Wikitiki89, Stephen G. Brown, Guldrelokk, Fay Freak, Per utramque cavernam, Wittiami): Masculine rhymes in Russian require at least one consonant, either before or after the stressed vowel. In other words, вода́ (vodá) rhymes with когда́ (kogdá) (the rhyme is -dá) but not коса́ (kosá) (where the rhyme -sá; it would rhyme with небеса́ (nebesá)).

If the syllable ends in a consonant, the preceding consonant is not necessarily required: стол (stol) does rhyme with уко́л (ukól) (the rhyme is -ól; it's officially considered a "poor rhyme" (бедная рифма), but is nevertheless very widely used in poetry).

The following recently created non-rhymes need to be deleted and entries linking to them need to be cleaned up by a bot:

Rhymes:Russian/a, Rhymes:Russian/ɛ, Rhymes:Russian/i, Rhymes:Russian/o, Rhymes:Russian/u, Rhymes:Russian/e, Rhymes:Russian/ɨ, Rhymes:Russian/ɵ.

Tetromino (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Tetromino OK. This isn't how things work in English but I'm completely ready to believe that Russian works differently. If others can confirm this, I'll do a bot run to fix things up. (The bot could handle the whole process of adding rhymes, potentially, if people think this is useful.) Benwing2 (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
It's actually a little bit more complicated: the consonant doesn't need to match exactly: ловлю́ (lovljú) famously rhymes with на Ю (na Ju) because in this case a palatalized approximant [lʲ] in [lɐˈvlʲu] is "close enough" to the glide [j] in [nɐ‿ˈju]. But you need something consonant-ish there; -u by itself does not make a rhyme. Tetromino (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Wittiami: Please note that your creations can be deleted. You should discuss these edits first. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 19:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Tetromino, @Atitarev: OK. I can reorganize all rhymes into subcategories in order to arrange every ultimate syllable accordingly to their preceding consonant. Also I think it is a nice idea to combine rhymes like люблю and на Ю with similar preceding consonants in one entry. Additionally I have already combined entries for /æ/ and /a/ sounds in one, analogously /ɵ/ and /o/. If my work here still make sense, I'll continue adding more rhymes and entries. Wittiami (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Wittiami Even after you said you'd stop creating entries with rhymes like /a/, you are still doing it with туда́ (tudá) and сюда́ (sjudá). Note that in any case, adding rhymes is better suited to a bot than a human. Benwing2 (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

March 2019




@Neitrāls vārds Similar logic appears here as for Template:sv-compound above. The usage is a bit less random as it's mostly used specifically for some suffix-like words used as the second component of a compound, but it's still used only on about 80 pages for about 7 components. The documentation gives the example of mīez, which is supposed to be equivalent to compounds with English -man, except that the latter *is* analyzed as a suffix, and I don't see why the same can't be done for these Livonian components. Benwing2 (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Judging by talk:-man there isn't exactly a consensus... And they have a point. By that logic who is to hold someone back from creating Bundes- and -republik and hundreds of other "prefixes", "suffixes".
Latviešu valodas gramatika says that "a sign of a tendency towards grammaticalization is weakening of the initial meaning and strengthening of generalized character(?)" (I guess what is meant is that the affixoid yields uniform results?) and apparently grammaticalization is a sign of an affixoid...
Or we can go by Nordisk leksikografisk ordbok referenced in affixoid and consider this case solved with -mō and -mīez being postfixoids.
I only want to know how I can get the derived terms at mō#Derived terms and mīez#Derived terms (this is assuming you would replace the template to be deleted with {{af}})? It's possible to tell {{suffixsee}} to show -mō and not take the page name which would be mō, right? (I have no interest in making entries for the "postfixoids" I think they're completely redundant on an entry level.) Neitrāls vārds (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

April 2019


Template:abstract noun of


This is used only in Thai, and seems to be used in addition to, but also instead of real definitions. Note diff: an editor has entirely removed the English definitions, replacing them with an incomprehensible "abstract noun" definition. The full definition is definitely preferable to this, so I think we should undo this and restore the original full definitions. —Rua (mew) 21:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Pinging @Miwako Sato, who seems to be the editor who removed all the definitions. —Rua (mew) 17:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

  1. There had long been people who manually defined abstract nouns as "abstract noun of xxx", and then I imported this template from the Thai Wiktionary because it would more helpful than inserting such kind of definition manually.
  2. In my opinion, using this template is more useful than putting actual definitions. For example, the verb ตะแบง (dtà-bɛɛng) is defined as "(1) to cross; to twist; to intertwine; to plait. (2) to make or express (a remark, argument, etc) obliquely, evasively, or distortedly.", and its abstract noun, การตะแบง (gaan-dtà-bɛɛng), would be defined as "(1) an act or instance of crossing; an act or instance of twisting; an act or instance of intertwining; an act or instance of plaiting. (2) an act or instance of making or expressing (a remark, argument, etc) obliquely, evasively, or distortedly." So, just defining it as "abstract noun of ตะแบง (dtà-bɛɛng)" would be more appropriate. Moreover, there are terms that have no directly corresponding terms in English and there abstract noun definitions would need long and redundant descriptions. For example, the verb เสียอาการ (sǐia-aa-gaan) is defined as "to lose control of oneself, lose one's mind, or go crazy because of shyness, excitement, surprise, etc.", and its abstract noun forms are ความเสียอาการ and การเสียอาการ, which would be defined as "the condition of losing control of oneself, lose one's mind, or go crazy because of shyness, excitement, surprise, etc." and "an act or instance of losing control of oneself, lose one's mind, or go crazy because of shyness, excitement, surprise, etc.", respectively. Wouldn't a mere definition like "Abstract noun of เสียอาการ (sǐia-aa-gaan)" be more suitable?
  3. Anyway, those who regularly participate in Thai entries might be able to give more beneficial opinions on this: @Alifshinobi, GinGlaep, Octahedron80, Wyang
--Miwako Sato (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

In Thai, an abstract noun is merely formed by placing "การ" (for action) or "ความ" (for condition) before any verb, adverb, or adjective and just covers all the senses that the verb, adverb, or adjective has. There's no need to add something which the OP described as "real definitions". This is the same thing as defining "flied" as "a simple past tense of fly" instead of defining "fly" as "to move in the air" and defining "flied" as "moved in the air". The template is applicable to any languages of similar structures, including Asian languages like Khmer, Lao, etc. The fact that it is now used in Thai and has not yet been used in other languages doesn't constitute a reason for its deletion. So, keep it. --YURi (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

RE: Definitions/translations vs "abstract noun of". Which one?
I probably need to think more about this, but my current view is that a simpler approach should be used primarily. I am not a fan of unnecessarily complex approaches. So, "abstract noun of" should be used mainly, and a definition/translation should be provided only if it is needed. Defining/translating words that are equivalent to -ing words (e.g., การพูด (gaan-pûut) and การเดิน (gaan-dəən) = speaking and walking respectively) does not add much. So, definitions/translations should be provided only for (a smaller set of) words that really do need them (e.g., ความรู้ (kwaam-rúu) is defined in the Thai Wiktionary. Other words that should be defined/translated are ความถ่วง (kwaam-tùuang) and ความเร่ง (kwaam-rêng) etc.). These words, for those who do not speak Thai, have to be defined because they do not simply mean "the state of -ing (something)", or they may have specialized meanings. For example, ความรู้ (kwaam-rúu) does not simply mean "knowing," or "the state of being aware or informed." It means "knowledge," or "facts, information, and skills acquired by a person." It also has other meanings. Anyway, I am open to other views. If you have a strong argument for eliminating "abstract noun of," please share it.
--A.S. (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Other than Thai, this template was generally tended to serve many languages such as Northern Thai, Isan, Lao, Lü, etc, as it was used in Thai Wiktionary. (Indeed, they have all same abstract noun concept.) At the present, we made more specific templates for each language like "th-abstract noun of", "lo-abstract noun of", etc. For English Wiktionary, I suggest that the template could be renamed in same way (because it is just currently used with Thai entries).

It is not limited to have the "abstract noun of" only one line. More senses can be added. For example, th:ความเร็ว can have "abstract noun of" in meaning 1 and then scientific sense in meaning 2.

Additionally, use of template is beneficial for scripts and bots making more entries, as I do in Thai Wiktionary everyday. --Octahedron80 (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Octahedron80, YURi, Miwako Sato The problem I have with these is that they are defined as lemmas. That means that they have the full status of independent word, and are not part of the inflection paradigm of another word. One expects lemmas to have proper definitions, and one would also expect to find lemmas in a typical dictionary with definitions given. If they were defined as non-lemmas, then it is understood that their meaning is tied to the meaning of the verb to which they belong, and that they generally are not given entries in the average dictionary but instead are grouped with the verb. A key in this question is also whether every verb has its own abstract noun. If there are many verbs that do not have abstract nouns, then they are better considered as lemmas as their existence is not predictable. They should have proper definitions then, rather than being labelled as "abstract noun". To say it another way, the treatment we give to them depends on whether we consider them a case of inflection or of derivation. Inflection is non-lemmas, derivation is lemmas. Inflection usually implies every verb has a fixed set of forms, while derivation is unpredictable and happens on a case-by-case basis.

