Open main menu

Wiktionary β

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others

< Wiktionary:Requests for deletion(Redirected from Wiktionary:RFDO)

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 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/Others
add new | history

Requests for deletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.

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 moves, mergers and splits
add new | history | archives

Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

{{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfd-redundant}} • {{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.
Oldest tagged RFDOs

January 2015Edit

Appendix:Proto-Slavic/bazovъEdit

This page was created on the basis of an entry in the Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Languages, which in turn was created to be the etymology of Lower Sorbian bazowy (pertaining to elder trees). Perhaps the authors of that dictionary are unaware that Proto-Slavic ъ can sometimes surface as a in Lower Sorbian, but it can, and the etymon of the word is actually *bъzovъ, which also has an entry in the same dictionary. Alternatively, bazowy may simply have been coined in Lower Sorbian as baz + -owy, but either way, it isn't from *bazovъ. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

In *bazъ and *bъzъ you can find Lower Sorbian baz. *bazъ: Lower Sorbian baz (бузина Sambucus nigra); *bъzъ: Lower Sorbian dial. bez, baz. First entry also gives Russian dial. бас (bas, бузина), Ukrainian dial. базни́к (baznýk, сирень), базни́к (baznýk, собачья бузина Sambucus ebulus L, сирень Syringa vulgaris). —Игорь Телкачь 16:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I feel I would be more useful in interpreting this source if I could actually read any Slavic language. CodeCat? —JohnC5 05:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I guess my preferred resolution would be to move this to Appendix:Proto-Slavic/bъzovъ, but I don't know whether Useigor would agree to that. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know Lower Sorbian but judging by Slavic cognates there could be *bezowy or *bzowy from *bъzovъ. The dictionary points to *bʰeh₂ǵos > *bazъ and *bʰu₂ǵos > *bъzъ. So *bazovъ could be an alternative etymology of Lower Sorbian bazowy. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

February 2015Edit

Template:list:cardinals from zero to forty-nine/enEdit

Not used. If we really want to make this kind of list it should have a different form (like Appendix or the like).--Dixtosa (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

{{list:ordinals_from_zeroth_to_forty-ninth/en}}--Dixtosa (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Even supposing one would want this kind of brute-force method of showing variation in numeral formation, fifty is excessive. Almost all the languages I've studied show no difference in formation strategy between the thirties and fourties (or seventies, for that matter). In English, there's the archaic use of score, so that "two score and nine" is different from thirty-nine, but that's not included here.
I don't see the purpose of having links to fifty numbers in one language section- does anyone benefit from being able to click on forty-three in the sixteen entry? It seems more like a stunt than anything useful. I would add all the other subtemplates, too: only the Navajo, Telegu and Russian subtemplates are transcluded at all, and half of the Navajo links are redlinks.
List templates in general use a disproportionate amount of system resources for minimal benefits, but this bunch is particularly bad. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
No, they do not :?
Actually they save much space as you do not have to put the same list all over. This is why I am thinking of creating templates for each group related terms. At least for such long lists: #Related_terms, членство#Related_terms. --Dixtosa (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Delete Replace with appendices, which have way more potential value, as they can readily accommodate language peculiarities, archaisms etc. DCDuring TALK 21:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


this one too--Dixtosa (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Template:ka-conEdit

works exactly like head|ka|conjunction. --Dixtosa (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep As I've said before, there's no point deleting these sorts of templates. They simply serve as redirects to reduce typing and make it easier for people to remember all the templates systematically . Smurrayinchester (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Having less of these templates makes it easier for people to remember all the templates. Right now, it's not obvious whether someone should be using {{ka-con}} or {{head|ka|conjunction}}. —CodeCat 20:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    Yes. I think we should make a ruling that dedicated templates must only be created when they require more (or language-specific) features than {{head}}. But, yeah, it's too late xD--Dixtosa (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per CodeCat. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Keep, because less typing, and because it fits with the general practice of having a template for each language/POS combination, regardless of whether extra parameters are needed. I don't agree that either way is particularly more easy to remember.__Gamren (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

April 2015Edit

Template:l/deEdit

Nothin special with it. --Dixtosa (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and deprecate; it is now used in too many pages. We need to make the page histories legible. Whoever created this and deployed so widely should have thought twice. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
    Comment; true, the template is being used in 3,800+ pages at this moment. However, a substantial number of those is just verbs with conjugation tables that use {{de-conj}} (used in 3,500+ pages). In the conjugation table, there is a cell named "auxiliary" that links to exactly two words: haben and/or sein, using {{l/de}}. I am going to change it to {{l|de}}, which will reflect in the verbs pages and will not make their page histories unreadable for this reason, since the historical versions will just keep using the {{de-conj}} template. If there are performance issues as suggested below, feel free to revert. If there are not any performance issues, I'd vote delete. --Daniel 08:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
    Related to my message above, {{de-form-adj}} is also using {{l/de}} in 230+ pages. I am going to edit the template now to remove {{l/de}}. --Daniel 16:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    Inflection tables should really use {{l-self}} instead of {{l}} so that forms that are identical to the lemma show up in bold without a link rather than in blue with a link to the same page you're already on. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I was wrong, there is a specialty - performance. {{l}} calls (1) a module and does some lookup (2) in order to map a language code to a language name, none of which is done byl/xx. Not sure if the overhead is that problematic though. --Dixtosa (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Performance was the entire reason for the existence of all of the l/ templates: at the time, the {{l}} template was causing serious perfomance problems in larger pages. Now that it's been switched over to Lua, that's not as much of an issue, but there are still a few huge index pages where I've swapped out l for l/ templates to fix module errors from overrunning the allowed module-execution time. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I imagine it could be removed from the main namespace and used only in appendices. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Note that these specific templates do not have all the capabilities of {{l}}. For example, they lack gloss parameter.
Also, for only few pages that are {{l}}-intensive we can use {{User:ZxxZxxZ/l-list}}--Dixtosa (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Somewhat hilariously, a lot of these templates call {{l}} directly (see {{l/ty}} for a specific example). So they now do the very thing they were created to avoid. Even worse, because they call l but don't allow all its parameters, so they're literally worse than useless. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Now unused delete. —Enosh (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Removing it from the verb-conjugation tables seems to have indeed eliminated most uses; there are now only two. - -sche (discuss) 02:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

June 2015Edit

Template:te-noun-declEdit

This was listed for speedy deletion but I did not want to speedy delete it. The reason given was, "Unnecessary and inaccurate. This paradigm is based off of the traditional Telugu grammars that tried to fit the noun system into the Sanskrit case system; it doesn't reflect how nouns/postpositions actually work in Telugu. It's unnecessary because, apart from a few irregularities, all Telugu case suffixes/postpositions are invariable and are attached after a noun in its oblique form, which at most only has two allomorphs. Thus providing the oblique form(s) for each noun and then including an appendix that explained the postpositions would be more than enough to cover Telugu noun inflection."

I don't speak Telugu at all, so I can't comment on this. @AxaiosRex @Stephen G. BrownInternoob 18:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi! So do you need clarification or elaboration on this? Or, what could I do to convince you that this is actually a good idea? I'm using A Grammar of Modern Telugu written by Krishnamurti and Glynn and published in 1985, so it's reasonably modern and, from what I see, includes good, descriptive linguistic analysis that feels good to me as a heritage/native speaker. –AxaiosRex (అక్షయ్⁠రాజ్) 22:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I think you can make an arrangement like that (listing oblique forms and a central appendix) work for advanced students, but I don’t think that most Americans, Brits, Canadians, and Australians who want to study Telugu would be able to use your appendix system at a beginning or intermediate level. But do it however you like. I’m not going to get into an argument about it. —Stephen (Talk) 23:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I get you. I just think this is a lot more concise and less redundant. Also, if you wanted to include a declension table, I feel you would quickly rush into issues with just which postpositions you wanted to include on it, considering there are so many suffixes and adverbs and other words that could fill that morphological category. I suppose you could just include those ones that are purely postpositions (and thus don't have their own oblique forms and can't take their own postpositions), but that would make it seem like those are the only ones that exist. However, there is also the issue of phonological interactions between the oblique and the postposition, which could complicate things enough that a declension table would be necessary, though for the written standard that isn't as much of an issue, I believe. @Stephen G. BrownAxaiosRex (అక్షయ్⁠రాజ్) 00:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Re: what could I do to convince you that this is actually a good idea? I basically just want it to fail an RFD. I was not comfortable speedy deleting this template because 1 it was made by a trusted user, and 2 I don't know anything about Telugu. —Internoob 01:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Also note that it's orphaned, and IMO perfectly appropriate for speedying. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
    • It's not orphaned anymore. It's used on 19 entries. I have no opinion on whether it should be kept or not, but if not it needs to be orphaned. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:l/..., Template:link/...Edit

Proposal: Delete {{l/pt}}, {{l/en}} and the others like those, or delete as many as possible if for some reason some of those should be kept. Full list is collapsed above this message. I did not take the trouble to tag all of those {{rfdo}}, only German and Latin are tagged.

Rationale: Use | rather than /, that is, {{l|pt}} rather than {{l/pt}}. This assumes it does the same thing and that we don't need anymore {{l/pt}} or {{l/en}} or others to consume less resources on the server like we apparently needed pre-Lua or in case they do something that {{l}} can't or some other reason.

Current RFDO discussions:

Older discussion:

It's worth noting that in the current RFDO discussions some of these templates seem to be treated like obvious crap to be deleted by some people. Quoting Renard Migrant (talkcontribs) from the l/de discussion: "Somewhat hilariously, a lot of these templates call {{l}} directly (see {{l/ty}} for a specific example). So they now do the very thing they were created to avoid. Even worse, because they call l but don't allow all its parameters, so they're literally worse than useless." --Daniel 01:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete any of these that do not provide any features beyond those available in {{l}}. Keep any, such as {{l/he}}, that do provide special features. --WikiTiki89 16:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
For those of us that don't edit Hebrew entries much, what are the special features of {{l/he}}? --Daniel 16:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
{{l/he|חייל|dwv=חַיָּל}} produces חייל \ חַיָּל. It is more convenient than redundantly typing {{l|he|חייל|חייל \ חַיָּל}}. --WikiTiki89 17:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I think that any that are kept should be renamed. Something like {{he-l}}. —CodeCat 16:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Why? --WikiTiki89 17:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with CodeCat (talkcontribs). Because AFAIK this should start with he- like other Hebrew templates. Note we already have {{ja-l}} and {{ko-l}} with special behavior, namely showing multiple scripts in order and also the Korean one has an auto-transliteration module implemented. "l/" implies subpage of {{l}} so I'd argue we should only start a template name with that if its actually part of the system of {{l}}. --Daniel 11:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
But it is part of the system of {{l}}. It is implemented with the same module and supports all of the parameters that {{l}} supports. --WikiTiki89 15:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
That's OK. I have an idea: can't we nuke {{l/he}} with the others and make {{l}} support dmv= as an additional parameter? --Daniel 13:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
dwv= makes sense only for Hebrew. DWV = "defective with vowels". It's silly to add language-specific features to a general template. --WikiTiki89 12:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking maybe we should really add language-specific features to a general template, but that's OK, maybe having the actual language-specific template is really better. --Daniel 23:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that it's possible to orphan all these templates at the moment because they are many and while some people are converting from the format of "l/de" to "l|de" others still keep adding new instances in the format of "l/de". (Pending actual diffs, I can get those later.) I was thinking of creating a vote for the whole project of deleting all l/... templates, or at least a BP poll or something to let other people know what is going on and agree upon this. --Daniel 23:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep all templates that were ever relatively widely used. Deprecate them instead. Keep revision histories legible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:yi-conj-headEdit

No longer needed --Type56op9 (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

There are still two transclusions that the new template does not yet support. --WikiTiki89 15:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89, your yearly (or whatever it is) reminder. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Yep. Haven't forgotten. I'll get to it. --WikiTiki89 15:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2015Edit

Template:sectlinkEdit

Links to sections other than languages are discouraged, because they don't work right with our entry structure. Entries can and often do have multiple sections with the same name, which makes it impossible to link to them by name. As soon as a new section with that name is added, it could break such links. All in all, you can't rely on any section link pointing to the right place. This is why we have {{senseid}}. —CodeCat 17:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

They work perfectly well with English and Translingual sections, with the most modest of caveats. The worst that happens when the section link is "broken" is that the user is not taken to the exact section appropriate, but rather one above it. It seems to me that section links are more disruptive to someone's exaggerated sense of order and control than to the user experience.
If more effort were devoted to otherwise facilitating links from, say, inflected forms to the appropriate section of the lemma, I could accept that this simple template offered more harm than good. But in the present situation, it seems simply that something that is simple, useful, and highly desirable for English and Translingual sections is being opposed with nothing comparably simple and effective on offer.
To anticipate the a response, the approach used in the section headings on this and similar pages is effective only because it is inserted automatically in the normal RfD, RfV, RfDO, RfM, RfC, and RfM processes. Inserting such links in other cases is at best difficult at present. Does anyone have any constructive ideas about making it easier to insert them en masse (but selectively), for example, for all English inflected forms of words with multiple etymologies or with multiple PoSes on long English entries with one Etymology section but lots of polysemy? DCDuring TALK 18:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