If abstract nouns are inflectional, and thus non-lemmas and do not need a full definition, then it is still possible for them to have special senses. The same situation exists in English with participles and gerunds. On one side, they are verb forms, inflectional and thus non-lemmas, and their meaning is tied to that of the verb. But they can also sometimes "detach" from the verb and develop senses that are not shared with the verb. In these cases, the standard practice (that I have seen) has been to have Verb headings for the sense tied to the verb, and Noun or Adjective headings alongside it for senses that are separate from the verb. This practice could be applied to Thai too, then these abstract nouns could be defined simply as verb forms (non-lemma), with an additional Noun header (lemma) for cases where they have independent senses. Again, though, if abstract nouns are derivational, then they must have full definitions and should not use a template, as this is the standard for Wiktionary entries.

Separately from this, there is the question of whether abstract nouns need their own special template. We already have the {{inflection of}} template, which can easily handle any kind of inflection, making a separate template unnecessary. I also wonder if an abstract noun is not really just a verbal noun, for which a separate discussion exists below. It would be cleaner if we could make Thai use the verbal noun template instead of having its own separate one. But using {{inflection of}} would be even more preferable. —Rua (mew) 21:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Abstract noun (อาการนาม) is a type of noun and is used in sentences as noun, equivalent to English -ing or -ness. It is the umbrella term for verbal noun, adjectival noun, and adverbial noun (other languages may have more kinds). Almost verbs/adjectives/adverbs could be fix with การ/ความ to make the abstract nouns, with some exceptions: (1) The rule can only be found in nowaday/modern use. Dated or obsolete words do not have it. (2) It seldom applies on peotic/galant terms or long idioms/proverbs. (3) Some terms actually never form the abstract noun. They might be considered as (sort of unpredictable) non-lemmas because they are likety not given in published dictionaries, but they should not also have misrepresenting header tag, they must have noun instead of verb/adjective/adverb that would become incorrect part of speech. (I also speak upto other languages in the region that have same concept.)
I see {{gerund of|walk|lang=en}} in walking as lemma under noun tag, that is really equivalent to the abstract noun of in การเดิน. Why the gerund of can exist while the abstract noun of cannot?
FYI: There are five types of Thai noun: common noun (สามานยนาม), proper noun (วิสามานยนาม), collective noun (สมุหนาม; BTW we do not separate this), classifier (ลักษณนาม; someone calls counter, it is same), and abstract noun (อาการนาม). --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Seems worth keeping, but I agree that definitions/glosses should be provided. Not sure it would qualify as an "inflection of" anything. Ultimateria (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ultimateria, Octahedron80, Alifshinobi: To a first approximation, just saying 'abstract noun of' plus the entry for the verb is the definition. How this is to be interpreted is the task of a grammar. However, perhaps we do need to expand on this for individual languages. If there are language specifics, perhaps 'abstract noun of' should link to an appropriate section in the about page for a language. I'm not sure how we do this. A per language table of targets would be rather unwieldy, though I suppose we could include this in the language data; this would be a question for the greasepit. We could also link it through the glossary.
It's an inflection like the English gerund or -able form. It resembles the latter in that I'm not sure the split into actions and conditions is purely semantic - I suspect it's partly lexical, despite the words like รัก (rák) that have both forms. --RichardW57m (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
From the above explanations, I get the impression that Thai การ (gaan) is equivalent to Vietnamese sự. If that’s the case, aren’t การ (gaan) + verb combinations completely SoP? (They may have idiomatic translations in English, of course, but that doesn’t make them idiomatic in Thai.) For Vietnamese sự there was a discussion long ago that ended with the deletion of all transparent sự + verb/adjective entries for being SoP. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 09:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Template:lv-inflection of


This is a duplicate of {{inflection of}} in terms of function and logic, except less capable. —Rua (mew) 17:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Rua Don't worry, this is on my list. As it has > 106,000 uses, though, it's not high on the priority list, and some thought needs to go into whether we really want to deprecate such high-use templates. For references, here's a list of all the lang-specific form-of templates with >= 10,000 uses:
Aliased template Canonical template #Uses Comments (as of June 2023)
Template:es-verb form of Template:es-verb form of 441646 Converted to auto-determining template; < 100 old uses left.
Template:es-verb form of/subtense-pronoun Template:es-verb form of/subtense-pronoun 337361 < 10 uses left.
Template:es-verb form of/subtense-name Template:es-verb form of/subtense-name 337360 < 10 uses left.
Template:es-verb form of/indicative Template:es-verb form of/indicative 185279 < 10 uses left.
Template:es-verb form of/subjunctive Template:es-verb form of/subjunctive 144578 < 10 uses left.
Template:es-compound of Template:es-compound of 114260
Template:lv-inflection of Template:lv-inflection of 106703 Deprecated.
Template:eo-form of Template:eo-form of 99100
Template:pt-verb-form-of Template:pt-verb-form-of 94585 Obsoleted and deleted.
Template:ca-verb form of Template:ca-verb form of 78144
Template:es-verb form of/adverbial Template:es-verb form of/adverbial 63386 < 10 uses left.
Template:de-verb form of Template:de-verb form of 54762 Deprecated.
Template:fi-form of Template:fi-form of 54262 Deprecated.
Template:es-verb form of/imperative Template:es-verb form of/imperative 52546 < 50 uses left.
Template:ru-participle of Template:ru-participle of 47321 Deprecated.
Template:de-inflected form of Template:de-inflected form of 46670 Deprecated.
Template:pinyin reading of Template:pinyin reading of 40032 Obsoleted and deleted.
Template:el-form-of-nounadj Template:el-form-of-nounadj 31509
Template:nl-verb form of Template:nl-verb form of 30619 Deprecated.
Template:bg-verb form of Template:bg-verb form of 30114 Deprecated.
Template:en-past of Template:en-past of 28731
Template:pt-verb form of Template:pt-verb form of 28730 Entirely converted to auto-determining template.
Template:nl-noun form of Template:nl-noun form of 27827 Deprecated.
Template:en-third-person singular of Template:en-third-person singular of 26977
Template:es-verb form of/participle Template:es-verb form of/participle 24257 Obsoleted and deleted.
Template:ja-romanization of Template:ja-romanization of 16472
Template:pt-adj form of Template:pt-adj form of 15455 Deprecated.
Template:io-form of Template:io-form of 10429
Template:sv-noun-form-def Template:sv-noun-form-def 10063 Deprecated.
Benwing2 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I'll leave them to you then. Thank you for the work! —Rua (mew) 22:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Delete - yes, agreed. Get rid. Theknightwho (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Deprecated. I also marked the status of the other templates in the above table. Benwing2 (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Category:Mongolian pronunciation spellings


Phonetic respellings should be handled differently. We normally don't have entries for words, which are phonetic representations of another word, unless they are attestable common respellings. It is useful to show them (unlinked), though, as in баярлалаа (bajarlalaa) (this revision). If pronunciation module for Mongolian is eventually developed, these spellings can be used as parameters. Someone suggested displaying respellings in the headword, as in Nelai फूल (phūl), which says "pronounced फुल (phul)" --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'd RFV these individually; it's possible that the pronunciation spellings are actually used in writing as misspellings (though then they should be changed to {{misspelling of}} or {{alternative spelling of}} depending on how standardized Mongolian spelling is). —Mahāgaja · talk 05:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Oh, and I don't like the solution at Nepali फूल (phūl). That info belongs in the Pronunciation section, not the headword line. For Irish I do sometimes write "as if spelled XYZ" after the IPA in the pronunciation section. —Mahāgaja · talk 05:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