August 2015Edit

Index:Mandarin Pinyin/*Edit

No one uses or needs this. In addition it is redundant because of pages like gēng#Mandarin, which are more likely to be seen by people and corrected. 64.40.43.54 03:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd say delete per nom. Incomplete due to being out of sync with mainspace entries, and if it were complete it would be a pointless duplicate. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: we are having indexes that get out of sync, for many languages. They can be updated by bots; some of them are. Getting out of date is per se not a reason for deletion. It is not a pointless duplicate; it is an aggreation of information on few pages that is otherwise strewn across many pages. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete: I don't see the need for these pages; looking up ga1/ga2/ga3/ga4 is not hard —suzukaze (tc) 20:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
It seems like User:Octahedron80 has updated them with new data in the meantime, using data that looks to be more trustworthy than the ones that were used to create the pinyin syllable entries. Until the pinyin syllable entries are up to standard, I'm striking my "delete". —suzukaze (tc) 06:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

November 2015Edit

Appendix:Glossary of idioms – A et al.Edit

They are redundant to Category:Idioms by language, they present an editorial perspective (“Here are some editors' picks of popular and picturesque idioms in the English language”), and they are very Anglocentric (“albatross around one's neck — Global”). — Ungoliant (falai) 17:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, categorization is much better in terms of better quality of definition (likely to be seen by more editors), alphabetized, divided by language, easier to navigate. Any genuine-looking red links can go on WT:RE:en (and so on) a few red links isn't enough to save it. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Certain talk pagesEdit

Most of thesethese. IMO it's spam made in good faith. —suzukaze (tc) 05:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

These relatively few pages seem pretty harmless really. However, it might be good for somebody to talk to the creator next time and point out that Wiktionary is far from "complete". The more extreme case of this was when somebody was disruptively adding Etymology requests to every ety-less entry. Equinox 16:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
This same IP has been adding "can it be added" requests to a great number of Chinese character talk pages for years: try this for the more common variant. As for talking to them, I believe @Atitarev has had discussions with them on other issues (they make lots of several types of requests relating to several languages) without much cooperation. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I am annoyed with these numerous questions with no answers in talk pages and the usage of {{attention}} but what can I do? Some people just pepper entries with requests, genuine and not, ignoring if we have any resources or interest to fill them. The situation would only be slightly better if those unanswered requests were in the Tea room or similar.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I think if we delete these, we have to delete all talk pages with information in them relevant to the entry they pertain to. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree. This is part of what talk pages are meant for. Keep.​—msh210 (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Keep. --WikiTiki89 18:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Many of these cases of multiple readings is because the initial data was imported from a shitty database, and
  1. many of the entries have been cleaned up since
  2. the ones that aren't are likely to be obscure dead characters no-one cares about
  3. when someone does get around to cleaning up the page for the character no-one cares about, the wrong reading will be removed in the process if the one who cleans up the page has the common sense to check other dictionaries
FWIW there are currently 1,128 items in Category:Mandarin terms needing attention. —suzukaze (tc) 07:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete all the relevant sections. If nothing is left, delete the talk page. Wyang (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

These tooEdit

Asking "is this traditional, simplified, or both" is like asking "can <noun> have a plural form". Additionally, I am confident that 99% of those pages already mention a character's simplified/traditional equivalent, and if it doesn't have one it can be logically inferred from the lack of a simplified/traditional equivalent on the page that it is "both", which will be true in 99% of the cases. —suzukaze (tc) 07:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

TBH another reason I want these gone is that the formatting of pages like Talk:苦 really ticks me off. When I see that there's a talk page, I expect a thoughtful, meaningful question, not this trash. It's reminiscent of a child whining.suzukaze (tc) 07:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete all the relevant sections. If nothing is left, delete the talk page. Wyang (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

(I really think usage of the proper request templates should be enforced. —suzukaze (tc) 23:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC))

January 2016Edit

Category:French verbs with conjugation -erEdit

Redundant to Category:French first group verbs. I don't think there's any distinction to be made here, and French first group verbs is a much better title as it describes the conjugation pattern. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

These aren't quite the same thing. The above category doesn't include the subclasses like Category:French verbs with conjugation -cer. I personally don't like the name Category:French first group verbs as it isn't obvious which verbs are talked about unless you happen to know what "first group" means. (AFAIK, the first/second/third group division is taught to French students but not to American students, who instead learn about -er, -ir, -re and sometimes -oir verbs.) I think the categories should have names something like Category:French regular -er verbs, Category:French regular -ir verbs and Category:French irregular verbs, which is more descriptive and fits the way they are named in other languages (at least, Category:X irregular verbs exists in many languages). Benwing2 (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • That's odd (at best) as a word like commencer does end in -er. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    Commencer ends in -er, but some of its conjugations are slightly different (because they contain a ç) are different than the straight -er conjugations. Aller is an -er verb and its conjugations are way different. Vouloir is way different than regular -ir verbs, while faire doesn't have a great deal in common with regular -re verbs. Purplebackpack89 02:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect Category:French first group verbs to this (and make similar moves for -ir and -re verbs): "First group?" What the hell's that supposed to mean? I speak French. When I learned it in high school, we learned them as -er, -ir and -re verbs, not first group, second group and third group. Designating one "first", one "second" and one "third" is arbitrary and devoid of meaning. Purplebackpack89 22:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
    You can read Category:French first group verbs. I don't like that logic. It's a bit like renaming Category:English nouns to Category:English naming words because a lot of people don't know what a noun is. I mean, that's what they are called. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    I don't think this is the same thing at all. Most people are familiar with the term "noun", whereas most people aren't familiar with the 1st/2nd/3rd terminology, which is opaque as to what these verbs represent. "Regular -er verbs" is just as concise and says exactly what they are using more familiar terminology. "Regular -er verbs" will be understandable to all, whereas I wouldn't know what a "naming word" is off the top of my head. Benwing2 (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    Knowing what a noun is on a relatively low plane. Knowing which order of French verbs are which is on a much higher plane, particularly as this is an English dictionary and we can't really expect Joe User to know a great deal about French. Purplebackpack89 02:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, I think most people are familiar with the word noun, but not many understand what a noun is. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant My point was that a helluvalot more English speakers know what a noun is than what the three orders of French verbs are. Sorry if that wasn't clear earlier. Purplebackpack89 22:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Merge into Category:French regular -er verbs both Category:French verbs with conjugation -er and Category:French first group verbs. The latter two names don't sound very good, and "-er verbs" is in fact what they are generally called. --WikiTiki89 00:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
What does the third group become? Category:French regular -ir verbs is obvious enough, is the third group Category:French irregular verbs? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I think so. The way I was taught, there are regular -er verbs, regular -ir verbs, a small set of regular -re verbs (vendre, rendre, and maybe a dozen others in -dre, plus maybe vaincre), and all other verbs are irregular. The vendre/rendre/etc. verbs are a small group, and it may not be worth making a special group just for them. Benwing2 (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
BTW, the page on vendre actually says it belongs to the "regular -re verbs", which are claimed to include verbs in -andre, -endre, -ondre, -erdre and -ordre and the group is said to be "fairly large", so it might be more than a dozen. Benwing2 (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:fr-conj-re is useful though there may be more due to {{fr-conj-auto}}. 'Regular' becomes subjective at this point, which is sadly unavoidable. The problem with vaincre is the -que forms which makes it less regular. But does less regular mean irregular? I guess we'll have to go through these on a case-by-case basis, or just leave them uncategorized. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, at a certain point it become subjective what's regular and not. It doesn't matter much to me where it goes exactly. Benwing2 (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Spelling variants in entry names, Wiktionary:RedirectionsEdit

Outdated pages. I got everything I wanted from them and created a vote to have WT:EL#Entry name with that information, which passed in November/2015.

I marked them as {{inactive}}, which says: "This page is no longer active. It is being kept for historical interest. No discussion is needed to revive this page; simply remove the {{inactive}} tag and bring it up to date.", but is there any historical interest in keeping them? Sure, Wiktionary:Redirections indicates that in the past we used to have more redirects than now, but we could update User:Dixtosa/Wiktionary:History of the English Wiktionary with that information. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

'Outdated' isn't a deletion rationale per se as you can update pages, this being a wiki and all. The question is really are these pages superseded. Wiktionary:Redirections sounds like a good idea, although I'm surprised how long it is as our 'policy' is pretty simple. Unless it's superseded I'd be tempted to almost start again with that page and make it half the size. Not read the other page. Has that been superseded by anything? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Wiktionary:Redirections It is a useful guide for users of Wikipedia. Just require an update. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • keep Consdiering y'all are waaay different with your "no upper to lowercase" stuff. L3X1 (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:nominative singular of, Template:accusative plural of, Template:vocative singular of, etc.Edit

These templates are currently used to some extent but they are minimal wrappers around {{inflection of}}. The latter is used more commonly and is more flexible. I'm thinking the case-specific templates should be bot-replaced by the appropriate invocation of {{inflection of}}, then orphaned and eventually deleted: e.g.

Benwing2 (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I think if people want to use these they should be allowed to. Not everyone will understand how to use {{inflection of}}, so people might just start just not using a template at all, and just writing it out. As you say bot replacements are very easy, so instead of deleting these, discourage their use (on documentation subpages) and replace them by bot. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Deprecate, possibly using abuse filter, but keep to make page histories legible. From what I remember, this was placed by CodeCat to many pageswithout discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016Edit

t:rftEdit

Current wt:TR contains 38 + 69 discussions but only 6 of them is tagged (rough estimation).

In the past the problem of broken links to tea room has been pointed out by many editors but never got solved. And to be honest it is unfair to ask editors to remove the template when the discussion is done.

Also, it takes up huge part of a page and is ugly too.

And most importantly, how often have we encountered an anon user taking part in a tea room discussion? --Dixtosa (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep. if it's too big make it smaller, that's not a deletion reason. Anons taking part in discussions, what does this have to do with this template? It works the same whether you're logged in or not. "[U]nfair to ask editors to remove the template" since we're now using monthly discussion pages, why not add a month= parameter and then we can see which entries have been tagged for a month, two months or more. I don't feel like anything you've said leads me to think this should be deleted. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Editors are aware of Tea room and have it in their watchlist if they are interested.
I don't feel like anything you've said leads me to think this should be deleted
How about the fact that 6 pages are tagged? Clearly the community has either forgotten it or has found it worthless. --Dixtosa (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I feel like you're saying misuse of a template is the fault of the template, not the editor. Therefore, {{m}} should also be deleted as it is sometimes misused? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Weak keep as a redirect at least (I see it is being replaced with another template). It matches the form of the other rf- templates. I am sympathetic to the point that "it is unfair to ask editors to remove the template when the discussion is done" and they often don't. - -sche (discuss) 17:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
If we keep this and t:tea room then I am going to make rft only subst:-able which will automatically add current month and year. this will be a new rft.
It matches the form of the other rf- templates. but request for tea room makes no sense, rite? --Dixtosa (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Why not? Sometimes you don't want a sense deleted and it's not bad enough for clean up, you just want to discuss it as it may contain errors, be misleading, etc. I note that {{rft-sense}} is not nominated for deletion. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I think that the use of in-page discussion-referral templates should be mandatory and that discussions without such a template should be terminated with prejudice. Three failures to do so should lead to a warning, five to removal of adminship, ten to a short block and a dozen to indefinite block. Instances of failure to enforce the policy (participation in a discussion that has no such template) should be punished on the same schedule. Same thing for links from the discussion to the entry. This would make my life much easier, which should be sufficient reason for us to have such a policy.
Keep. DCDuring TALK 10:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I would support DC's proposal if it wasn't an election year. Since it is an election year I think it is soft on crime and wonder what checkered past has lead him to be so lenient towards offenders. - TheDaveRoss 12:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Dixtosa re: "And most importantly, how often have we encountered an anon user taking part in a tea room discussion?"
Are you saying that there is no value to a user in reading such discussions without actively participating? Or are you saying that there is no value to us to having a user passively read them? I'm not sure which of the two I find more repulsive. DCDuring TALK 13:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is a difference between deleting a template and not using it. I don't use it because I don't think it's necessary, but that doesn't mean I think it should be deleted. --WikiTiki89 13:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Deprecate {{rft}}. I think this kind of overhead is somewhat justifiable in RFD and RFV discussions, but not really for Tea Room. Since in these, one of the end results is deletion. Even in RFD and RFV, the value of RF- templates in the mainspace is not absolutely obvious, but at least plausible. For someone to want to prevent bad deletions, it is much more effective to monitor WT:RFD or WT:RFV than watch a huge list of potential targets of bad deletion and hope to notice their RFD or RFV nomination via watchlist. However, I think this discussion is better suited for Beer parlour. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Deprecate per DP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2016Edit

Category:Vyadhikarana compounds by languageEdit

And its subcategories. Not only is the word vyadhikarana so obscure that I cannot even find a good definition anywhere, but it also seems to be a concept that applies only to Sanskrit and related languages, and not to English, German, or Hawaiian, the three languages we actually have this category for. --WikiTiki89 21:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

There would be more point to categorizing noun compounds whose head is the first element (eg, attorney-general, mother-in-law), ie a head-modifier structure. It might be useful to do case categories the normal modifier-head structure (home team (locative), boathouse (dative), railroad (genitive), etc.) With that kind of grounding one could conceivably find some sense in which vayadhikarana or other such Sanskrit-derived grammar terms might have applicability. dvandva is the only one that I know to have been assumed into English. DCDuring TALK 22:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
#Category:English vyadhikarana compounds is already nominated above with an apparent consensus to delete. I also don't know what it means especially if it's so rare it cannot be defined in English due to lack of English usage of the word. So yeah, delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I've deleted the English (and German) category per that RFD. The only category left is for Hawaiian, which I don't mind deleting. If multiple Indian languages actually used a category like this, perhaps it could exist for their sake. Category:English tatpurusa compounds and Category:English karmadharaya compounds are also suspect. - -sche (discuss) 03:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Citations:Kernikteri, Citations:FrühgeburtskernikteriEdit

IMO the citation pages for the plural forms should be deleted as they are included on the citation page for the singular. Else, if one would differ between inflected forms, Citations:Frühgeburtskernikterus should be deleted as there is no cite for the singular. But it should make no sense to have different citations pages for inflected forms:

  • Especially for readers it should be easier to find all cites of one word on a single page. I don't think that they would visit all the inflected forms of a word to find all the different citation pages.
  • Often different inflected forms can be found in the same text. So different citation pages for inflected forms would then have redundant citations, like the cite at Citations:Kernikteri is the same as at Citations:Kernikterus.
  • Some German words can be separated like in "er fuhr weg" from wegfahren. What should be the citation page's name, Citations:fuhr weg? And how about different tenses like "er ist weggefahren" (perfect), should it be Citations:ist weggefahren? And when it's separated by other words as in "er ist nach Berlin gefahren", should it be Citations:ist ... gefahren?