May 2019


Template:feminine equivalent of


Redundant to {{female equivalent of}}. It is not at all clear what a "feminine equivalent" is. If it refers to grammatical gender, then what distinguishes a "feminine equivalent" from a general alternative form whose grammatical gender is feminine? —Rua (mew) 19:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Also @Fay Freak who was previously engaged with this user. —Rua (mew) 19:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Judging from the two uses of this template, the intent is not grammatical gender. What would be a suitable alternative name for referring what is often referred to as natural gender? DCDuring (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
It's not redundant at all as there is a huge difference between gender (of words) and sex (of things and living beings).
English actress (no gender; refering to someone with female sex) is the female equivalent of actor (no gender),
while German terms in (...-er)-in (feminine gender; female or no sex at all) are the feminine equivalent of terms in -er (masculine gender; male, female, unknown or no gender). Real-life examples:
  • "Lenin sah in der Partei die Führerin und Lehrerin der Massen" - Führerin and Lehrerin are feminine but here refer to a sexless thing.
  • "ein weiblicher Lehrer" (sg.), "weibliche Lehrer" (pl.) - Lehrer is masculine but here refers to female beings.
  • "männliche und weibliche Lehrer", "Lehrer beiderlei Geschlechts" - Lehrer is masculine but here refers to male and female beings.
  • "der Glaub ist der Führer der Hofnung" - Führer is masculine but here refers to a sexless abstract thing.
--B-Fahrer (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@B-Fahrer, Fay Freak, DCDuring, Rua I don't really see the point of having separate templates {{feminine equivalent of}}/{{female equivalent of}} and {{feminine noun of}}. All the templates are in practice used equivalently. The three examples above of Lehrer/Führer are irrelevant as they refer to the masculine form, which in many languages can also be used of female beings. The feminine form Lehrerin, as far as I can tell, does normally refer to female beings. All examples on Glosbe of Führerin [1], for example, refer to women. It seems clear to me that the above example where Lehrerin and Führerin are used to refer to a political party is a marginal case as well as a clear example of personification. It is comparable to the use of she in English to refer to boats, airplanes, countries, etc. and he to occasionally refer to various programming language constructs; this does not change the fact that he and she are natural-gender pronouns. As a result I am planning on merging these templates. Benwing2 (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
BTW I thought about this a bit more. There are cases in German like Herstellerin (manufacturer) that are often used of non-human entities (in this case, companies) and cannot be called personifications. (Sammlerin (collector) is claimed to be another instance, although the examples in Glosbe [2] all appear to refer to women.) This situation appears to be specific to German, and exceptional even in that language, where most words in -erin do appear to refer primarily to women. In my opinion, words like Herstellerin should not use {{female equivalent of}} or any other similar variant, but should simply be defined as "manufacturer", possibly with a usage note indicating that they are normally used only to refer to feminine nouns (if that is indeed the case). If Sammlerin can equally refer to a woman who is a collector or to a non-human feminine-gender collecting object, it should have two definitions, one with {{female equivalent of}} and the other defined as [[collector]] {{gloss|object that collects}} or similar, with a usage note. Benwing2 (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
glosbe doesn't matter in any way; and as for Sammlerin it has examples not refering to women but to forager bees:
  • Wenn eine Sammlerin eine neue Nektarquelle findet, kehrt sie zum Bienenstock zurück, um die gute Nachricht zu übermitteln.
    Mockingly ]The duck may swim on the lake, but my daddy owns the lake [this english text is no translation]
  • Andere Arbeiterinnen, gleich welchen Alters, unternahmen vergleichsweise wenige Sammelflüge, solange eine aktive Sammlerin vorhanden war.
    It was great [this english text is no translation]
BTW some entries with good examples that show that it is about gender (masculine/feminine) and not sex (male/female):
Also related: Blaue
--B-Fahrer (talk) 07:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@B-Fahrer You are 100% not listening to what I'm saying. Since the predominant usage of {{feminine noun of}}, {{female equivalent of}} and {{feminine equivalent of}} is to refer to female beings (which BTW includes bees), they should be used for this purpose and not distorted due to vagaries of German. Wiktionary needs to cater to all languages, not just to German. Please reread what I said about (a) masculine nouns referring to female humans (irrelevant for this discussion as they don't use {{female equivalent of}}), (b) feminine and neuter nouns referring to male humans (similarly irrelevant), (c) personification, (d) nouns in -in that refer to things other than female beings (which should do something else than use {{female equivalent of}}). BTW feel free to use {{feminine of}} if the primary meaning of a given word does *not* refer to female beings. Benwing2 (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Also, normal practice when giving quotes or usage examples is to include a translation into English; please do so in the future, thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Well, for different languages there can be different templates or approaches if the languages are different.
(a) & (b) It's relevant for the related issue with {{de-noun}} and its incorrect text for the parameters m= and f=.
(c) "and cannot be called personifications" - indeed.
(d) "which should do something else than use {{female equivalent of}}" - indeed, as that's incorrect as shown by the examples.
(Quotes) It's also normal practice to not provide translations (whatever the reasons may be, like lazyness or lack of time, lack of translation skills or vocabulary), although it's indeed nice to have them. --B-Fahrer (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

The template was redirected to {{female equivalent of}}, but a number of the German entries referenced here now use {{feminine of}}. Anyway, that's a discussion for another day. As far as this RFD goes, it's RFD-resolved. This, that and the other (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

February 2020




Like anything using title text, this is really awful from a usability perspective. It also stands out from normal Wiktionary practice, which is to use context labels. A context label would make it immediately clear what it means. —Rua (mew) 10:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I support making it more "standard" and less awful UX-wise, but how? It is a long tooltip.Suzukaze-c 19:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Labels commonly link to a glossary. Couldn't that be done here too? It doesn't have to be Appendix:Glossary, language-specific pages can be a thing too. —Rua (mew) 19:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
I guess we can also do {{lb|zh|literary|or|Cantonese|...}}. —Suzukaze-c 19:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
If that conveys the same thing, then I think it's fine. —Rua (mew) 19:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Could something be added to the section that the references template or something else that us used on most or all pages that identifies what the template means? I saw both this template and the "††" symbol for the "zh-hg" template on the page 我#Chinese, and had no idea what they meant. Jimw338 (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
What is the difference between Template:zh-obsolete and Template:zh-no-solo? It seems that only one needs to stay. Or maybe make it redirect. Some characters (eg. 子#Chinese) have both templates and it's very confusing. Betty (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Delete. The title text does not even appear for me when I mouse over any more, and an anon has reported that they don't know what the symbol could possibly mean. We need to bring Chinese entries more in line with the dictionary as a whole, which seeks to communicate plainly and clearly rather than obfuscate with cute symbols. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Delete. I support using clearer labels, such as those that @Suzukaze-c has suggested above. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 23:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Delete per Metaknowledge, though it do appear for me. It is space-efficient but we have the space to spell it, and if we don’t then due to the other uses of that dagger I still prefer Todesrune in a print-out version of this dictionary, but here it is still safest to just spell it out (although this creates the problem to distinguish obsolete, archaic and dated, then probably use other words such as “outmoded” if you are too judgementless to distinguish thus far …). Fay Freak (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
I support changing the template to be equivalent to {{lb|zh|obsolete}}, but deleting a widely used template breaks old versions of pages. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Very confusing label. Hope that I'm not too late to discussion. The obvious way would be to spell them in {{lb}}, but I think when there are multiple senses repeating the same {{lb|zh|obsolete}}, it is better to list them as a subsense under a sense that just says {{lb|zh|obsolete}}, as demonstrated here Special:Diff/68565444. (Obviously it should be templatized if done in this way)
I should also note that these labels are sometimes used outside of definitions and not in templates, such as in the {{zh-forms}} at . How should we deal with them? -- Wpi31 (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete. The dagger character can have other uses, such as an asterisk-like function, so it's better to write obsolete in a label. Soap 09:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete this template along with the similar ones listed below. Fancy symbols like these just make the dictionary harder to understand and edit. Glades12 (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

and redirects. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

ilk —Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

These are even obscurer and should the more be deleted. The verbal equivalent of Template:zh-historical-dict “is per the record found in one or more historical dictionaries. It does not necessarily have citations” is elsewhere “Lex.”, for Template:zh-no-solo and Template:zh-obsolete it is “obsolete except in compounds”. Fay Freak (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Delete. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Delete for the reasons above. Frankly, we should be incorporating the functionality of all of the zh templates into the generic templates wherever there's an equivalent. Theknightwho (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

April 2020


Category:Languages of California


I don't think we need to be any level lower than countries... Ultimateria (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