Nothing would be lost, if the citation pages for the plural forms would be deleted. -Ikiaika (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I typically redirect plural citation titles to the singular, as we do with alternative spellings. bd2412 T 03:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016Edit

Template:hu-suffixEdit

  • Keep. This template has additional functionality that the {{suffix}} template does not have:
    1. It categorizes by the last suffix only, e.g. {{hu-suffix|egyetem|leg|es|pos=adj}}
    2. It is able to categorize by the suffix even when the stem is left blank, e.g. {{hu-suffix||izmus|pos=n}}. This is used in many entries.
    3. It has a pos2 parameter for placing a word into two PoS categories. --Panda10 (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:hu-prefixEdit

In the 2013-2014 RFDO discussion Template talk:hu-compound (to delete: {{hu-compound}}, {{hu-suffix}} and {{hu-prefix}}), most people voted "Delete" but only hu-compound was deleted and Wonderfool closed the RFDO as "Kept as nobody's deleted it", which I find unconvincing as a reason for keeping the templates. It should have been: "RFD failed, waiting for all templates to be orphaned".

I did not participate in that discussion; I'd vote delete too.

Rationale:

  • Use {{suffix}} or {{prefix}} (better yet, in my opinion: {{affix}} or the shortcut {{af}}) in all cases.

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete. I'd also note that this template is used to provide etymologies for inflected forms, such uses should be removed. See for example kapok. —CodeCat 23:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Keep. What's the reason {{fi-suffix}}, {{fi-prefix}}, {{hi-suffix}}, {{hi-prefix}} etc. are allowed but the Hungarian templates are not? Also, I want to keep using hu-suffix for inflected forms, I think the etymology section is useful for agglutinative languages, users might want to click on the suffix to check it out. I do not understand what's the harm in this. --Panda10 (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The Finnish and Hindi templates you gave are headword-line templates for prefix/suffix entries. Not at all equivalent. —CodeCat 14:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
How about {{fa-prefix}}, {{fa-suffix}}, and {{rom-suffix}}? --Panda10 (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I speedied {{rom-suffix}} (it was created in 2011 and was being used only in 6 entries: melalo, samtalo, baxtalo, shilalo, rupuno and rupalo)
Correct me if I'm wrong: it seems Persian affixes don't have a hyphen and we can't use {{affix}} for this language (except for compounds: سیلاب); so, there's an actual need for {{fa-suffix}} and {{fa-prefix}}. If we can replace these two by {{affix}}, I'm for deleting them.
For the record, a cursory search reveals that some (or all?) entries for Persian suffixes like گاه and prefixes like بی are using {{head|fa|suffix}} and {{head|fa|prefix}}, respectively. It's a bit confusing if some languages have the format Template:xx-suffix for actual suffix entries and other use that format for etymologies involving suffixes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Concerning inflected forms with etymologies: do you mean something like adding "lion +‎ -s" in the entry lions? I don't think we should do that, but in any case {{affix}} can do this as well, so that's not a good reason for keeping {{hu-suffix}}, in my opinion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I will delete them after I reworked the entries. I have already started using {{af}}. This may take some time, though. {{hu-prefix}} has about 900 entries, {{hu-suffix}} has about 17,000. Re inflected forms: Adding an etymology section to English forms may have less practical value, since English is not an agglutinative language. It is different in Hungarian where nouns, adjectives, pronouns, and numerals can have more than 34 different inflected forms, verbs much much more. If a Hungarian editor is willing to add this information using {{affix}}, what's the harm in it? --Panda10 (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Fair enough, I don't mind Hungarian entries having the etymologies for inflected forms, per the reasons you mentioned.
Maybe the change from hu-suffix/hu-prefix to affix can be done by bot? I believe these would be the search+replace rules:
  • "{{hu-suffix|" → "{{af|hu|"; and adding the "-" in all unnamed parameters starting from 2= (in diff, parameters 2= and 3= have the hyphen added)
  • "{{hu-prefix|" → "{{af|hu|"; and adding the "-" in all unnamed parameters except the last
@CodeCat: Would you be so kind as to use MewBot to do that?
@Panda10: Did I make any mistake in the rules above? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
What about the categorization? The two templates don't work the same in that regard, {{hu-suffix}} ignores all suffixes except for the last one. Also, {{hu-suffix}} has a pos2= parameter that {{suffix}} lacks (well, it's there, but it does something else). Finally, I disagree with putting etymologies in inflections. We don't do it for other languages, agglutinative or not. Compare Finnish. In fact, a non-agglutinative language has more use for such etymologies than an agglutinative one, because the affixes are much less obvious and harder to tell apart in a word. —CodeCat 00:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Let's separate the three issues:
  • 1) {{hu-suffix}}: If {{suffix}} does not have the functionality of {{hu-suffix}}, then we will have to keep {{hu-suffix}}, just like we keep {{fa-prefix}} and {{fa-suffix}}.
  • 2) {{hu-prefix}}: I can deal with it manually. Those entries need other standardization, so I'll do them at the same time and I will delete the orphaned template. No need for a bot.
  • 3) Etymology in inflected forms: This needs a separate discussion. It is not part of this deletion request. I suspect that it would be useful for every language but it is time-consuming and editors simply do not want to spend time with it. --Panda10 (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Hold on. Why does {{hu-suffix}} categorise that way? Surely if the word is suffixed with several suffixes, we'd want categories for all of them, not just the last? And I consider the pos= parameter to be deprecated, since we now have id2= that gives finer control and better disambiguation (i.e. by sense of the suffix rather than part of speech of the thus-formed word). The pos2= parameter is puzzling, as it essentially causes the entry to be categorised twice in two different suffix categories. —CodeCat 14:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing puzzling about pos2. A word can be both adjective and noun, e.g. akadémikus. Pos adds the entry to the first category, while pos2 in the second. By the way, you say pos is deprecated, then how come it is used by {{affix}}? It makes sense to categorize Hungarian entries by part of speech. About categorizing by the last suffix: sometimes there is no Hungarian word with the middle suffix. E.g.: egyetemleges, there is no *egyetemleg. --Panda10 (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
One more thing: If the template name is not up to the current standards of this wiki, then why not just simply rename {{hu-suffix}} to something else, run the renaming bot, keep all the current functionality and be done with it. --Panda10 (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
What is the reason that {{hu-suffix}} only categorizes by the last suffix? Words like egyetemleges should probably be in both suffix categories (at least if we don't want to start creating entries for "compound" suffixes like -leges). Words derived from an intermediate derivation should by contrast IMO only show the immediate base word, e.g. kérdéses from kérdés, not from kérd or from kér (though those could be of course mentioned in prose in the etymology). --Tropylium (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Please see if this thread answers your question: [1]. Also, how would you handle fickó, helyesbít, javasol, jövedelem, költözik, lassacskán, nyilatkozat, piszkozat, etc. --Panda10 (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
There are huge numbers of languages all over the world that have complex morphologies like this- not just suffixes, but prefixes, infixes and circumfixes. We really need to work on getting our general templates to be able to handle such issues, so someone working on, say, some obscure American Indian or African or Southeast Asian language doesn't have to come up with their own custom templates. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────: Maybe {{af}} could have built-in language-specific rules, like "for Hungarian, categorize only the last suffix". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Like Tropylium (a linguist who works with agglutinative languages), I have my doubts that categorizing only the last suffix is a good idea, but it's an extremely complex issue. When you can have a single word that means "I saw those two women walk this way out of the water", you need a more systematic approach to categorization of the components. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Deleted {{hu-prefix}}. --Panda10 (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

July 2016Edit

Category:bo:Iconography and Category:bo:Dharmic iconographyEdit

I am fairly sure that these non-standard categories should not exist, but I am not so sure how best to categorise the handful of words currently contained in them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

August 2016Edit

Template:neuter singular of and Template:neuter ofEdit

  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Okay, so I'm doing this in lieu of User:Embryomystic. He may have gotten tired or something, or didn't check his talk page yet. He stopped editing today about 15 minutes after I messaged him about this.

Please forgive me, I'm not trying to be mean, just being honest with you, but it pains me to see a user removing a template that I've been using for quite some time and changing it to another with all the pages he/she can find. The user is an experienced user, so I understand he/she may have a valuable reason for this. However, I think before a user starts doing this, they should bring it up here or somewhere similar first, which is what I'm doing now.

Embryomystic seems to have some reason why he/she doesn't like the neuter of and neuter singular of templates, and is replacing them with Template:inflection of, along with the parameters n and s. Although I don't agree that Template:neuter singular of should be deleted, I am going to bring it up here so that this can get resolved and so that, if the community decides the template should be deleted, then we can run a bot through and have it change all the templates for us (or whatever other consensus decision we come up with) rather than having one user do it all manually. Philmonte101 (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep. I personally disagree that Template:neuter singular of should be deleted, since it seems to be literally no different at all from what Template:inflection of does. I feel like a lot of people here care a whole lot about the inner code formatting of entries, such as which template which does exactly the same thing should we use?, and will change it even when there's an intricate detail that they don't like. Personally, I never felt this way. The formatting is of very minor importance to me. It is of course important to some degree, as you don't want a bogged together entry with no spacing, even though it looks exactly the same on the outside as it would if there were spaces. But I'm just more focused on what's on the outside, what people who come here to read the dictionary to get linguistic knowledge, come to see. Most regular everyday lurkers probably could care less which template is being used, and honestly probably wouldn't even understand wiki templates at all.
However, that's not my only reason that I want to keep this. Another is that Template:neuter of and Template:neuter singular of are easier for people to use than Template:inflection of. I see inflection of as a template to be used for inflections of verbs or nouns that have to be explained in many words. That's where it gets convenient; so users don't have to type all of that out, so it makes it shorter. But in this case, it actually makes it longer. People actually have to type out "inflection of|n|s|[...]". This also implies that newcomers will have to have the same template knowledge as users who've been here 7 years like Embryo, and when they try entering {{neuter of|[...]|lang=da}}, then they will be disappointed that it isn't so simple. Sure, I have no problem with people using "inflection of" when they create neuter inflection entries, since that just seems like a personal preference thing, and like I said I care about the formatting of the code to some degree, but it's not all that important, especially not as important as some here make it out to be. After all, the three templates all do exactly the same thing, so it makes no difference. Philmonte101 (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Embryomystic has a habit of editing everyone's entries, not only yours. Some edits are good, others are totally pointless. So it's not only you that's on the receiving end. DonnanZ (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Indeed, Embryomystic very often changes more specific form-of templates to {{inflection of}}. I'm not terribly fond of that, but I figure it's not worth arguing about, so I let him do as he pleases, even while I myself continue to use the more specific templates. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:PIE rootEdit

Reasons:

  • Duplicates information that is already in the etymology. (In the etymology, it would be simply written like: "from Proto-Indo-European *swep-".)
  • Annoying little ugly box. (to be fair, that's just my opinion)

I'm not too sure we need this template. Anyone has reasons to keep it?

Wiktionary:Votes/2016-07/Adding PIE root box failed. It's worth repeating that the vote was not about having the template, it was about adding it to a large number of entries (through automatic and semi-automatic edits). Still, the vote failed almost unanimously and some opposers gave reasons not to have the template at all.

In addition to displaying the small blue box, the template populates categories like Category:Czech terms derived from the PIE root *swep-.

Suggestion: Edit {{der}} and {{inh}} to make them able to categorize the entries into PIE root categories. This way, we would be able to delete {{PIE root}} while keeping the categories populated.

If there's any problem with the suggestion above or if it takes time to make the necessary changes, we can also consider keeping {{PIE root}} for some time but only as a categorization template, without showing the box at all. Although I consider this a poor workaround if we can do the same work using {{der}} and {{inh}}. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep. We also have other boxes similar to it for other languages, like {{HE root}}. —CodeCat 13:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Not a reason to keep, IMO. I don't think any similar boxes should be kept either. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The main difference is that the others are for roots in the same language- the PIE root box would be analogous to a Proto-Semitic root box in Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Akkadian, Maltese, etc. Also, the ones I've seen are in languages such as Hebrew where roots are part of the morphology of the language in question, and knowing the roots helps in understanding those languages in ways having nothing to do with etymology. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete, but as suggested, use a different template for categorization, so that that is not lost. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete in accordance with the positions expressed by the voters in Wiktionary:Votes/2016-07/Adding PIE root box . --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep and consider modifying it to function only for categorization purposes and not display a box. Benwing2 (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, but I'd like it if {{der}} and {{inh}} had the ability to categorize, i.e. if {{der|cs|ine-pro|*swep-}} and {{inh|cs|ine-pro|*swep-}} categorized a page into Category:Czech terms derived from the PIE root *swep- without any other template. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    • What about cases where {{der}} or {{inh}} are not desirable, since the etymology would become too elaborate and duplicative? Consider witty; do we want to trace it all the way back to *weyd- just so that we can write {{der|en|ine-pro|*weyd-}} and get the category, even though the current etymology is still perfectly fine? The PIE box bypasses this issue. —CodeCat 17:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Whatever gives you that idea? Let's say that we decide to use {{der}} to give the PIE root. Then the etymology would necessarily become the horribly convoluted
From {{inh|en|ang|wittiġ}}, from {{affix|ang|witt|-iġ|nocat=1}}, equivalent to modern {{affix|en|wit|-y}}. The former term derives from {{der|en|gem-pro|*witją}}, from {{der|en|ine-pro|*weyd-}}, while the latter derives from {{der|en|gem-pro|*-gaz}}, from {{der|en|ine-pro|*-ḱos}}.
This is way more than is needed, and what's more, the majority of it is a duplication of the etymologies of wit and -y. —CodeCat 19:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I know we usually don't do this for words formed from a suffix (in this case, a suffix in the Old English word). This also means that a word like unbelievable shouldn't mention in the etymology all the Middle English, Old English, Proto-Germanic and the like, that are ancestors of believe, and it also means that unbelievable won't be placed in categories like "English derived from Proto-Germanic".
With that in mind, {{PIE root}} looks like a case of special pleading to me. Either we do mention all those ancestors, or we don't. Why aren't we adding boxes for Middle English, Old English, Proto-Germanic and other ancestor languages? I'm not really convinced that we need a box for PIE and keep the etymology small, without most ancestors in the "main" text, as suggested. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Probably keep per Benwing and convert to categorization only. The problem is the box, not the the categorization. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  Done (the categorization part, I mean). I made it so {{der}}, {{inh}} and {{bor}} now place entries in categories like Category:Czech terms derived from the PIE root *swep-.
A few notes:
  1. To keep current categorization, I used the word "derived" (and not "borrowed", "inherited") in all the PIE root category names. It would be overkill to start populating categories like "Category:Czech terms inherited from the PIE root *swep-" and "Category:Czech terms borrowed from the PIE root *swep-".
  2. Probably Module:etymology can be edited to allow categories for languages other than PIE if people want.
  3. There are exactly 2 entries marked as explicitly "borrowed" from PIE instead of derived ir inherited: უღელი and Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/mete.
--Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete unless its functionality is reduced to solely categorisation, and there is no better solution. I'm not sure I agree with Daniel when he says that every ultimately PIE-derived word should trace its roots directly back to PIE in the etymology section. For example, swiftly is ultimately from PIE but the etymology swift + ly is surely sufficient; anything more than that would be overkill. This template could be handy as an invisible categorisation tool, if such categorisation is what we want. This, that and the other (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
If Daniel Carrero has indeed made {{der}}, {{inh}} and {{bor}} do the categorization automatically, then my vote can simply be a delete rather than a categorization only. It is entirely duplicative apart from the box, which nobody seems to like. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
He hasn't. He tried, and posted about it, but I reverted, explaining that it doesn't work. The difficulty is in getting {{der}} to recognise whether a term is a root, which is pretty much impossible. —CodeCat 23:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep: Not all etymologies mention the PIE root, so categorization using {{der}} would not include all terms from a root; for instance, τελέω (teléō) mentions derivation from τέλος (télos), whose etymology section in turn mentions *kʷel-. — Eru·tuon 20:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, though I'm late to the party. Keep the category, trash the box. Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 17:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:English derived termsEdit

Pretty horribly named, and it contains almost nothing but empty categories. —CodeCat 22:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I think DCDuring started this hoping other people would join in, and they didn't. And it's too big to be managed by just one person. While potentially interesting instead of categorization I'd sooner see good lists of derived terms in one of the entry. That is, put all the derived terms at cat and not at catlike, catless, cattish (etc.). Categorization requires a lot more effort and really just duplicates good listing. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Do you mean that derived terms sections should show terms derived indirectly as well, where there is an intermediate step in the derivation? That would turn derived terms sections into trees, while also duplicating the information from the derived terms sections of its derived terms. —CodeCat 22:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
No I mean in general, and I suppose I mean related and not derived terms, put everything at cat/dog/chair whatever and nothing at cattish, doglike or chairless. We do tend to duplicate and of course duplicate partially, not wholly. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't really like that idea. —CodeCat 23:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
In the past, someone proposed that {{compound}} should categorize all terms (like "doghouse") which are compounds containing "dog", etc. (Possibly the affix templates would also put "doggish" etc in the same category.) That seems like a more workable idea than manual categorization like this. - -sche (discuss) 23:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
As I conceived them I thought they would have been more inclusive than what would result from categorizing based on {{compound}}. I attempted to demonstrate using special template and these categories. The system would have required broad support, but instead the templates were removed from template space by vote. I doubt that there is any support now and don't want to exert myself to test that belief.
We have more fundamental problems, like definition and gloss quality, the systematic correction of which also has no indication of support. DCDuring TALK 23:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:English terms with alpha privativesEdit

We're not in the habit of indicating which morphological elements are present in a term. Rather, we have categories based on the etymological construction of a term. We tried to make categories for words containing smaller words, but that never really got off the ground. —CodeCat 22:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No preference. Given a- has multiple etymologies, I wouldn't object to the categorization being split if someone wanted to. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
We have infrastructure now that lets {{prefix}} etc more narrowly categorize terms which use only one of several possibly homographic prefixes, right? That infrastructure didn't exist when this category was created, but now, this category seems redundant to Category:English words prefixed with a- (not). (Am I mistaken; is there a different between them?) I suggest that someone could go through the entries in this category and update their etymology sections with whatever code is necessary to move them to the latter category, at which point this category can be deleted. - -sche (discuss) 23:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a difference. The prefixation category is for terms prefixed within English. But there's also terms that were borrowed with the prefix already attached. Indeed, that's probably how it became a prefix in English in the first place. —CodeCat 23:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:English words which may have multiple etymologiesEdit

Do we really need a category for this? This seems more like something for WT:ES to sort out. —CodeCat 22:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the lone entry in the cat, it's not even a word wich multiple possible etymologies (disputed), but a word with an Etym 1 and Etym 2 header (i.e. 2 diff words), so yeah, that's going to catch about 90% of all words, I ween... Leasnam (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Well I think the idea was to indicate that etymology 1 and 2 may actually be the same. Hence, something for WT:ES. —CodeCat 22:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Yep. I thought the same too Leasnam (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree, delete as this sort of thing does not need to be categorized. Discussion instead of categorization. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I can't see a use for categorizing "words which may have multiple etymologies". As CodeCat says, start a discussion on WT:ES to determine whether they actually have multiple etymologies or not. If they have multiple etymologies, i.e. two words are on the same page, it might be useful to categorize that. I suppose there are several ways we could feasibly do that: have a bot periodically check database dumps for pages with Etymology 1 headers and categorize them, or (harder) arrange for an update to the site software that would automatically categorize any page (in certain namespaces) with an Etymology 1 header. - -sche (discuss) 23:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
ES is not going to resolve everything, though. It would probably be useful to have a category for "X terms with disputed etymologies" (but, on the other hand, it should not mean "editor McDoubtface disputes this", it should mean "there is actual scholarly dispute on the etymology", or at least "ES agrees that there are multiple possibilities"). I have a recollection that we used to have Category:English terms with undetermined etymologies etc., populateable by e.g. {{etyl|und|en}} — but perhaps I am misremembering.
The restriction on disputes over the number of distinct etymologies seems patently useless, though.--Tropylium (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Fanciful 19th century American coinagesEdit

Eh? What is this, I don't even... A very fanciful category for sure, but it seems silly and rather subjective. And if this is kept, for some reason, it should be renamed to include the language name "English". —CodeCat 22:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It's necessarily subjective. I would move the appendix to the user namespace because the red links might prove useful. Straightforward delete. Not sure what else to say. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
It's kind of a high-falutin' handle for some of the items Mencken has recorded in The American Language. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, as stated and referenced at Appendix:Fanciful 19th century American coinages, these are largely recorded in the Dictionary of Americanisms (1848), by John Russell Bartlett, some surviving until The American Language (1919) by Mencken. I appreciate that the category discombobulated CodeCat, but I think the multiple reliable references are quite a sockdolager. I don't mean to hornswoggle anyone into anything contrary to our policy and norms, and keep bloviation in check. I just hope this group isn't forced to skedaddle ;(
Move the appendix to userspace per Renard, or incorporate its redlinks into WT:RE. Delete the category. - -sche (discuss) 23:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Keep in some form; is appendix appropriate/sufficient?
This is a distinct group of words, and are of interest to readers: someone reading about bloviate may reasonably be interested in skedaddle, as a contemporary American coinage of the same, fanciful type.
Appendix:Fanciful 19th century American coinages is well-referenced, and demonstrates this exact group is of linguistic interest; most dramatically, the etymology and usage of sockdologizing and its context is of historical interest for understanding the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
This certainly deserves some grouping in Wiktionary, though I don't know which form: I created a category as standard grouping mechanism, but perhaps an appendix with a list and links to the appendix is more sufficient and appropriate.
To emphasize, this is not a personal list (I'm at best vaguely familiar with the words), and should not be relegated to a user page: it's a referenced collection based on multiple, reputable sources by professional linguists.
Quoting World Wide Words: "Absquatulate":
The 1830s — a period of great vigour and expansiveness in the US — was also a decade of inventiveness in language, featuring a fashion for word play, obscure abbreviations, fanciful coinages, and puns. Only a few inventions of that period have survived to our times, such as sockdologer, skedaddle and hornswoggle. Among those that haven’t lasted the distance were blustrification (the action of celebrating boisterously), goshbustified (excessively pleased and gratified), and dumfungled (used up).
Absquatulate, meaning to make off, decamp, or abscond, has had a good run and is still to be found in modern American dictionaries.
To summarize: this is of interest to casual readers, this is of interest to linguists, and this is well-referenced. It deserves to exist in some form, to help these users.
—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
What are the criteria for inclusion in this category? 19th century and coinage are clear enough, but what does 'fanciful' mean in this context? Hw fanciful does something have to be to be included? What happens when you think something is fanciful and I think that it isn't? What next Category:Interesting 20th century English coinages? Renard Migrant (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, of course, because this is as silly as it is subjective, and really is more of a personal logophilic project than under a dictionary's purview. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete in favour of an appendix. It’s still interesting, but doesn’t really deserve an entire category (in my opinion). — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 05:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Appendix:Place namesEdit

This appendix, and all its subpages (which have not been individually tagged, but are included in this RFD) are the result of historical confusion about how CFI should treat place names. We are now in a longstanding stable position of handling place names in the normal entries, just like any other words, and these appendices no longer have a purpose for Wiktionary (as for general informational content, if someone needs such lists, Wikipedia is the place that should supply them). Refer to #Appendix:Place names/Greater Manchester, which will be archived at Appendix talk:Place names/Greater Manchester, for more. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete, but should we create entries for the red links first? Equinox 00:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes and {{toponym}} which is nominated below as these should be in the main namespace. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete —Enosh (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Japanese terms using characters outside JIS X 0208Edit

JIS is a character encoding. Why should we care what JIS includes? —suzukaze (tc) 09:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@suzukaze-c: Is there any harm to this category's existence, or does it require manual application? If it can be added automatically, I see no reason for the category not to exist, even if it's almost never useful. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Danish noun plural formsEdit

This would apply to four out of eight recognized forms of each noun. In practice, application is sparse and seemingly random. I see no merit in this category.__Gamren (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there interest in doing something like "XYZ definite ablative plural forms"? (We seem to have the makings of this kind of a system for at least a few languages, including Bulgarian, Cornish and Hebrew.) If yes, it might be possible to sort these forms down to that level, and perhaps also to cat-tag non-lemma forms by a bot. This category could then remain as a parent category for the four typical plural form categories. However it does seem rather arbitrary to have just a plural forms category, while not having a definite forms category, possessive forms category, etc. --Tropylium (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Categories for each inflection form (as seen on {{da-noun-infl}}) might be interesting to some, and should be easy to do. I completely agree that number seems like an arbitrary choice.__Gamren (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:ca-adj form ofEdit

Seems completely pointless to me. Our general templates can handle Catalan adjectives just fine. —CodeCat 19:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Deprecate and keep, preventing further use through abuse filters. - [The]DaveRoss 12:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:es-adj form ofEdit

As above. No point in it. —CodeCat 19:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Deprecate and keep, preventing further use through abuse filters. - [The]DaveRoss 12:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:es-adj-formEdit

Absolutely pointless, doesn't do anything {{head}} doesn't already do. —CodeCat 19:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Deprecate and keep, preventing further use through abuse filters. - [The]DaveRoss 12:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:pt-adj-formEdit

Again, nothing that is not already done by {{head}}. —CodeCat 20:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Deprecate and keep, preventing further use through abuse filters. - [The]DaveRoss 12:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:fr-verb-formEdit

Does nothing that {{head}} doesn't do, and its documentation even says so. —CodeCat 20:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd happily delete this and {{fr-adj-form}} but when I nominated them, they both passed. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Wonderfool unilaterally passed them. I wouldn't put too much thought into that. —CodeCat 13:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
He certainly did. I think he was running a bot at the time, and didn't want to change his offline bot code. These days, Wonderfool couldn't care less about it, and would be happy to see them deleted. --Derrib9 (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Deprecate and keep, preventing further use through abuse filters. - [The]DaveRoss 12:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Kangxi radicalsEdit

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

Category:CJKV radicalsEdit

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

Category:Han rad supEdit

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)

Category:Han rad extEdit

Empty. —suzukaze (tc) 10:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:la-decl-4th-argoEdit

Reasons for deletion:

  1. Argō is a third-declension noun, not a fourth-declension one.
  2. As L&S note, the “dat[ive] and abl[ative are] prob[ably] not used”.
  3. The accusative can also be Argōn.
  4. The table's title states “Only the genitive and accusative are attested. The remaining forms have been reconstructed based on the Greek inflection.” However, if the dative and vocative were unattested and therefore "reconstructed based on the Greek inflection", they would both be *Argoe (from the Greek Ἀργοῖ), and not (respectively) *Arguī and *Argō.
  5. The template is hyperspecialised. Argō is one of a sizeable number of feminine proper nouns that are similarly declined (see User:I'm so meta even this acronym/Latin feminine proper nouns of a peculiar Greek-type third declension).