California at one time probably had about a hundred indigenous languages and represented the intersection of the Algic languages (which extend to the east coast), the Athabascan languages (which extend from Alaska to northern Mexico), the Uto-Aztecan languages, (which extend to Central America), a few still-to-be-proven language families like Hokan and Penutian, and a few probable isolates like the Chimariko language and the Karuk language, with a very high percentage endemic to the state. Right now the category contains only one language which was added by a clueless editor based on a bogus etymology, but we already have hundreds of entries in upwards of 5 dozen indigenous languages- about a fifth of Category:Languages of the United States. I should also mention that we have Category:Languages of Hawaii, among others. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Make that over a thousand lemmas. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I've now added 58 indigenous languages to the category, which I will, of course, remove if we decide to delete. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
What about nonindigenous languages? Besides English and Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Tagalog are all widely spoken in California. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes, and I've been to stores with signs in Arabic, Armenian, Hebrew, Hindi, Indonesian, Japanese, Persian, Russian and Thai, and I've met people from Greek, Malagasy, Samoan and Tongan communities as well. The Los Angeles County election websites can be viewed in Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Hindi, Khmer, Korean, Vietnamese and Thai, and American Sign Language interpreters are in considerable demand. I understand that we have lots of people speaking American Indian languages from the rest of the US and from other parts of the Americas. I've even heard of a radio station somewhere in the Central Valley broadcasting in Assyrian Aramaic. I should add that I know there are lots of people speaking other South Asian languages than Hindi and other Chinese languages than Mandarin, but I don't know which ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
So how do we decide what to include and what not to? And really, that question applies not only to this category but also to country-level categories like CAT:Languages of the United States. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't know, but I disagree with categorizing Category:American Sign Language into Languages of California. ASL is used in all 50 states. I don't think it needs to be in potentially 51 location categories when 1 covers that same information. Leave the demographic specifics to Wikipedia. Ultimateria (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
English and Spanish are spoken in all 50 states too. And they're spoken in other countries as well; does that mean they shouldn't be in CAT:Languages of the United States? —Mahāgaja · talk 05:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
That's what I'm arguing for, rather than put e.g. Spanish in 300 categories for all the states of the US and South American countries. Ultimateria (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Delete because it is ambiguous. If we talk about native languages we go also beyond the current state borders and might think about the California of the now United Mexican States. Fay Freak (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Deletion for the reason given immediately above is completely inappropriate. The rationale would suggest renaming. "Early languages...", "Pre-Columbian languages..." might work for the instant case.
We use current governmental borders for categories such as this because of the administrative processes that govern almost all the research on such matters and because that is how most of our users would approach the subject matter. California may secede after the coming election so it would seem prudent to wait before any rash deletion or renaming. DCDuring (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
California might secede? Even then there is still a different California. I am not sure that we use governmental borders. Many who use these categories think that. Fay Freak (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
That's Baja California, not California. Don't conflate etymology with meaning. Theknightwho (talk) 09:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep per Chuck Entz as it's important to have the indigenous languages there. AG202 (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep: It is so well populated now that it is not overly precise. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 06:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep because it seems useful to have a category of indigenous languages. That said, I'm not sure about cases like Mandarin, Tagalog, Korean, and Vietnamese, all currently in the category. Worth noting that neither English or Spanish currently are in the category, and they undoubtedly have the most speakers. I can see a case for including these non-indigenous languages, but if we were to admit any language that has a community of speakers in California then the category would probably stop being useful, even though I suspect there may be more speakers of Icelandic in California than of Valley Yokuts. Not sure where the line should be. There might be a case for only including languages that are (semi-)unique to California, which would probably limit the category to indigenous languages. There might also be a case for having separate categories for indigenous and non-indigenous. Or we could just hope that having all indigenous languages + maybe the top ten non-indigenous is a sane heuristic and hope nobody decides to add Icelandic. (This issue is not by any means unique to California, and I'm not sure whether there's a general rule that's been agreed upon.) 06:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Maybe the rule should be indigenous to California OR speakers per capita in California >> speakers per capita in US, which would exclude English but plausibly include those Asian languages. There may still be some disagreement about what ">>" means, however, as I assume Spanish is spoken at a greater rate per capita in California than in the US as a whole, but it seems weird to include Spanish but not English. I don't have a fully satisfactory answer. 07:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Rename to Cat:Indigenous languages of California etc and remove the non-indigenous (post-European colonisation) languages. That would make for a more meaningful category per the IP above. I see no value in categorising colonial and migrant languages by state, province, etc. This, that and the other (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Actually, this is a much better idea. Support the above. AG202 (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I also Support, I think this is a useful category, whereas including non-indigenous languages is unworkable.--Urszag (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep: states have a variety of languages and this saves space in the main category. The Australia category is big too, so I'm creating some for Australian states and territories (the NT will probably have the biggest category because of all the living Indigenous languages there). 2001:8004:2778:4E8D:40F:54A0:A43F:F695 08:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
However, except for subregional dialects, I think we should just stick to putting languages spoken mostly or exclusively in that state or territory (so in the instance for Hawaii, Category:Hawaiian English would absolutely fit in Category:Languages of Hawaii, but Category:English language or Category:American English would not. 2001:8004:2778:4E8D:40F:54A0:A43F:F695 08:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

August 2020




@Useigor, this looks like an aborted experiment? PUC11:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Boo. You can use {{root}}. --{{victar|talk}} 03:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
The deletion notice shows up in the pages transcluding the template. This is very confusing. I think that the deletion template should be wrapped in a noinclude tag. 08:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
As it now is. DCDuring (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

October 2020


All templates in Category:Chinese headword-line templates except Template:zh-noun


@Atitarev, Rua, Suzukaze-c With the exception of {{zh-noun}} and {{zh-punctuation mark}}, every one of these is a trivial wrapper around {{head}}. {{zh-verb}}, for example, is defined simply as follows:


This proliferation of trivial templates doesn't accomplish anything, so I think they should all be orphaned and deleted/deprecated. From the history, they were all created by User:Atitarev, and at the time they seem to have done something useful using {{zh-pos}}. However, this is no longer the case, and {{zh-pos}} itself no longer exists. Note that {{zh-punctuation mark}} is defined in terms of {{meta-punctuation mark}}, but doesn't appear to do anything that couldn't be accomplished just as easily using {{head|zh|punctuation mark}}.

Specifically, using the "rule of 1000" that I normally follow, I propose to orphan and delete the templates with fewer than 1000 uses, and orphan and deprecate (using {{deprecated code}}) the ones with 1000 or more uses. Benwing2 (talk) 06:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: I have no objection to orphaning and deleting. @Justinrleung, Suzukaze-c. -- User:Atitarev 06:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'm down with deleting them. I personally don't like these functionally 'neutered' headword templates either. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
In addition, the parameters of {{zh-noun}} are actually deprecated, and the content should be moved to {{zh-mw}}, which is more flexible. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Making sure other Chinese editors are aware of this potential change (because I somehow didn't get @Atitarev's ping above until @Tooironic told me about it): @Mar vin kaiser, Geographyinitiative, RcAlex36, The dog2, Frigoris, Apisite. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
I support deleting all templates in Category:Chinese headword-line templates except Template:zh-verb (see Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2020/July#Inner structure of a Chinese verb - not supported now, but may be supported in the future). -- 10:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@沈澄心: Apologies for forgetting you above. You do bring up a good point. I do wonder if it may be better for us to do it on a definition-by-definition basis, like we do with {{zh-mw}}, though. Is it possible for a verb to be more than one type? This reminds me that I forgot about @恨国党非蠢即坏, Thedarkknightli, Michael Ly. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 12:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Justinrleung: 出櫃 seems to be both. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Suzukaze-c: Exactly what I'm looking for. The first sense is separable (verb-object specifically), but the second sense is not. I think this is a good case for having it in {{lb}} rather than {{zh-verb}}. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 12:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Justinrleung: No. This is another Chinese grammar phenomenon. When a "verb-object" verb is followed by another object, it becomes unseparable. This rule applies to all transitive senses of all "verb-object" verbs, including 加速 mentioned below. There is no point to repeat stating a general rule in every definition. Also, this does not change the "verb-object" nature of the verb and it becomes separable again if the the object is omitted, regardless of the sense used. Thus I oppose the definition-by-definition format. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
... although there is also the issue of using a dot or slashes to demarcate where we can separate the verb. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 12:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Justinrleung: Another example is 加速 (per Xiandai Hanyu Cidian). Also, 糊口 is separable in Classical Chinese (Zuozhuan: “寡人有弟,不能和協,而使於四方。”, Shiji: “伍子胥橐載而出昭關,夜行晝伏,至於陵水,無以……”), but in Modern Standard Chinese, it's not. -- 13:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@沈澄心: 糊口 is in fact separable. The reason why we rarely see expressions like 糊了口 is a semantical one, not a grammatical one. 糊口 describes a habitual and ongoing action, thus there is usually no need to attach tense/aspect particle to it, which is the most frequent case of a modern Chinese verb to separate. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@恨国党非蠢即坏: Yeah, there seem to be some ghits for 糊著口, so it is separable. I guess there are grammatical restrictions that make verb-object constructions inseparable if it takes an object, but when that happens, I don't know if we should still treat it a verb-object construction. It's not like 出 is ditransitive in transitive 出櫃, nor is transitive 出櫃 functioning as verb + object anymore from how I see it. I'm not familiar with how people have dealt with these, but I think we probably need some scholarly sources to back up our decisions. I still think definition-by-definition is a safer way to go in case there are cases where a compound could be both separable and inseparable. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Justinrleung: It is very evident in the 把 structure and the passive voice that they are still verb-objects and separable.
The only key point is whether they are directly followed by another object. Of course they are not ditransitives. They simply don't work that way. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@恨国党非蠢即坏: Okay, that makes sense. I can also find some ghits for google:"把*加了速". Then we should keep {{zh-verb}} and implement the verb compound categorization soon. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Justinrleung, 恨国党非蠢即坏 We also have {{tlb}} for adding a label after a headword to indicate that it applies to all definitions. That could potentially be used here, and has the advantage that {{lb}} could be used if there are cases where the compound verb has different structures per-definition. OTOH this doesn't allow for adding a dot or slash to indicate where the separation point is. Benwing2 (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: Yes, thanks for bringing that up. I thought of it but forgot to mention it. We could use the |head= to show where the separation point is, but it'd be nice to have a template so that the formatting could be more easily standardized. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Justinrleung: This is fine with me. Benwing2 (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
I am not familiar with the coding so I don't have any particular opinions now. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I obsoleted/orphaned all except {{zh-noun}}, {{zh-verb}} and {{zh-hanzi}}. Maybe {{zh-hanzi}} should go as well; I figured it might be marginally easier to remember {{zh-hanzi}} than {{head|zh|Han character}}. I deleted all the ones with < 1000 uses, and deprecated the remainder (which includes only {{zh-adj}}, {{zh-adv}}, {{zh-idiom}} and {{zh-proper noun}}). Benwing2 (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Might be worth updating {{head}} to include the alias Hanzi for Han character? Theknightwho (talk) 11:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