(I recognise that only point 5 is an argument for deleting the template, rather than correcting it.) IMO, this template should be deleted until the paradigm is better worked out and attested, whereupon it can be superseded by a more general template for this whole subclass of nouns. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

See User:I'm so meta even this acronym/Latin feminine proper nouns of a peculiar Greek-type third declension for that work-in-progress. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

October 2016Edit

Template:grc-cite-* templatesEdit

There are at least 146 of these (I found them here), but {{grc-cite}} is deprecated and now just a fancy redirect to {{Q}} which is based on a data module so they are all unneeded as far as I can tell.

The full list

—Enosh (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Japanese-only CJKV CharactersEdit

Category:Japanese-coined CJKV characters used outside JapaneseEdit

Category:Korean-only CJKV CharactersEdit

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)

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


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)

Category:Han characters from which kana were derivedEdit

Category:Han characters from which hiragana were derivedEdit

Category:Han characters from which katakana were derivedEdit

Trivia befitting of an appendix page. —suzukaze (tc) 04:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I see no harm to these categories. Can you advance any reason to delete them? If not, keep. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
IMO it is too specific for a category. It is also clumsy; sortkeys are used to display which kana each kanji gave rise to. If we want them, we can use an appendix page, like I mentioned in my original comment. —suzukaze (tc) 06:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:ja-krefEdit

Template:JISEdit

Template:S-JISEdit

Template:EUC-JPEdit

Not used as often as it theoretically could be. But why would anyone want this? Surely these dictionaries have their own indexes? And the encoding information is probably only useful to programmers (if at all in this Unicode-dominated day and age), who definitely wouldn't come to Wiktionary to find out. —suzukaze (tc) 05:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Japanese Asahi charactersEdit

Underused with only two entries, and may be difficult to define, as some of them seem to have become unofficial "standard" forms according to Wikipedia. Maybe befitting of an appendix? —suzukaze (tc) 06:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:floatright-top & Template:floatright-bottomEdit

I am baffled why these even exist.

The "top" one is just:

<div style = "float: right">

The "bottom" one is just:

</div>

Using these instead of the HTML increases server load (albeit only slightly), and especially for the "bottom" one, the wikicode is longer than the HTML. They also make it harder to understand what's going on with the page. This looks like a net negative to me, both technically and in terms of usability.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

They exist because the majority here prefers templates over HTML and no better solution was ever found for the problem it solves. Ideally, we should get rid of all the wrapper-style templates (including {{trans-top}} and {{trans-bottom}}). So, I like to think these templates are temporary.
They are better than HTML because
  1. templates can have documentations (these do not, mea culpa) explaining why and when it is necessary to use them in an entry.
  2. it is easier to remember for non technical people.
  3. you can use autocomplete for templates.
They are not worse than HTML because of server load. WM servers are OK, you do not need to worry about them. --Dixtosa (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm seeing very little real use for these templates (and some cases, e.g. over at dog in the manger, seem to be obsolete anyway). Do these actually solve some kind of a problem? There is no default use case where arbitrary content needs to be right-floated, and individual templates (e.g. {{was WOTD}}) that call for this can and do have the feature built into them. --Tropylium (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Without this styling in the entry you mentioned you get the etymology section in a little lower place than it should ideally be leaving an ugly gap above it. see. --Dixtosa (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Renders perfectly well over here (on Firefox 48.0.1 for Mac). --Tropylium (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Various ergative-related pages for EnglishEdit

Appendix:English ergative verbs, Category:English ergative verbs - confusion with ambitransitive verbs (verbs that have both transitive and intransitive senses)Edit

The explanation in the appendix of what an "English ergative verb" is doesn't jive with other explanations of ergativity, such as at w:Ergative–absolutive language. In the sentence, “The boat sank,” the boat is definitely not the PATIENT as the example at Appendix:English ergative verbs currently indicates -- it is instead the agent or actor doing the sinking, and sank in this instance is just a plain old intransitive verb. In the sentence, “This book reads well,” or in “These eggs eat well,” the book or the eggs are clearly not the actors -- semantically, they can't be, outside of very strange and possibly drug-induced circumstances. This is the closest to an actual ergative construction in English, where a semantic object is used in the syntactic subject position (and, when using pronouns that make case explicit like he - him or she - her, the pronoun would be in the nominative case). This matches the definition we currently give in our entry at ergative. This also appears to match what is described in the w:Ergative–absolutive language article, where the semantic object is treated grammatically with the same case and syntax as a subject. This is notably different from the content of the flawed and unsourced w:Ergative verb article, which appears to be rehashing a description of patientive ambitransitive verbs that is presented more clearly and with citations at w:Ambitransitive verb#Patientive.

Moreover, although ergative constructions would seem to exist in English, “ergative” as a label is just not very useful in describing English verbs: although generally only useful for describing the qualities of how the noun verbs, as in the examples above with books and eggs, basically any semantically transitive verb can be used in an ergative construction just by putting the object of the verb's action into the subject slot in the syntax of the sentence. Ergativity is not a feature of English verbs, so much as English syntax.

As such, I propose that we delete both Appendix:English ergative verbs and Category:English ergative verbs. We should probably also delete Category:Old English ergative verbs as well.

Looking at some of the other ergative categories, like Category:Low_German_ergative_verbs or Category:Mandarin ergative verbs, I find that they mostly have descriptions like [LANGUAGE] intransitive verbs that become causatives when used transitively.” This does not agree with the sense of ergative that I'm familiar with, nor does it even always agree with the entries so labeled, giving me serious doubts about the validity of these categories. However, I will leave that to the respective editing communities. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Gee, I thought the problem with the ergative label was just that normal users don't understand the word. Apparently some contributors who add the label to definitions don't either. DCDuring TALK 01:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Ergative verbs are a useful category, and can't simply be replaced by "transitive and intransitive" because they're not the same. Ergative verbs are passive or middle voice when used intransitively, but when used transitively the meaning flips to that of a causative, to make the object undergo the intransitive sense. For example, "the boat sinks" is intransitive and does not have a clear agent. But when you say "the storm sinks the boat", then the storm is acting as an agent on the boat. In Dutch, the intransitive use has a passive/stative perfect construction too, whereas the transitive use has an active construction. —CodeCat 18:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with ergative as a label for other languages, provided those editors have a use for it.
My primary concerns are that 1) I don't see this as a useful label for English, and 2) this use of ergative to refer to a special kind of intransitive-and-causative verb usage does not agree with either our definitions at ergative, or the way the term is employed in other linguistic contexts (viz. the w:Ergative–absolutive language article). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I think the single definition at ergative is meant to encompass both the ergative case and the ergative verb, though it is really not very clear. The specific meanings of the term when applied to nominals and when applied to verbs should be elaborated more. — Eru·tuon 03:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I always thought that ergative verbs (in English) were as defined here and here, which, as far as I have observed, is how the label is used (or intended to be used) at Wiktionary. Therefore, I don't see a problem, unless the label is seen as too technical for readers. I don't understand the comment above that "any semantically transitive verb can be used in an ergative construction just by putting the object of the verb's action into the subject slot in the syntax of the sentence". That would mean that "John loves Mary" should mean the same as "Mary loves (John)", wouldn't it? Mihia (talk)
  • I object to the label, as it is not part of any US education other than some formal education in FLs and linguistics. If we had different labels for users of different preferences, I'd be down with "ergative" as a label, as long as it was not the default.
As to the category and appendices, I personally don't care, but they are probably useful to some. DCDuring TALK 22:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016Edit

Template:llEdit

This is unused and very much redundant to {{l}}, which does the same thing but includes the proper formatting. —CodeCat 18:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep. See the previous discussion at User talk:Wikitiki89/2014#Template:ll for my opinion on this. Nothing's changed since then. --WikiTiki89 18:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
And your argument is as convincing now as it was then. I still see no added benefit of this template, it provides no extra functions that {{l}} doesn't already. —CodeCat 18:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
That's not true. As I've already said in the discussion I linked, it provides the option of not including formatting, such as if the formatting is already provided outside of the template. --WikiTiki89 18:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The number of transclusions of the template shows how useful that is, I suppose. —CodeCat 19:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Because you keep removing them. --WikiTiki89 19:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The fact that I am able to, is evidence that the template is not necessary. —CodeCat 20:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I've read the discussion linked to above and I still don't see the point of this template. What formatting does {{l}} provide that {{ll}} doesn't, that one might want to exclude? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
    All of the language and script formatting. Look carefully at the examples in the linked discussion for why that formatting might need to be excluded. --WikiTiki89 21:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, or keep and rename. (I'm not sure what "ll" stands for here.) I wasn't aware there was a template to simply link to a language's section of an entry on a word (or a {{senseid}} anchor) without adding spans with language attributes and transliteration. I thought this function would be useful in quotes that use unusual terms (or terms that have several meanings, and you want to link to the particular one that is relevant). It is unsatisfactory to use {{l}}, which adds a lot of unnecessary formatting.
If you are linking an Arabic term in an Arabic quote or example phrase or sentence, you do not want to add a whole nother <span lang="ar" xml:lang="ar"></span> to every one of the words that you want to link, when the text already has that formatting applied to the entire quote or example. It makes the HTML terribly messy. So there needs to be a template that just links and does nothing else.
A simple wikilink would work in many cases, but not those in which the term has several meanings. In that case, having the |id= parameter allows you to link to the applicable meaning of the word in the quote or example. You can't do that unless you want to manually type #langname-senseid after the pagename. It is far easier to have a template with an |id= parameter that can be used in the middle of a quote or example. — Eru·tuon 05:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure that the practice of linking terms in quotations is discouraged. —CodeCat 14:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so that is not an acceptable use of the template. However, I have just found a use for the template in the headword of عَبْد (ʿabd), where the feminine form أَمَة (ʾama) needs an id to direct it to the correct vowelization. Using {{l}} gives bad output. Only {{ll}} works. — Eru·tuon 02:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I've now replaced it with {{l}}, and it works fine. There's yet to be a compelling argument for the template. Messy HTML is not a compelling argument; have you ever seen what MediaWiki itself generates at times? —CodeCat 02:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

January 2017Edit

Category:Languages by countryEdit

Upmerge If all of these subcategories were emptied, the parent category would only have a little over 200 entries, which is very navigable and also what one would expect from the name of the category itself. Categorizing by continent isn't really necessary (where does Russia go? Is France in five categories?) —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  •   Support, straightforward enough. --Tropylium (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017Edit

Category:Reference templatesEdit

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

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)
Never mind, I didn't realize that's already a separate catg. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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

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

@CodeCat: I'll do some work on it. — Eru·tuon 21:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
When it's deleted, where shall we put Category:Quotation reference templates? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
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)

Reconstruction:Latin/amoEdit

I may have missed this, but since when were we adding Vulgar Latin entries for attested Latin terms? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe see also Wiktionary:Tea room/2017/February#Reconstruction:Latin/amare. -Slœtel (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. It seems that there is indeed no reason to keep this entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tea Room discussion. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I’m leaning towards delete, but it may be worth keeping if any scholars have proposed an unattested sense. (On the other hand, the said sense could simply go to the mainspace.) — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 05:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It's true that the lemma form is attested in classical Latin, but many of the non-lemma forms are unattested though they can be readily ascertained by the Romance forms. Is that not enough reason to keep the page? (This is an actual question, not a rhetorical oneǃ) —This unsigned comment was added by Tectosax (talkcontribs).

Delete, see below. --Barytonesis (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:grc-ipa-rowsEdit

We can put this to rest now that {{grc-IPA}} exists. The only issue is replacing it in all the entries that use it, and I don't know whether that can be automated, since ambiguous vowel length will have to be marked. Note to the closer of this discussion: there are a bunch of subtemplates that need to be deleted as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete on the condition that the new template is made to display like the old, keep otherwise. —CodeCat 02:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
It already does display like the old. Maybe you didn't click 'Show more'. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I prefer it to be expanded by default. The collapsed display tells you so little, it's almost useless. If I'm looking for the Byzantine pronunciation, it doesn't help me at all. —CodeCat 02:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
That's a perfectly valid personal preference, and you can make it show automatically for you by going to 'Visibility' at the lower left of your screen, on the sidebar, and clicking 'Show pronunciations'. In order to save space, the template autocollapses by default, but as you now can see, it displays just like the old one did. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
{{grc-ipa-rows}} doesn't really have ambiguous vowel length, because |a|, |i|, |u| are always short, while |aa|, |ii|, |uu| are always long. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Before we completely eliminate {{grc-ipa-rows}}, though, I do hope someone will address the point I brought up last year at Template talk:grc-IPA#Possible fixes. As far as I know, the discrepancies still exist. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep until discrepancies between this and {{grc-IPA}} are ironed out. {{grc-IPA}} is currently riddled with errors. - Gilgamesh~enwiki (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

Category:Auto racingEdit

At least the English category has been empty for ages. Category:Motor racing should be enough, there's no real need to differentiate between car/motorcycle/whatever racing. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge into Category:Motor racing. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree. DonnanZ (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, merge them. - -sche (discuss) 09:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

April 2017Edit

Template:audio-pron-devEdit

Tagged but evidently not listed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rua, you were the one who tagged this. Would you like to advance a rationale? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/biderbanąEdit

As above. —CodeCat 21:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete --Victar (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Weak delete: supported by only a single Dutch descendant. Weak since I know no Dutch and Proto-Germanic and know of no fixed policy for quasi-attestng Proto-Germanic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/hrewwōnąEdit

As above. —CodeCat 21:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete --Victar (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Weak delete: supported by only a single Old Saxon descendant. Weak since I know no Old Saxon and Proto-Germanic and know of no fixed policy for quasi-attesting Proto-Germanic. google:"hrewwōną" find almost nothing. Created by Theudariks. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
The fact that I created it is not relevant to the discussion Theudariks (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
If it helps... hreówian in Joseph Bosworth and T. Northcote Toller (1898) An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (OE and GOH as well as the OSX listed). May a may not be a mistake, some B&T verbs are not the same as on WIkitionary. Anglish4699 (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

May 2017Edit

Appendix:Latin suffixesEdit

A lot of these are inflectional endings, not suffixes; some of them are connecting forms of suffixes that we don't lemmatise that way. But there's no reason to clean this up, because if we did, it would be a perfect copy of Category:Latin suffixes. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

There are different types of suffixes: derivational suffixes (e.g. diminutive suffixes) and inflectional suffixes (declensional or conjugational suffixes) - although it could depend on the terminology.
The page could give some information behind each suffix like "* -bamus (conjugational suffix for first person plural indicative imperfect active)" and/or put it in sections like:
== Derivational Suffixes ==
=== Diminutive Suffixes ====
...
== Inflentional Suffixes ===
=== Declensional suffixes ====
=== Conjugational suffixes ====
With further information it wouldn't be a copy of the category.
BTW: This failed RFDO before as seen on Appendix talk:Latin suffixes.
-84.161.22.3 03:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Category:AirEdit

The vast majority of languages have no entries in this category, it only exists to serve as a parent to Category:Wind. It's also fairly redundant to Category:Atmosphere, since the two terms are fairly synonymous. —CodeCat 22:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Jimjames35/Books/make his law of 1-225566-3545 through george c. jackson jr.Edit

And all the other pointless "books" by the same user. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

They're in his userspace, so I don't see why we would delete them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:ru:CISEdit

This passed RFDO before, despite Stephen being the only one who wanted to keep it. It seems to me that it has no value. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Commons ticker notificationsEdit

Some Commons thing that was active in 2007 and 2008 that seems not to have been useful then, let alone now. I think we should get rid of all the subcats and the useless talk page sections it left behind. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and {{TickerAction}}, {{TickerNotification}}, {{TickerEntry}}, and their subpages can be deleted as well, only used in those useless bot messages. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete these and any other items associated with this defunct and superseded Commons licensing-related effort. See CommonsTicker page on MW User page. DCDuring (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Duesentrieb has not recently been active on MW, Commons, or de WP. Nor has a successor user name. DCDuring (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

June 2017Edit

Appendix:X is a beautiful languageEdit

They are present at the translation section of English is a beautiful language.--2001:DA8:201:3512:BCE6:D095:55F1:36DE 12:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Your logic would be flawed if English is a beautiful language is deleted. --WikiTiki89 21:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
So maybe on hold until the discussion of the latter is closed.--115.27.203.95 10:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Delete. That RFD failed. I would have preferred to keep the entry, but I'm not comfortable with keeping the appendix either if the entry is unwanted. It makes it seem like the appendix namespace is a space for random trash. Either the phrase is good enough for the dictionary or it's not. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Appendix:Romance of the Three KingdomsEdit

I don't think it's useful as it does not introduce any new words but names of individuals (which is cleatly not dictionary material - we don't have a list of US presidents and Appendix:Harry Potter/Characters does not include a list of individual names).--115.27.203.95 10:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Unsupported titles, Category:Entries with wrong titles due to technical limitationsEdit

These two categories are duplicate and the meaning of these categories is unclear. (these are also unsupported titles)

Propose to:

  1. Delete one of them and add all pages of [2] to the other
  2. Create a new category, probably named Category:Entries which titles containing unencoded CJKV characters

--2001:DA8:201:3512:5CA3:FD48:C75A:557E 17:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You might be right in the possibility of an overlap between these two categories, but I'm not so sure about the new category suggestion. {{wrongtitle}} is in no way restricted to CJKV characters, it's just that those were the first to be tagged with this template. Conceivably, terms in other scripts with characters outside Unicode could be placed into it as well. NMaia (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I thought the "unsupported titles" category was where our "Unsupported titles/" pages went — those titles that can be typed, and that display correctly in most places, but that cannot appear in titles due to technical limitations. I do not know why the "wrongtitle" entries are also in the "unsupported titles" category as well as the "wrong title" category, or why our "Unsupported titles/" aren't in that category (I suggest they should go [back?] into it).
The "wrong title" category could be renamed along the lines you suggest, but without "CKJV": how about "Terms containing unencoded characters", since the defining things is that the terms use characters that cannot be typed, rather than merely that the title is problematic? - -sche (discuss) 01:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I like this proposal. NMaia (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I've (re)populated the "unsupported titles" category, and renamed the "unencoded characters" category. I suppose this is resolved? - -sche (discuss) 06:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:ja-kanji readingEdit

An earlier discussion (Template talk:ja-kanji reading) appears to have been closed inappropriately as a "keep"; all participants agreed to its deletion. —suzukaze (tc) 06:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Eirikr, Haplology. —suzukaze (tc) 06:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the discussion was never closed and WF inappropriately archived it without action. I would just delete the template, but it seems that it's still in use. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I've started slowly going through all the pages linking to the template, and editing as appropriate to orphan it. We're down now to 135 links (including redirects). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:rfc-autoEdit

There is no autoformat bot that operates on the live wiki, language sections that are out of order can (and are) be detected from the database dump. DTLHS (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@SemperBlotto who still uses it from time to time. - [The]DaveRoss 18:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Egyptian reduplicative verbsEdit

Was presumably used by some archaic template, but there’re no pages left and it’s not clear what this would be used for. The analogous Category:Latin reduplicative verbs describes itself as containing »verbs that form tenses by reduplicating one or more of its component«, but the overwhelming majority of Egyptian verbs form certain tenses by geminating the final radical, so this wouldn’t be a very helpful usecase, and it would better be named something like Category:Egyptian verbs with geminate root even if it were. There are some Egyptian verbs formed directly by reduplication from shorter words, but that’s a derivational, not an inflectional, process, for which the conventional naming scheme on Wiktionary seems to be Category:whatever reduplications; that doesn’t seem to be what this category was used for anyway. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 20:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/iljōEdit

Lacks any cognates outside of Old Norse. Is this enough to create a PGmc reconstruction? --Victar (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Probably not. —CodeCat 19:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I've found a cognate in OE 'ile', wich also means 'sole of the foot'. --2003:C8:7BC8:5FB2:AC77:1547:4207:97E 10:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
With such limited attestations, it might be a borrowing from ONrs. --Victar (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, the OE form is masc. and not fem. --Victar (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't lj have become ll in Old English if it were inherited from PGmc? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Latin/circlusEdit

We already have circulus, so this is just an unattested alternative form. —CodeCat 17:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see no reason not to move the descendants to circulus and delete this. If we wanted to maintain a distinction between descendants from circulus and those from a syncopated form *circlus, we could do that in circulus. - -sche (discuss) 06:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Would you delete this, but keep oclus simply because it's attested? --Barytonesis (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Um... pretty much, yes. That's kinda how Wiktionary works. But the inflection table with unattested forms should be removed, and the descendants placed at the lemma. —CodeCat 13:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
About the inflection tables, I think I agree. But why do you want to move the descendants back to the Classical oculus? I thought we strived for the proximate derivation?
As for the deletion debate: it's not just a problem with this entry; the whole Vulgar Latin situation is messy right now. Why pick this particular entry? --Barytonesis (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Simple machinesEdit

Fairly limited in scope. --Barytonesis (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, just like the category for the seven deadly sins. Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017Edit

Template:defEdit

Despite Wiktionary:Votes/2016-07/Placing English definitions in def template or similar, this template sees increasing use by its supported. Consistent with the result of the vote, I propose to delete or deprecate the template. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The vote that failed was on using automated or semiautomated edits to put {{def}} everywhere. The manual insertion of it never failed any vote, so there are no grounds for deleting or deprecating it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, formally, we need a separate process, which is why I have created this RFDO. Nonetheless, the vote shows a widespread opposition to use of {{def}}. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, no it doesn't. It shows a widespread opposition to the use of bots to enforce its exceptionless use, which is quite different. Keep as a very helpful and desperately needed template (at least, as Ungoliant says below, until some other method is found of forcing links in definitions to point to the right target). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious that it does; one only has to read the posts in the vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep until another method of making sure links in definitions work correctly becomes established and enforced. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand the need for this template. I would delete it. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto: See Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2017/July#Proposal: automatically link all links without a section to the English section for a discussion of why either this template or {{l}} needs to be used in at least some definitions, at least until there's some other way of making sure links in definitions always and only point to the English word. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't like it. Equinox 16:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
And I don't like clicking on a supposedly English word in a definition and being taken to something other than an English entry. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
How often does that happen to you?--Dixtosa (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Often enough that it pisses me off when it does. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
From the BP thread, I get the impression this issue only exists for people who use Tabbed Languages, and is due to that gadget taking people to the section for the language they most recently looked at. People who use the regular interface and click a bare link land at the top of the page, where the English section is (or, rarely, Translingual). IMO the solution is to fix Tabbed Languages' behaviour. Occasional use of {{l|en}} when the link-target is a page with multiple languages on it seems like the best interim solution, and also addresses cases where the link target is the English section of the same page. Delete this template. - -sche (discuss) 06:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Even without tabbed languages, half the time you end up in the table of contents rather the intended section unless you have configured it to float right. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: That last problem could be addressed by using the right-hand table of contents gadget. DCDuring (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It is a bad way of achieving the desired result, but it should be deprecated rather than deleted so that page histories do not become unreadable. — Eru·tuon 06:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure how widely it's been used, so we may not need to. This may have started out as an anti-CodeCat grudge reflex- a rather annoying ethical blind spot in someone who takes great pains to be ethically correct- but in general I don't like the idea of wrapping large blocks of text in templates when it's not absolutely necessary. The more that you engineer things, the more you have that can go wrong, and everything has a cost, however small. Having patrolled Cat:E for many years, I get tired of all the ways a minor error can flood that category for days or even weeks (not to mention the out-of-memory and out-of-time problems). CodeCat is, by nature, an inventor, and so she looks for technological fixes first. There are plenty of times that we need that, but I don't think this is one of them. If we can find a way to deal with the language-section issue without making our wikicode more complex, I'm all for it, but I'd rather discontinue using this method- either delete or deprecate. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
      • I agree with what you say here, and I don't particularly like {{def}} either. But until there is an alternative that solves the problem {{def}} was supposed to solve, I don't think it should be deleted. My hope is that the dislike of the template will encourage people to come up with something else. Too often, less-than-ideal solutions hang around anyway because either nobody thinks of a better way, or because too many people opposite the alternatives that people propose. —CodeCat 14:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
      • @Chuck Entz: There are a fair amount more than 1000 uses of {{def}} (got this count by paging through the transclusion list), though I don't know how to get a transclusion count. (There's Jarry1250's transclusion count tool, but it doesn't work on Wiktionary right now.) — Eru·tuon 18:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
      • These speculations about motives are uncalled for. The point is, I want to see the template unused, I created a vote, the vote showed what editors at large want, yet some people continue as if the vote did not happen. So I have to do something like create this RFDO. Quite obviously, this RFDO was created with the same objective as the vote: push a personal preference that seems to coincide with general consensus; no other motive is required to explain this RFDO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep until a better solution is found. —CodeCat 13:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Deprecate and Delete as long as the only benefit of having it is to have words link correctly.Dixtosa (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete DCDuring (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. As I argued at the vote, it makes entries more difficult to edit, with only minor benefits for most readers. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Appendix:English words by Latin antecedents and Appendix:English words with Greek and Latin rootsEdit

The first one has already been RFM'ed, to no avail for lack of participants. --Barytonesis (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Appendix:Ancient Greek words with English derivativesEdit