December 2020


Just stumbled upon their WP articles which has been removed from mainspace as spurious (and the original retained for historical reference), so it's time to delete their language family category, including the Category:Proto-Sunda-Sulawesi language, and rearrange the Malayo-Polynesian family tree.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, SemperBlotto, DTLHS: Can you take a look on this? -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
My understanding is that the Malayo-Polynesian family tree is more like a lawn. Aside from Oceanic, there are lots of smaller local groups and there's Malayo-Polynesian, but no real structure in between. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Chuck Entz: There 's a Western Malayo-Polynesian family (and a Proto-Western-Malayo-Polynesian protolanguage) proposed by Blust that lumps all those currently grouped under Borneo-Philippines and Sunda-Sulawesi here into a single family, but it's mostly geographical and discredited. I agree with your point. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • If the scholarly consensus is that these nodes are invalid, then I agree we should delete them and associate their daughters directly with Malayo-Polynesian, but there will be widespread consequences, including deleting all of the Proto-Sunda-Sulawesi lemmas. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Most of those are only present due to their easy availability via Blust's Austronesian Comparative Dictionary. I use that a lot for data on languages, but I don't trust its reconstructions unless I can find confirmation elsewhere. Blust is notorious for using software designed for cladistics in biology on lexicostatic data.
    • As you know, it's possible to reconstruct a protolanguage for any assortment of languages that are related at all, and coincidental patterns of presence or absence of reflexes as well as borrowing can make these reconstructions different for different arbitrary groupings even though they share the same latest common ancestor. I'm sure Proto-English-Italian-Romanian and Proto-Engliah-French-Spanish would look different, even though the only common ancestor for both is Proto-Indo-European. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Looking over our PSuSw lemmas, most of them are just trivial rewritings of PMP lemmas anyway, and the sole exception is actually continued solely in Malayo-Chamic *bagus. I don't know what has motivated creating Sunda-Sulawesi and also intermediate Malayo-Sumbawan entries for this, did someone perhaps originally miss Blust's note that the reflex in Rembong (spoken on Flores) should be considered a loan from Malayic rather than inherited? --Tropylium (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Chuck Entz, Mahagaja, Tropylium I've been fixing Austronesian reconstructions to get rid of Borneo-Philippines and PSuSw, and some IP working on the same area reverted my change for *buʀuk. I think there should be already be a resolution here.
In addition to Borneo-Philippines and Sunda-Sulawesi, should we also delete these families as well?
  • Malayo-Sumbawan (proposed by K. Adelaar. Includes Malayic and Chamic, Bali-Sasak-Sumbawa, Sundanese and Madurese)
    • Malayo-Chamic (rather two separate families directly grouped with MP)
--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Related discussion: Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Non-English#Proto-Sunda-Sulawesi. –Austronesier (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
The recent RFV of the term Proto-Sunda-Sulawesi has reminded me of this. It looks like we only have a few lemmas left to remove? (And then perhaps etymologies to update... and so many categories to delete...) - -sche (discuss) 06:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

April 2021


Module:template utilities


Unused. Created by @Kephir in 2014 and enlarged this year by @Huhu9001 with some potentially useful stuff, but is it actually useful enough that anyone is going to bother using it? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Abstain. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Keep. It is used now. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
The template parsing code there seems to be supplanted by Module:templateparser. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 11:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete and merge with Module:templateparser. We should not have multiple modules doing the same thing. IMO User:Huhu9001 should not have expanded this module and started using it but instead should have added any missing functionality to Module:templateparser. Benwing2 (talk) 07:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete - I am working to deprecate this now. Theknightwho (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

September 2021




This template pushes headword-line information off the headword, which makes entries unnecessarily messy, and is a practice seen nowhere else in the dictionary (and certainly not in other Semitic languages, like Arabic). As an example, take a look at how the entry מודה changed from a messy version using {{he-wv}} to its current, neater state with the structure standardly found on Wiktionary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

In your example the template was in the definition line, however it is used in pronunciation sections: isn’t the usage in pronunciation sections as on מלך about the thing we need for Arabic entries presenting multiple vocalizations from the same root, to avoid structuring around pronunciation headers? Fay Freak (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak: I'm actually fine with its use in pronunciation headers; it's the use everywhere else that I find to be a problem. Perhaps instead of deleting it, the solution is to change its usage? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yea. Though it may be deleted if a template working for more languages is created. Fay Freak (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

October 2021


Reference templates categories by family


Note to archiver: please archive this discussion to Wiktionary talk:Reference templates

(discussion started at User talk:TongcyDai § CAT:Indo-Aryan reference templates)

Why did you have it deleted? This and CAT:Proto-Indo-Aryan reference templates are supposed to be different categories. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 22:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Inqilābī I'm not quite sure about it, but it seems like these sorts of templates are categorized by languages, not language families. I've seen some templates that were belonged to a category named after a language family but later moved to a new category named after related proto language's name, so I did the same thing. --TongcyDai (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Indo-Aryan reference templates do not necessarily deal with Proto-Indo-Aryan. Indo-Aryan reference templates just pertain to the family as a whole while Proto-Indo-Aryan reference templates are specifically meant for the language. So I do not agree with the deed, but I will at first inform other editors about it. (@Bhagadatta, Kutchkutch, AryamanA) ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 22:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Inqilābī: Since there are templates that would be in both categories and many Indo-Aryan templates are named as Template:R:inc:Name, that must have created the impression that they should be merged into a single category. However, there really should be a distinction so that templates that involve more than one Indo-Aryan language but not Proto-Indo-Aryan can be in Category:Indo-Aryan reference templates. For comparison,
Category:Sino-Tibetan reference templates
Category:Proto-Sino-Tibetan reference templates
are currently two separate categories. Kutchkutch (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Kutchkutch Category:Sino-Tibetan reference templates is currently a category of categories. Do we need this kind of category? In addition, I think it will be fine to add all main languages mentioned in a reference one by one, just like many templates do. --TongcyDai (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Kutchkutch: You can now recreate the deleted cat. I have fixed those reference templates that deal with the family. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Discussion moved from User_talk:TongcyDai#CAT:Indo-Aryan_reference_templates.

(Notifying Atitarev, Tooironic, Suzukaze-c, Justinrleung, Mar vin kaiser, Geographyinitiative, RcAlex36, The dog2, Frigoris, 沈澄心, 恨国党非蠢即坏, Michael Ly): Kutchkutch (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

January 2022


Category:Korean syllables


Nearly empty, they don't appear to be useful anymore. "Letter" would probably be more appropriate than "syllable" for the two entries in the first category. Ultimateria (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Delete. (Notifying TAKASUGI Shinji, Atitarev, HappyMidnight, Tibidibi, Quadmix77, Kaepoong): AG202 (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
The subcategories can essentially be speedied, which I have done, however, it's not clear what should be done with the two entries in Cat:Korean syllables. The entry bears some similarities to, say, , but none of the latter's categories are appropriate for 튽. And ꥸᅦퟗ is a bit of an oddball entry. Ultimateria's suggestion of merging this category into Category:Korean letters seems inappropriate, as that cat contains Hangul "radicals" (sorry, don't know the proper term). This, that and the other (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply



And its CSS subpage. This template, only used by its creator on 4 pages, attempts to indicate that a translation is questioned by blurring it out and thus making it impossible to read for someone like me with poor eyesight. It does not, however, give any explicit indication why the term is being blurred, and simply looks like a bizarre browser error. There may be a way to go about RFVing translations, but this template is not the right way to do it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Useigor Thadh (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
The amount of fuzzing is ridiculous. The idea of making something even a little bit harder to read when we are supposed to be giving it attention to try to verify is contrary to logic. DCDuring (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Metaknowledge, DCDuring: Apparently, when you hover over the term, it explains the issue and unblurs it. Thadh (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
What about mobile? (Or me, who didn't think to hover over something I couldn't read?) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Since it is a departure from any standard way of indicating that something is being challenged, how would any user or contributor know what was going on? Hovering is not always the response one would make. We have often been encouraged to be sensitive to accessibility concerns. This seems like an occasion to apply that sensitivity. DCDuring (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
I did not mean that I think this template should be kept in its current state, I was simply pointing out that blurring isn't the only thing the template does. By the way, what about just putting a dotted line under the term, or something similar? Thadh (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
I would change the background colour to orange or the like (one sufficiently distinct from that of {{quoted term}} in any case). I found the blurring bizarre from the beginning (but ignored the template thinking that Useigor was still coding) and the reason boils down to that, as DCDuring said, the idea of making something even a little bit harder to read when we are supposed to be giving it attention to try to verify is contrary to logic. Fay Freak (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Why not just use the same format as Template:t-check? - -sche (discuss) 22:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Cause it was not “for translations” in translation sections, I don’t know whence this equation by Metaknowledge comes from but now have to dispel this conception, but apparently for strange derived terms and descendants in Proto-Slavic entries. The design of {{t-check}} is of course for the background of translation tables while descendants and derived terms sections look different and hence seek different tinge. Fay Freak (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
We could use the same format of adding superscript "(please verify)". Although really, if the term is so likely to be fabricated and the likelihood of someone coming back to provide references is low, maybe just remove it or move it to the talk page or HTML-comment it out... - -sche (discuss) 18:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
It is not supposed to be readable because term is likely fabricated (i do some search before adding the template) and it is unknown when its editor will provide reference for it. Marked term could be removed instead but there is slight possibility that it can be verified. If you want to read, you can hover (swipe) or click and then create page with reference. For me, colored background or excessive text are ugly and distracting when i'm reader and not editor. Any editor can make custom CSS in User:USER/common.css (e.g. #mw-content-text .temp-rfv-term+[lang] {filter: blur(0px); text-decoration: underline dotted; background: orange;}). —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
I have a computer that has no mouse input at the moment. It is very cumbersome to interact with words that have this text decoration. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Now blur is changed to strike. I wanted to use 50%-opaque 2px-thick line (text-decoration: line-through 2px rgba(0,0,0,0.50);) but for some reason wiki editor does not let use thickness so i had to use 80%-opaque 1px-thick line (text-decoration: line-through rgba(0,0,0,0.80);) —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
I stand by my earlier comment that using the same format as Template:t-check, a superscript note explicitly saying "(please verify)", or even a non-superscript note like Template:rfv-sense, would probably be the clearest thing, although if a term is really most likely fabricated and the likelihood of someone coming back to provide references is low, maybe just remove it or move it to the talk page or HTML-comment it out. IMO we should allow people to occasionally RFV terms that don't have entries yet: then we could just submit the terms this is for to RFV and remove them after a month... - -sche (discuss) 03:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete, if this is not rendered more useful/user-friendly. Strikethrough is not a help. Text display of what action is to be taken and where seems essential, but has not been provided in the more than five months this RfD has been active. And deprecate now. DCDuring (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
We need to decide what this template is for if we're going to keep using it, and make sure the template code matches that as well as making sure the documentation is clear and matches that, too. Then we need to update the relevant modules so the categories are integrated into our category structure.
The cosmetic problems that led to the RFD have been fixed, but the combination of unclear documentation, clash between category naming and actual use, and inability to create the categories without fatal errors is an absolutely bizarre train wreck that traces back to the original creation of the template. That needs to change or this needs to be deleted. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
At least there are no passengers on the train any more. DCDuring (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Chuck Entz: The mismatch could be handled by a list at WT:Todo/Lists. --RichardW57m (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Appendix:Terms derived from toponyms