Poorly maintained, unmanageable, redundant with Category:English terms derived from Ancient Greek. --Barytonesis (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep; see also Appendix talk:English words by Latin antecedents#RFM discussion: August 2015–September 2016. It is obviously not true that the appendix is unmanageable and redundant; as for poorly maintained, it does not need so much "maintenance" as expansion. The Latin appendix is much better developed but this one can be developed as well, and when it gets developed, it can create a kind of report that provides quick glancing and skimming that the mainspace can never provide. If this nomination results in deletion, please move the page to my user space. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep; please keep these kinds of lists, they are very helpful for learners, even if they are not perfect. However, I do agree that if similar pages can be merged (redundancy), then this should be done. But do not delete information!--80.187.104.73 21:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, this particular list is much better than Category:English terms derived from Ancient Greek because it shows translations! Please maintain and expand this list, instead of deleting it! --80.187.104.73 21:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Everything here is a work in progress. The fact that there is a similar category scheme actually makes it much easier to maintain and someone could make a bot to port over entries. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:is-decl-nounEdit

Now superseeded by {{is-decl-noun-base}}. 220.240.83.61 09:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Icelandic declension hk sb 06 éEdit

Now all replaced by {{is-decl-noun-é}} to ensure consistency. 220.240.83.61 21:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Counters by languageEdit

Possible duplicate with Category:Classifiers by language--222.29.114.71 20:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:ast-verb-erEdit

and Template:ast-verb-ar and Template:ast-verb-ir. Surely they can be merged into Template:ast-verb. -WF

  • This should be listed at WT:RFM, WF. --Recónditos (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily, Rec. Let's delete all of them instead. -WF
  • DeleteCodeCat 18:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱlitósEdit

Only one descendant given, which is not enough to reconstruct a PIE form. There used to be a Germanic descendant listed, but it was dubious as the accent didn't match, so I removed it. Even two descendants is not particularly strong evidence given that the *-tós suffix is very productive. Independent innovation is very possible. —CodeCat 13:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Victar has now put back the Germanic descendants that I removed. I removed them because they violate Verner's law. Are we allowed to ignore basic linguistics just because someone's source says so? —CodeCat 15:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱlinéh₂tiEdit

None of the formations in the descendants actually match the PIE form, so why does this exist? There was a Latin form listed before, but per De Vaan, it doesn't belong there. —CodeCat 14:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Beekes clearly cites *klin-je/o- as the root of the the Greek form, and that itself comes from an older nasal present. Kroonen cites the older original form as either *ḱli-neh₂- or *ḱli-neu-. That is what was reconstructed on this page. de Vann concurs and explains the long -ī- as being "introduced from the root aorist *klei- i *kli- (cf. cliēns)." --Victar (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
This doesn't address the main point at all, but merely confirms it. Why do we reconstruct this if there are zero forms which actually descend from it? —CodeCat 14:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The Latin form is cited in sources as an example of this original form. Source add. --Victar (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the entry is now in conflict with the (also sourced) etymology given at clīnō and *ḱley-. We clearly cannot follow the sources here, as they contradict each other. This is an issue with a lot of your editing, Victar. You blindly go with sources which often posit very bold hypotheses that don't have widespread acceptance, you don't critically examine them. You also do not seek out consensus; whenever someone reverts your questionable additions, you ignore the fact that reverting an addition means no consensus, and repeatedly reinstate. When discussions finally start, you also refuse to wait for a consensus, but reinstate your edits as soon as you think you have proven your point, as on Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/ḱlitós. You need to stop hiding behind sources and start listening to editors. —CodeCat 14:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
If we're going to bring this to personal attacks simply because you disagree with the sources, let me say that your actions are very unbecoming of an editor. I attempt to start a dialog with you, as exampled here, and your solution every time is to simply assert you are correct and delete the entry. You were stripped of your adminship because of your uncooperative behavior which you continue to this day. --Victar (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
You attempted to start a dialog, then completely ignored it and put the content back anyway. Multiple times. Without consensus. And you still haven't given a good argument for keeping this entry, and you still continue to add content without consensus. —CodeCat 15:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Ignored it? I put forth my thoughts, and your response was you're wrong, I'm deleting it again. That is not a dialog on your part. You are not one to talk at all about consensus. For example, there was a clear consensus that laryngeals existed in PII and many of its descendants, and despite that, you systematically deleted them, at which point @JohnC5 had to insist that you stop. This project is not a dictatorship for your ruling. --Victar (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
No person is correct in all decisions. CodeCat has made mistakes, as have I. Recently, Victar, you're been running roughshod across these entries, frequently ignoring language specific-considerations in favor of utopian reconstructionism. I've tried to be fairly conservative in the way I've edited on here, and CodeCat is very useful in reining in my reconstructive excesses. Similarly, sometimes she has personal opinions which need curtailing, but this is done in discussion with other editors. If there is no consensus, it is better to not add it all then to add highly speculative material. Again, I've made these mistakes many times, and indeed at one point CodeCat told me to go read a bunch of literature since I was adding so many bad reconstructions.
In this matter, I would agree with CodeCat that there seem to be several competing explanations or maybe several competing forms. This entry is at this point too speculative to merit its own entry. —JohnC5 17:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I am completely open to being wrong and absolutely crave discussions so that I might learn from them. I do ping you and CodeCat on entries that I hope either of you can look over. I probably would have done the same once I finished working on the entries, like I did here.
My objection is in CodeCat's method of simply reverting someone with no explanation other than "you're wrong", if that much, which I find in bad form. We should be encouraging editors to go through the sources and add this information to the project, and, in turn, correcting mistakes, not disregarding them with reverts and throwing the baby out with the bath water.
You both know, I'm a clean and methodical sourcer (I added |passage= to many reference templates to improve them further), and I want to get these entries done by the books as much as anyone else. Three sources, Kroonen, de Van, and Beekes all suggest a nasal verb root, but if that's too speculative, lets have a conversation and come to some less speculative alternatives. I'm happy to see that CodeCat has now added some to the root entry, but this was only after my objections to the deletion of the entry. --Victar (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I usually err on the side of caution, and I wouldn't even have created a PIE page in this instance. The descendants are too different to really pin them down onto a single form. Kroonen etc. may be right about the original -neh₂- suffix, but this is very speculative considering that it doesn't appear in that form in any language. It appears to me like they pulled it out of thin air. The nasal itself is plentifully attested, but its exact nature is too unclear. What I find especially telling is that Greek added an additional -ye- present suffix to it, as if it wasn't "present enough" in its old form. The Germanic form, with a stative formed, seemingly, from a characterised present, is even more puzzling. So my preferred option would be to just say "We don't know" and only list the forms without trying to pin a particular underlying formation on them, as Kroonen and De Vaan do. Note that Kroonen and De Vaan disagree on what they think the original form was, and I find neither of their proposals particularly compelling. De Vaan's proposal might work if the root had an additional final laryngeal, but that's ad hoc and only solves the puzzle for Latin, it makes it harder for all the others. —CodeCat 18:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Haha, "present enough" made me laugh. I can certainly see where you're coming from and Kroonen definitely phones it in at times. I think we can agree though that three independent innovations of *ḱli-n- seems highly unlikely. I've moved over the sources for to *ḱley-, so please feel free to delete *ḱlinéh₂ti. Also, please copy your comment regarding Germanic weak class 3 over, which I think is helpful. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Re CodeCat and "...personal attacks simply because you disagree with the sources...": +1 on the Uther-meter. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: That is not a helpful comment for dialog. --Victar (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017Edit

Template:de-conj-strong-7Edit

Unused template. Seems to have been replaced by {{de-conj-strong}}.

Category:MakurakotobaEdit

Theoretically meant to contain pillow words, but the only member of the category is the Japanese entry for pillow word itself. —suzukaze (tc) 09:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Would not want this category deleted. How about creating an example of one from Wikipedia? The only thing to consider is what part of speech to use. Examples/quotations from poetry to support is helpful too. 104.5.75.98 02:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

If it's kept, it should be renamed to include "Japanese" in the name. —CodeCat 09:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c, @CodeCat: As in "ja:Makurakotoba"? Here's an example:

  • 1005, Shūi Wakashū (book 13, poem 778), text here (also Hyakunin Isshu, poem 3)
     (あし) (びき) (やま) (どり)のをのしだり ()のながながし () (ひとり)かもねむ
    ashibiki no yamadori no o no shidari-o no naga-nagashi yo o hitori ka mo nen
    The pheasant of the mountain, tiring to the feet, spreads his tail feathers. Through the long, long night I sleep alone.[1]

A waka by Kakinomoto no Hitomaro. The makurakotoba in question is ashibiki no and it modifies yama (mountain) or yamadori (mountain-bird/pheasant). Assuming a new entry is created, 足引の (ashihiki/ashibiki no) with or without the no particle; what to write in the # ? The etymology has to be considered as well. 104.5.75.98 04:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

In this case (supported by my anonymous edit), @Suzukaze-c and @CodeCat, keep and rename to "Japanese pillow words" (or something like that); and would suggest a template for pillow words. Daijirin has "pillow word" for a part of speech (or something like that).

Here's a sampling (feel free to modify):

(article tile) 足引の
(header 2) Japanese
(header 3) Etymology
Phrase compound of (ashi, feet) + 引き (hiki) + (no, possessive particle).

(header 3) Epithet (Pillow word, Makurakotoba, or etc...)
Requests for deletion/Others (hiragana あしひき, rōmaji ashihiki, alternative reading あしびき, rōmaji ashibiki)

  1. text goes here
    Modifiers: , , ...

--POKéTalker (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

If we actually use the category, then it's fine by me. I nominated it for deletion because it's essentially empty. "Japanese pillow words" is good. —suzukaze (tc) 18:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

ReferencesEdit

  1. ^ Kenneth Rexroth (1964) One Hundred Poems from the Japanese, New Directions Publishing, ISBN 0-8112-0181-3, page 18

Reconstruction:Latin/coagloEdit

This is attested, so there shouldn't be a reconstruction. —CodeCat 17:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Latin/amoEdit

It's true that the lemma form is attested in classical Latin, but many of the non-lemma forms are unattested though they can be readily ascertained by the Romance forms. Is that not enough reason to keep the page? (This is an actual question, not a rhetorical oneǃ) —This unsigned comment was added by Tectosax (talkcontribs).

  • Delete, but we could have an Appendix showing Vulgar Latin conjugation. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

September 2017Edit

User:HausaDictionary subpages and talk page subpagesEdit

I deleted a couple of inappropriate subpages, then realized there's a number of pages about off-wiki matters (Nigerian President's speech- yep, lengthy English quotes from the Quran- yep, links to Google Translate for a bunch of words- yep), so I thought I would get a second opinion before going nuclear. By the way: They started the last week in May and the first week in June with 5 mainspace edits, and a 6th at the end of the month, but everything since then has been to the pages mentioned- so we're not talking about a minor side line of a prolific contributor. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the deal is with that user. They thanked me today for my edit that created the entry bakwai, but that's been the extent of their interaction with me. As I'm currently studying Hausa, I would greatly like the support of a native speaker, so I've been loathe to antagonise them by deleting a bunch of bizarre subpages. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello folks, User:HausaDictionary here, I was under the impression that anything that is under one's own username can be treated as a sandbox of sorts to test and note things. If that's not the case then I apologize. I mean no ill-harm. HausaDictionary (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
@HausaDictionary Please read WT:USER: you can certainly try out all kinds of things, but it has to be for Wiktionary purposes. We're more lenient with veteran editors who are contributing significantly to the project, and just do odd things on the side.
Any time we see people working only on their user space, it raises red flags. We used to have a Hungarian editor who built up dozens of user subpages full of Chinese texts, word lists, etc. while they were trying to learn Chinese, but never contributed to actual Chinese (or Hungarian, for that matter) entries. I was more concerned with vandalism, so I left them alone, but when someone else brought the matter up, the consensus was clear- it had to go. We ended up deleting years of painstaking work by someone who could have done great things in our Hungarian entries, if not the Chinese ones. From then on, I've made it a point to put a stop to that kind of thing early so no one gets the wrong impression, and we don't end up with that kind of colossal waste.
Thank you for letting us know your side of this: I intentionally set up the header so you would get a notification. We certainly do get lots of people who think it's ok to post press releases for their entertainment careers or CVs describing in glowing terms their contributions to dentistry or various faceless corporate professions on their user pages, so it's good to hear you're not one of those.
Hausa is a very interesting language for which we still have relatively poor coverage, and, as Metaknowledge points out above, we need all the help we can get. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Han characters needing common meaningsEdit

Common meaning is deprecated. Probably need a bot to remove all uses.--2001:DA8:201:3512:3D32:5FBD:8099:19C7 12:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Wyang? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge Thanks for tagging me but I can't run a bot to do this kind of tasks (multi-line edits) on my current computer for some reason. Maybe later, but hopefully someone else could help in the meantime. Wyang (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

All Unicode control charactersEdit

Currently, control characters redirect to Appendix:Control characters. I think they should be deleted entirely. Wiktionary is not a Unicode database, and control characters have zero lexical value. However, they cause lots of technical problems whenever anyone needs to access these entries. Links to them don't work. If you enter them into the search bar, you get redirected but you can't get to the entry that you were redirected from, because links don't work. If you click "what links here" to see what entries redirect to Appendix:Control characters, you can click on them there either. Pywikibot throws an exception for an invalid title. How we're actually supposed to delete them is a mystery to me if we can't even get to them from Wiktionary or with a bot. —Rua (mew) 16:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

So, to be clear, you want us to delete redirects that are causing no harm and which are potentially impossible to delete? What is the point of this? Keep them just so we don't have to deal with this, and because it's not a bad thing to redirect characters which, technically speaking, are attested, to an informative appendix. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
You are not creative enough. Special:WhatLinksHere/Appendix:Control_characters has (edit) buttons :P —suzukaze (tc) 22:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@CodeCat: E.g. https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%E2%80%8B&action=delete. The technical means of deleting them are straightforward. I agree that we should keep them tho because someone will put these into a search bar. In fact, keeping them makes a lot less overhead because it ensures that someone won't recreate them (and then necessitate a tricky way of deleting them). —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:English words affected by prescriptivismEdit