There's already Category:English terms derived from toponyms. We should make sure the entries listed have that category, then delete the appendix. – Jberkel 20:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've added as many as I could extract from that page. – Jberkel 23:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete for the sake of deduplication. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 19:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Category:English appendix-only phrases


Tagged by User:Zcreator alt (diff) but not listed. — Fytcha T | L | C 00:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

No reason to divide by part of speech, I think, but having all Appendix entries that look like English mainspace articles in a Category:English Appendix lemmas would be good. Currently, Appendix:Star_Wars/protocol_droid is in the mainspace's Category:English lemmas. — Fytcha T | L | C 00:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English#Appendix:Toki Pona/teje.

February 2022




I don’t think it is a proper category. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Inqilābī: I think you'll need to explain why it's not "proper". — SGconlaw (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
  1. It is not in proper category format; we do not have Category:Multiracial. (It was created unilaterally without consensus.)
  2. This category is a hotchpotch of random entries. All ethnonyms, including mixed races (such as mestizo, mulatto, Eurasian), belong in CAT:Ethnonyms; ethnic slurs have their own separate category; CAT:Scientific racism and CAT:Eugenics could be separate categories, if useful.
  3. Even the category name is not grammatically correct, it should be either multiracial people or multiracials.
  4. A lot of mixed-race group names are not dictionary material, being SoPs. Therefore, I do not think we need any category dedicated to multiracial people (the name as used in that category, which itself links to Wikipedia). ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 21:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
    I think a lot of third culture kids would disagree with that last point... Theknightwho (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
    William Jones (philologist) was an Anglo-Welsh person. This racial term should remain as a redlink; tho’ it could have a different idiomatic sense. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
    Issue #1 could be addressed very easily by adding it to the category tree. Issue #3 could be addressed by renaming the category. I don't find #4 a very convincing argument. We could just keep the ones that aren't SOP and delete the ones that are, which is the same rule we apply to any other kind of term. There are evidently plenty of such terms in English that are single words or idiomatic. Also, the RfD of Irish American closed as keep, and although that isn't a term related to mixed ancestry, it shows that hyphenated or spaced combinations of nationalities aren't necessarily regarded as SOP by the community.
    Point #2 seems to be the most substantial, but as I wrote in my comment below I think there might be value in separating out these terms from other ethnonyms. And not all of these fall under Scientific racism or Eugenics. I don't think Blasian or Finndian are necessarily associated with racism or eugenics. Such terms seem to be used as identities by members of the groups themselves. That said, I don't particularly object to deletion either. 02:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete per nom. —Svārtava (t/u) • 09:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Delete per nom. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 06:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • I can see some potential value in keeping a separate category for things like mulatto, Blasian, Chindian, the last of which isn't even in the category currently. I think there is something different about those terms as compared to most ethnonyms, and Wikipedia seems to agree given that it has a "Multiracial affairs" category with similar terms as members.

    While an argument could be made that almost all human populations have admixture from multiple groups and so almost everyone is in some sense multi-ethnic, I don't think most would e.g. include Desi in this category even if one could theoretically make an argument that the Indian subcontinent has a mix of Indo-Aryan and Dravidian genetics. It has to be a term for someone whose recent ancestors came from different groups, not way back in (pre)history. One doesn't have to be a racial essentialist to realize that people who fall under this umbrella are viewed differently in society (hence the existence of such terms).

    That said, I don't particularly object to deletion, as the issue may be more trouble than it's worth, most commenters support deletion, and the category mixes relatively PC and highly offensive terms as though there is no distinction.

    The inclusion of BIPOC in this category perplexes me. I thought "multiracial" in this context describes a person with mixed ancestry, not a coalition of different ethnic groups. 01:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

March 2022


Category:Two-letter words by language


All entries are manually categorized. If we must have these categories, can’t the categorization be automated? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sure, but why are you proposing them for deletion? This sounds like a bot request. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Actually I wanted to know whether the community wishes to keep these categories… ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 11:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'm good with keeping them, but it should be automated. Theknightwho (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
It would be impossible to add these automatically without rendering the categories essentially meaningless. For example, d has several POSs which consist only of abbreviation senses (which evidently don't count as "words" in the eyes of this categorisation system), but the headword line template has no way of knowing that. This, that and the other (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Not to mention the fact that we don't want to increase Lua memory burden on Latin script letter pages, so a lot of headword templates on a few such entries (currently a, A, b, o, u) are using {{head-lite}} anyway. 05:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep - useful for word games and other things. John Cross (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Inqilābī Keep three-letter words. I asked (under my old account) about using a bot to populate (specifically the English subcategories of) these categories last June and @Suzukaze-c said that they could be trivially populated using {{head}} or its subtemplates. Several months later I sought consensus to populate them (and someone with template editing privileges) and received no responses. But I do not have a solution to the problem pointed out by @This, that and the other above, so for now I will abstain on one-letter words. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 23:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep I agree the one and two letter categories are useful. As pointed out, a bot can't make proper categorization since it can't separate words from other character groups like abbreviations. Bots could assist maintenance, if all n-letter entries were flagged with either "include" or "exclude" templates or some such; the bots could report entries missing either flag into a maintenance category for manual attention. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
It can do it via parts of speech and checking for templates like {{initialism of}}. It's certainly doable, I think. Theknightwho (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Templates and reference templates by language family rather than by language


For some reason, we have Category:Indo-Aryan reference templates and Category:Sino-Tibetan templates but not other families and subfamilies. See Category:Templates by language, where we don't have Category:Niger-Kongo reference templates or Category:Semitic reference templates or Category:Balto-Slavic reference templates. I propose that we delete these two one-offs or at the very least, change the hierarchy explicitly to include larger language families. There's no reason for these two outliers. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Cf. https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?oldid=64486872#Undeletion_of_CAT:Indo-Aryan_reference_templatesJustin (koavf)TCM 02:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Koavf: Please see the bottom of that category that contains reference templates pertaining to the Indo-Aryan language family as a whole, rather than specific languages or even chronolects. Since Wiktionary does not treat Indo-Aryan as a united macrolanguage like Sinitic/Chinese, it makes more sense to dedicate a separate category for the current reference templates that deal with Indo-Aryan linguistics. That said, we may remove the 56 individual language categories from the list. (Pinging @Kutchkutch, Bhagadatta, Svartava, AryamanA for more input.)
I’m not sure what to be done with other families, or if consistency is needful across all languages: in that case you could raise the matter in the BP. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 11:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Inqilābī: You are correct that some of these are about Indo-Aryan at large, but 1.) they can just be put into specific language categories as they are used on entries for those languages, 2.) what I'm suggesting is already done in practice for several of these categories (and was before I started editing them), and 3.) there are definitely other references that apply to more than one (e.g.) Romance language or Semitic language as well, so we're back to either sorting one reference template into several individual language categories (my preference) or building out the module and hierarchy to include language families. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Koavf I find the existence of these categories very convenient and do not support their deletion. There is a long history of comparative literature on these families and in that respect being able to easily find reference templates for related language varieties is useful. If these categories are outliers, then I would suggest that the creation of more like them would actually be a better idea. I could see such categories being particularly useful for Iranian languages, Dravidian languages, Austro-Asiatic, for example. عُثمان (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. You've been able to use this category scheme before? —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes—for example on an entry like urial, it was helpful for locating the relevant reference templates for reconstructing the etymology عُثمان (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Were they recategorized the way I suggested, would you not have been able to use it as effectively? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
No—the larger a category is, the more challenging I find it to navigate it. (Even the difference in the amount of time it takes to load the pages is non-trivial since I don't have a great internet connection.) عُثمان (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
And my proposal is to make smaller categories, so you made my argument for me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
If you make smaller subcategories, the containing category becomes larger. There also aren't any established genetic subgroupings of Indo-Aryan to make smaller categories with. (Most schemes which do so out of convenience on solely geographic criteria end up splitting mutually intelligible dialects between subgroups.) So it is not clear what sort of categories you are suggesting be made عُثمان (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply



Ethnologue stuff (like here for English) is behind a paywall. At the link it reads: "This profile is available with an Essentials plan." And following that link, it's stated that it costs $199/month or $480/year. That's not useful, quite expensive, advertising/spam. --學者三 (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Quite a lot of money, yes! We could tag the template with Template:crippling paywall (or whatever...), I suppose. If not, delete Notusbutthem (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Replace with {{ISO 639}} This, that and the other (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'm doing a general rework of how we treat ISO 639 codes at the moment - part of which involves splitting out the ethnologue parameter from {{ISO 639}} because it's a bit of a mish-mash at the moment, which makes it trickier to deprecate things in situations like this. I agree that it's less-than-ideal to link to sites which are hidden behind paywalls, though. Theknightwho (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete. This is literal advertising. — Fytcha T | L | C 23:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
We should replace it with a Glottolog link, as that's free. Theknightwho (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Why not add a link to https://glottolog.org/glottolog?iso=aaa into {{ISO 639}}? This, that and the other (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho ^^ if we do this we can surely delete the ethnologue template, unless there is some issue with divergent codes. This, that and the other (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
@This, that and the other They do have divergent codes (Glottolog use a different system that is also much more comprehensive on the dialectal level), but that’s bottable. Theknightwho (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

April 2022


Wiktionary:Entry templates


·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 21:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep I cannot see any reason given to delete, and there is a link from the listing of entry templates, and this entry shows documentation for what they are about. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@ExcarnateSojourner Have you clicked on these? The redlinks and general stubbiness indicate that no one is using these pages. The templates (which I also doubt are being used) should be housed in categories if we want them at all. Ultimateria (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

June 2022


South Levantine Arabic


Hey, I'm the guy who works on South Levantine Arabic. Occasionally someone contributes an entry or two in good faith, but sometimes entries that don't meet CFI are introduced, and because I'm not an editor or whatever I'm not allowed to delete it. Can someone delete: على سيرة, قطع الإشارة & قليل ما for me? They are not idiomatic. Additionally, I would argue that بالطبع is not attested in the dialect; the right form is طبعا. Finally, this one is my bad: I instructed someone to create the entry بلف — I'm not sure where I got this from, but after further investigation I couldn't find any attestation of it, so I may have confused it for the Present Tense of لف — so if someone could please delete بلف I would appreciate it. Thanks. AdrianAbdulBaha (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@AdrianAbdulBaha Hi. You should use Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English for terms you want deleted because they are non-idiomatic (we call this "sum of parts"), and Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English for terms you want deleted because you believe they aren't attested. Can you resubmit your requests to these pages? That way, other editors who are familiar with Levantine Arabic can respond appropriately. Benwing2 (talk) 03:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply



Rather than being presented as a floating box, this information should be incorporated into the headword line, like we do for other dual-script languages (Serbo-Croatian, Malay, etc). This, that and the other (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's also out of date, as Kazakhstan has been transitioning to the Latin alphabet since 2017 as well. Theknightwho (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep, and update to having three scripts. Thadh (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Why not put it in the headword line still? Having it all the way over on the right is nonstandard (except for Persian I guess) and easy to miss. This, that and the other (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
I agree - merge into the headword template. Theknightwho (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC) I've changed my mind, as I actually really prefer this formatting. Keep. Theknightwho (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Not every contributor prefers to use multiple scripts in the headwords, apparently. E.g. Mongolian entries are gradually converted from that into a similar Mongolian template {{mn-variant}}, e.g. суулгах (suulgax) by @MonoParallax, LibCae, Crom daba.
We should also ask the opinion of primary Kazakh editor who heavily uses the template: @Vtgnoq7238rmqco. Note that the modern Roman spelling for Kazakh <> the Kazakh transliteration at Wiktionary and the conversion is not that straightforward. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
In fairness, that layout does make more sense for Mongolian given it's written vertically. Theknightwho (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
I stuffed up my edits (put the answer into a wrong section), so repeating the ping to @MonoParallax, LibCae, Crom daba, Vtgnoq7238rmqco. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev, Theknightwho, This, that and the other I think I agree that it would be better in the headword line. If there were inflected forms in the headword line, having multiple scripts as well would get crowded, but it appears this isn't the case. We do have {{ku-regional}} for Kurdish but this isn't really parallel because these represent different languages rather than different script variants of the same language. Arguably the same thing is going on with {{fa-regional}}. Benwing2 (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
I assume that the current layout of Azerbaijani lemmas could be a perfect example, as all three scripts (Arabic, Latin and Cyrillic) are represented independently on most occasions. However, it could be a huge work to give all Kazakh entries a similar overhaul. Vtgnoq7238rmqco (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Vtgnoq7238rmqco This should be easy by bot, no? Benwing2 (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Vtgnoq7238rmqco, Benwing2, This, that and the other, Theknightwho: Just wish to mention that a missing Latin parameter makes the current Kazakh entries with the template look ugly, e.g. жандармерия (jandarmeriä). Can they be safely made optional (or just the new one) or can we use named optional parameters instead? Re: bot. @Benwing2, @Vtgnoq7238rmqco: I don't think we have data to populate the new Roman spelling on all Kazakh terms and the conversion from Cyrillic is not 1:1 and can't be error-free, AFAIK. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev I can fix {{kk-regional}}. As for bot conversion: (1) can we simply convert whatever we have without needing out the Cyrillic -> Latin conversion? (2) what are the issues with Cyrillic -> Latin? Is it possible to automate it for some pages, while leaving others to be done manually? Benwing2 (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: The Cyrillic -> Latin correspondence issue was mentioned by User:Vtgnoq7238rmqco in the past when we talked about what should be the romanisation standard but I don't remember the discussion. The issue may not be current, though. Back then we had digraphs in the proposed romanisation. They have been abandoned since. If we are targeting just one romanisation version, the future one, then it's possibly one-to-one but it's not the one we use at Module:kk-translit
Copying the table from Wikipedia. This must be the latest proposed romanisation to be implemented:
A a
(А а)
Ä ä
(Ә ә)
B b
(Б б)
D d
(Д д)
E e
(Е е)
F f
(Ф ф)
G g
(Г г)
Ğ ğ
(Ғ ғ)
H h
(Х х,
Һ һ)
I ı
(І і)
İ i
(Й й,
И и)
J j
(Ж ж)
K k
(К к)
L l
(Л л)
M m
(М м)
N n
(Н н)
Ñ ñ
(Ң ң)
O o
(О о)
Ö ö
(Ө ө)
P p
(П п)
Q q
(Қ қ)
R r
(Р р)
S s
(С с)
Ş ş
(Ш ш)
T t
(Т т)
U u
(У у)
Ū ū
(Ұ ұ)
Ü ü
(Ү ү)
V v
(В в)
Y y
(Ы ы)
Z z
(З з)
The proposed romanisation may be updated yet again, LOL. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev Thanks. No digraphs any more in the proposed romanization and our own romanization only has digraphs for я ё ю which aren't anywhere in the table above (presumably they are used only for Russian loanwords?). I am all in favor of using a standard romanization instead of an ad-hoc one but I gather that the proposed romanization is a moving target. Benwing2 (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2, Vtgnoq7238rmqco: Yes, in the latest development, the digraphs (apart from Russian loanwords) are eliminated. Transliterations of я, ё, ю, ъ, ь, э, ц need clarifications. I support switching Module:kk-translit and WT:KK TR to the latest proposed transliterations and the Roman forms could simply be the automated transliteration of the Cyrillic spelling. I first proposed the switch in Module talk:kk-translit but it wasn't support. I'd like to ask @Vtgnoq7238rmqco to revisit. There may be a few corner cases but we can look up any of those.
BTW, https://sozdik.kz/ also has a romanised Kazakh. It looks up-to-date but I am not 100% sure. I have an account there. The site will require it when you have too many searches. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev: I tried to compare the transliteration of several Kazakh loanwords from Russian on the website you mentioned, and the results are as followed. I feel doubtful about these transliterations because I have not found any official documents to regulate them. Besides, я and ю are rather common in Kazakh text apart from Russian loanwords (e.g саясат is borrowed from Persian, and ю usually appears in some infinitives).
Я is transliterated into Ä (same as Ә. e.g ядро/ädro).
Both Ё and Э are transliterated into E (same as Е. e.g щётка/şetka).
Both Щ and Ч are transliterated into Ş (same as Ш. e.g чемпионат/şempionat).
Ю is transliterated into Ü (same as Ү. e.g юрисдикция/ürisdiksia).
Ц is transliterated into S (same as С. e.g циклон/siklon).
НГ is transliterated into Ñ (same as Ң. e.g акваланг/akvalañ).
ъ and ь are omitted as default (e.g гуашь/guaş), but there are irregularities. For instance, король is transliterated into ‘koröl’, but ‘korolı’ and ‘korol’ also appear in the sample sentences.
Perhaps further regulations would clarify those changes I mentioned. Personally, I doubt if Kazakhstan government will update the current transliteration once more.
Vtgnoq7238rmqco (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Vtgnoq7238rmqco, Benwing2: Sorry, I missed the response without the ping. It's interesting. I think we can start the bot could add the Latin spelling for words where these letters are not used and leave the rest to be filled manually or wait when the conversion is clarified. We can perhaps agree on what to use.
Some or most of Vtgnoq7238rmqco's findings make sense. Apparently "щётка" is not pronounced as in Russian, "ё" is ignored and read as a dotless "е" and it makes sense "щ" has become a "ш". Ц has become a single "s", rather than "ts" in the romanised Uzbek, Turkmen and Azerbaijani, although there are inconsistencies and variants with "ts". Tajik (even if it's still Cyrillic and not a Turkic language) has abandoned letter "ц" entirely in favour of "тс", which is also often just a "с".
I have asked a question on w:Talk:Kazakh alphabets regarding the policies on these selected letters - я, ё, ю, ъ, ь, э, ц, ч and щ.
Should part of the discussion be moved to Module talk:kk-translit or Wiktionary talk:Kazakh transliteration instead? This is not all about the template. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

(Moved from Template talk:kk-alt)
There was already a discussion at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others#Template:kk-regional but that was about moving Arabic spellings to the header, so this discussion is a bit different.
kk-alt can now preform all the functions of both kk-scripts and kk-regional (those were previously separate templates because kk-regional did not have a field for the pre-reform Arabic spelling); and kk-alt can auto-fill the various spellings (with the Cyrillic spelling provided, if the entry is Cyrillic it can use the page name). I think kk-scripts and kk-regional should be deprecated in favor of template:kk-alt, since kk-alt combines and improves on both of them (also kk-regional implies regional differences, so it's a bit of a misnomer). I had initially updated kk-regional and kk-scripts to simply forward everything to kk-alt... but i'm not sure if that's actually a good idea, I think it might be better to replace all instances of kk-scripts and kk-regional with kk-alt. سَمِیر | Sameer (مشارکت‌هاکتی من گپ بزن) 04:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

notifying @Atitarev, @Theknightwho, @Benwing2, @Thadh, @Vtgnoq7238rmqco, who were involved in the discussion in RFD. I would've started this conversation in requests for deletion but there was already a conversation started there (for a different reason), unless one of you thinks this should be added to that conversation??? سَمِیر | Sameer (مشارکت‌هاکتی من گپ بزن) 04:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Sameerhameedy I think this should go into that same conversation in WT:RFDO; you can make a new L3 header for it in the same conversation. Benwing2 (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Moved, re-notifying @Atitarev, @Theknightwho, @Benwing2, @Thadh, @Vtgnoq7238rmqco. (as the old pings are no longer valid). سَمِیر | Sameer (مشارکت‌هاکتی من گپ بزن) 05:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Sameerhameedy This is fine with me but we should decide whether this info is better placed in the headword. (If so, it should be easy to adapt the code in {{kk-alt}} into Module:kk-headword.) Benwing2 (talk) 05:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm fine with the new template, but I would prefer it as a box rather than in the headword for aesthetic reasons. Thadh (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure how I feel about this. The Cyrillic and Latin spellings are already in the headword line; it seems weird to repeat them in this box. The only unique info here is the Arabic spelling. If it is possible to find a nice way to fit it into the headword line, wouldn't that be better? Alternatively (heh), they could go under an "Alternative forms" or "Alternative spellings" header. This, that and the other (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I definitely think we should remove them from the headword line, if they are given there as well. But if you're referring to the transliteration, is not the same as the Latin script: cf. анархия. Thadh (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Thadh I think that is a mistake (re the difference between Latin script and translit). The problem is that the current approved Latin script version is very much a moving target and we haven't yet worked out to what extent we will try to track this. BTW I agree with User:This, that and the other that we should put these in the headword line. This is consistent with the handling of other multi-script languages such as Serbo-Croatian, Malay, Hindi/Urdu, etc. Mongolian is an exception but things are weird there due to the vertical script. Benwing2 (talk) 11:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: What about Azerbaijani, Uzbek, Uyghur, Tatar...? You can't just name a couple of languages that do this option and say it's now some kind of status quo. Thadh (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
OK fine (for the record I named 4 languages not 2) but I still think it belongs in the headword. It will get generated automatically if placed in the headword (to the extent this is possible), but it needs a separate template call if placed in a float-right box, which is extra editor work (for this reason many of the Uzbek entries I checked were missing the box). Benwing2 (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
No the current transliteration Module for Kazakh doesn't match the current Kazakh Latin alphabet, so the kk-alt uses its own conversion. سَمِیر | Sameer (مشارکت‌هاکتی من گپ بزن) 17:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Sameerhameedy Just FYI there are errors caused by kk-alt on Ь and ь; it seems the Yañalif code can't handle them. Benwing2 (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@This, that and the other, @Benwing2 it only automatically generates the modern Arabic, Cyrillic, and Latin spellings (sometimes it generates the yañalif spelling) but there's also the pre-reform Arabic spelling used by Kazakh prior to 1924 and the Latin script (Yañalif) used by Kazakh for some 7 ~10yrs before switching to Cyrillic (see құдай, which includes all of them). I suppose we could remove all Kazakh alphabets that are no longer used... But I think the information is helpful, even if it can only be included occasionally. I kinda agree with @Thadh that the Latin script should be moved from the headword to the box (assuming we don't move the Arabic spelling), It would be similar to what Pali does.
But if we end up deciding that the old Arabic and Latin spellings are not worth including.. or you guys have some other plan for showing them.. then whatever. I suppose it wouldn't matter where the Latin and Arabic spellings go. سَمِیر | Sameer (مشارکت‌هاکتی من گپ بزن) 17:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I definitely think we should aim to include these in the long run, so might as well start now. Unlike with scripts like IPA or shorthands, there is a good chance of people finding these in running text and wanting to look up what these words mean. Thadh (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
yes I think so too, the only issue I can think of is that since the yañalif alphabet was abandoned decades before the internet, it'll probably be difficult to attest. Nearly all Yañalif spellings will be red links unless someone sorts through newspapers from the 1920s and 1930s سَمِیر | Sameer (مشارکت‌هاکتی من گپ بزن) 22:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Sameerhameedy I suppose if we are showing that many different scripts it makes some sense to put them in a box, but I'm not sure we need the older spellings esp. Yañalif, since it was used only for a few years. The alternative is to put some of them (the less common ones) in an ==Alternative forms== section. Benwing2 (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Sameerhameedy Also if we do include the obsolete script forms we should have some clear indication that they are obsolete, like including the years used. Benwing2 (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'd much prefer to put these spellings in "Alternative forms". We currently have a divergence of practice where Indic languages (e.g. आसन (āsana)) are using "Alternative forms" while Central Asian languages use this floating box. Floating boxes force the reader away from the top-to-bottom "flow" of the entry and should only be used for things that are truly peripheral to the lexical content, like sister project links. This, that and the other (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@This, that and the other, @Benwing2, @Thadh I could update the floating box to look more like the "alternative scripts" header used by Sanskrit and Pali if that's the main issue. (something like this?) Though this conversation has shifted away from whether to delete Template:kk-regional and Template:kk-scripts in place of Template:kk-alt; to the general layout of Kazakh entries. Since Kazakh Layout is more of a policy issue shouldn't that discussion be in beer parlor? سَمِیر | Sameer (مشارکت‌هاکتی من گپ بزن) 03:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Sameerhameedy Yes, that looks fine to me and seems a reasonable compromise, and yeah it might be reasonable to bring this up in the Beer Parlour. Benwing2 (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

July 2022




See Special:Diff/67879927/67923936. Pinging @Eirikr, Fish bowl. I've done a first AWB sweep where I've removed all references to this work in untemplated form and now there's approximately 50 entries left that use the same reference but in templated form. — Fytcha T | L | C 12:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

DeleteFish bowl (talk) 06:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete, a poor and unnecessary reference. This, that and the other (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete per the above. Theknightwho (talk) 09:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply



Most of these entries are already part of Category:English words suffixed with -phobia, and the only advantage that I can see to this category is that the critera for inclusion are (at least hypothetically) a bit looser. But aside from maybe a handful of premodern coinings (e.g. hydrophobia) and Anglish neologisms (snake-fright), nothing that belongs to this category could be excluded from Category:English words suffixed with -phobia. Redundant. —(((Romanophile))) (contributions) 07:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Either delete or rename to Category:en:Fears. You might also want to take a look at Category:en:Philias, which is essentially a duplicate of Category:English words suffixed with -philia. Binarystep (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

August 2022




Extremely POVed and limited to modern Mandarin usage. Ignores usages in other Chinese subgroups. 青色 can mean a lot of colours between blue and green. On the other hand, it overly represents Mandarin words for some colours, e.g. 緋紅色, 艷紅色, and 大紅 are all just variations of . (Also why only these ones but not 鮮紅 or 嫣紅?) Other table templates also have this problem, such as template:table:playing cards/zh, but this is the most offending one. Either delete, or move to Template:table:colors/cmn and allow creating templates under other language codes. -- Wpi31 (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Support move to colors/cmn, and the creation of colors/yue, playing cards/nan , &c. Remsense (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Nominating some of the others as well since they more or less have similar issues. --Wpi31 (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Why not move these to [foo]/cmn? —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
also nominating Chinese tones, which imo only the first table is relevant material. –Wpi31 (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
also the various templates in Category:Chinese list templatesWpi31 (talk) 07:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)