--2A02:A03F:3EE7:8100:F484:49D6:26B3:8DE8 22:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

And why? Also see Category talk:English words affected by prescriptivism#Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others - kept. -84.161.5.32 03:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Because it's a nonsensical name, and it's part of a "witch-hunt" against prescriptivism. True descriptivism includes prescriptivism, as a wise man once said. We should rely on {{label|proscribed|nonstandard}} and such instead if we want to have a category. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:448:929:A14:5B56 10:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if people get pung with a simple link? @Metaknowledge --2A02:2788:A4:F44:448:929:A14:5B56 10:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, yes, a bare link will ping (although there have been some technical issues with that lately). Secondly, "wise man" is rather off the mark, but thank you for the compliment. Thirdly, delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
This category does seem redundant to Category:English disputed terms (“English terms whose usage is proscribed [] ”). — Ungoliant (falai) 16:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Latin/avereEdit

Redundant to habeō. —Rua (mew) 21:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not redundant. And some redundancy could be removed by giving VL *avere/*aveō as descendant of habere/habeō and putting (some, not necessary all) Romance words in the VL entry only, as e.g.: Latin habere -> VL *avere -> Old Italian avere -> (New) Italian avere, and Latin habere -> VL *avere -> Old French [...] -> Middle French avoir -> (New) French avoir. -84.161.5.32 03:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:SOPEdit

Long unused, and hence marked for speedy deletion by WF. I thought I'd bring it here, instead — it does seem to have some promise as an improvement over {{no entry}}. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@DCDuring, this might interest you. If not, it looks like it'll go. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Indeed it does. Let's leave it here for, say, two or four more weeks. If we can't find real uses for it in that time, we can delete it. I think real examples of use would help focus discussion. DCDuring (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@DCDuring: How about fringe science? Try sticking it on there and see what you think. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
[[fringe science]] would be better addressed by {{translation only}} or by a redirect to WP (unless that is forbidden). DCDuring (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

October 2017Edit

Category:English four-letter abbreviationsEdit

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. 24.13.226.156 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 24.13.226.156 19:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Tbot entries November 2007Edit

The entries herein are all 10 years old. The plan for Tbot entries all along was to be deleted if they didn't get cleaned up, so these are a good place to start...--P5Nd2 (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep. They're mostly correct. Since it's almost all Hebrew, you should hassle the Hebrew editors (which we are not exactly lacking in) until they deal with them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The three that aren't Hebrew are Turkish. How are we fixed for active Turkish editors? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • We suck at Turkish. We haven't even got an entry for burada. But I'm happy to hassle the Hebrew editors. I can get away with hassling people more than others. I mean, what are they gonna do? Block me? --P5Nd2 (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Anylai Could you check these? —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 20:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi @P5Nd2 & @Aryamanarora, I can take care of the entries over time. --Anylai (talk) 10:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep the category; keep the Tbot entries. I find Tbot entries useful, and above, Metaknowledge even says they're mostly correct. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Frequency lists/top 2000 German Wikipedia wordsEdit

  1. It's not reliable and not correct and not helpful as it includes
    • English non-German words (the, of, by, with, and, is, University, World)
    • Latin or French non-German words (de, et)
    • Italian non-German words (di, del)
    • Dutch or Low German non-High-German words (van)
    • proscribed terms (z.B., u.a., d.h.)
    • inflected forms (amerikanische, amerikanischen, Weltkrieg, Weltkrieges, Weltkriegs)
    • miscapitalised forms (Obwohl, Später, Und)
      -- neuter substantivations of particles do exist, but that's obviously not what's meant here. What's given here are particles as they are written at the beginning of a sentence
    • other questionable terms (m, San, Santa)
      -- The letter m? Maybe a misabbreviation of maskulin or männlich (cp. m.). "San" as in "San Francisco", "San Marino" etc.? It's not the Greek letter known in English as san.
  2. It's from an old and unreliable source as it's
    • "From the 09.02.2005 dump. Copied straight from de:Wiktionary:Fehlende Einträge/Top2000 Wörter"
  3. Compared with old versions and something is wrong. Old versions and French wiktionary have for example "Die" and "Weblinks". "Weblinks" was removed in English Wiktionary in September 2011. So the given source isn't correct anymore as it was altered in English Wiktionary, and the number might be wrong now too. That is at the very least it has to be correctly restored or updated somehow.

-84.161.23.112 17:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Delete, it has served its purpose. If we want frequency lists, the corpus shouldn't be Wikipedia. --Barytonesis (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete indeed. When Wonderfool made it back in 2006, it was to look for common words. Now it's pretty pointless. --P5Nd2 (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: I find the rationale overall irrelevant, especially "unreliable": the reader knows it is from Wikipedia and it is from an old dump; we could note that certain kinds of edits were made. As for "inflected froms", en wikt frequency lists often include them; as for "proscribed terms", en wikt is a descriptivist dictionary. Wiktionary:Frequency_lists#German has links to frequency lists from "TV and movie subtitle"; these are no more relevant, correct or curated than the present list. I don't see why "corpus shouldn't be Wikipedia"; for English, we have a frequency list from Gutenberg, which for the purpose of frequency list is no better. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
    • We might want to delete that frequency list from Gutenberg as well, then. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Frequency lists/CatalanEdit

Was created to look for missing entries. Serves little purpose now --P5Nd2 (talk) 11:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: it is the only Catalan frequency list hosted in the English Wiktionary. No added value in deleting the list. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary:All Wikisaurus pagesEdit

Do not provide anything more than the category already provided.--2001:DA8:201:3512:B554:DB4A:9A6A:4506 14:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep. At least until the requestor explains some more. Does he mean all of Wikisaurus or just the alphabet page? I don't know of any way of accessing the entries except via the alphabetical list. What does he mean by "categories"? The individual entries? Does he intend us to leave the page as is ("Do not provide anything more..."); to post no edits ever again to Wikisaurus but leave the page or pages standing? I'm confused. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
= The page named above is redundant to Category:Wikisaurus. —suzukaze (tc) 02:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Delete.—suzukaze (tc) 02:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
If it is redundant to Category:Wikisaurus (and it looks like it) then yes, may as well delete. Equinox 02:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know, the search engine seems rather handy. --Barytonesis (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Delete. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: Gives a much better overview than Category:Thesaurus since 1) the category only lists 200 items per page, 2) on the nominated page, the items appear without the Thesaurus: prefix. No added value in deleting the page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dʰéwbusEdit

Not attested outside of Baltic. Should probably merge back to root page. Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 16:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean? Germanic has *deupaz listed right there. 68.175.135.161 16:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017Edit

Wiktionary:About Spanish/Todo/missing n-sEdit

And

List of missing Spanish entries. Hasn't been updated for 10 years. Yeah, we could update it instead.--P5Nd2 (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@P5Nd2: Wiktionary:Requested entries (Spanish) gets updated, tho. Seems like these two overlap. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:ko-romaja, Template:ko-romanization ofEdit

Korean romanisations are not allowed as entries. These templates were created very recently. Wyang (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello. First, I don't understand why you don't say to me anything for this Requests for deletion. And for your comment, please see your edit. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
@Garam Sorry for not pinging you. We currently do not include Korean romanisations as entries, because it's a waste of manpower to maintain them. If you would like to change this practice, please discuss in Wiktionary:Beer parlour. Wyang (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Appendix:Fiction/FilmsEdit

Fanwank Fancruft. Equinox 23:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep. Meets WT:FICTION. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Really why are you here? Did TVTropes ban you or something? Equinox 00:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Here in Wiktionary or in this RFDO discussion? I like Wiktionary and this subject interests me, which should answer both. Also User:Daniel Carrero/Stuff I've done. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
See also Appendix talk:Harry Potter where I commented a bit more about fictional words. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I apologise, that was a jerk comment. But I am still very wary of creating appendices of pop culture. Hey-ho, I'll go create some words and let other people respond. Equinox 00:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
No problem, and I welcome criticism to this project. Let's discuss stuff if you want. By the way, maybe having just one appendix like Appendix:Fiction/Films for all films is way better than having one appendix per film. I would suggest deleting Appendix:Harry Potter and Appendix:A Clockwork Orange in favor of including them in big lists. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
If we are going to have them (!!!) then we need to consider that there is a huge number of films, not just recent popular stuff that people want to add because they are fans, but older things that may have spawned terms (gaslight?) and there is no way that one page will suffice. Equinox 00:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Sure. Then I'll correct what I said: instead of exactly 1, it could be more: 2, 3, 4, 10, n appendices, I don't know. As long as they are large lists of films, as opposed to having one appendix per film. The current Appendix:Fiction/Films is small at the moment but that format can be expanded with the actual huge, ever-increasing number of films. Maybe we can compare that notion to our protologisms somehow, we have 3 pages at the moment: Appendix:List of protologisms/A–F, Appendix:List of protologisms/G–P and Appendix:List of protologisms/Q–Z. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
How we organise our pop culture is obviously bureaucracy. The RFD question is whether we keep it or not. Equinox 00:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. That is a new way to organize our pop culture. So, the format is important. Opinions like these are valid: "Delete, terrible format", or "Keep, I loved that format", or "Delete and move all films to separate pages like Appendix:Harry Potter" (which I wouldn't recommend). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@Equinox: Are you serious? Daniel puts forth a lot of effort here. Re: pop culture appendices: this is exactly what appendices are--they have virtually no requirements for what constitutes them outside of hoaxes. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
This is why you don't post before you read the whole thread. Equinox 00:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm flattered but it's all good here. I would add, of course, that fictional words have lexicographical value. It's a good point that appendices have virtually no requirements, but to state the obvious, we don't create appendices for food recipes, political speeches and Olympic records; only dictionary stuff. I created Appendix:Fiction/Films strictly as dictionary stuff. Naturally, it wouldn't contain any of the zillions of films that never invented a new word. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Part of my issue with this is that I think people have a very small focus. For example I could create an appendix of "demoscene slang that 8-bit computer nerds used in the 1990s" and I could fill it pretty full. Is that good? Maybe! But if they are words that were briefly spoken slang in a tiny group, I don't really know what we're gaining by recording it. Back when you were in school, you probably had your own slang that you used for a year or two, and then forgot. -- So, for whatever reason, we live in a time when people tend to form INTENSE attachments to television and comics... you get the idea... Equinox 01:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@Equinox: On the contrary, I think that would be extremely valuable for documenting English. If it's a slang purely of your high school buddies that died out in three years, that's one thing but if there is some kind of definable community over a period of time, then that would be perfect for an appendix. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Equinox, let's assume we can find actual citations for demoscene slang. I would support having Appendix:Demoscene slang and would oppose having Appendix:Demoscene slang that 8-bit computer nerds used in the 1990s. This is my initial reaction at this abstract idea and my opinion could change somehow if I saw the appendices created in reality. My point is: the "that 8-bit computer nerds used in the 1990s" makes it way too specific, but I would consider valuable to document words like these, yes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I imagine that ultimately documenting slang is important if the slang is going to be encountered in any way. If a few people used those words and died, never mind. If they wrote it into software (cough) then maybe. I'm gonna stop because this is not really on topic. But naturally I fret about this all the time. POP CULTURE? ON *MY* WIKTIONARY? Equinox 01:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
LOL, *MY* Wiktionary.
To repeat something I said in Appendix talk:Harry Potter, I would probably support only keeping fictional words if we can find 3 citations for them. This is a specific WT:FICTION rule already established by vote in 2008. If there are citations, they can be found somewhere; otherwise the words can be deleted from the appendix. The use of the fictional word in the film itself counts as 1 citation. And people may still watch old films and talk about them, and mention them in books. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
For the record, on 10 November 2017, Equinox gave me a public "thank you" for my message above, so I assume he liked something I said, either completely or partially. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
@Equinox: I have to disagree again: documenting dead languages/lects of languages is a very valuable activity, even outside of its practical application. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: Can we count your position as "keep" Appendix:Fiction/Films? Your comments seem to be on the keep-ish side, but you didn't say it explicitly. I could be wrong. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Keep yes. It may need to be revised but this is a wiki. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Latin/parauloEdit

Redundant to parabolō. —Rua (mew) 15:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably delete, but parabolo is currently labelled as Medieval Latin only; is it attested earlier than that? --Barytonesis (talk) 09:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:etycompEdit

Orphaned from the main space, redundant with {{affix}} and {{compound}}. --Barytonesis (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:etymology-discussion-beginEdit

Created in 2009, unused ever since. --Barytonesis (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:etymology-discussion-endEdit

Created in 2009, unused ever since. --Barytonesis (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:etymology-discussion-transcludeEdit

Created in 2009, unused ever since. --Barytonesis (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Category:Languages of the Middle EastEdit

What is the point of this category? It's woefully incomplete, but I see no reason to make it more complete — we already categorise by country, which seems much more useful and robust. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:seeSynonymsEdit

I think it better to reference the thesaurus without a template, using a short phrase like "See also Thesaurus:cat". This template produces e.g. "(marijuana): For semantic relationships of this sense, see marijuana in the Thesaurus" when placed to Synonyms section, which to my taste is too wordy, and does not fit nicely as a last item in a synonym list on a bullet, e.g. "puss, pussy, malkin, kitty, pussy-cat, grimalkin; see also Thesaurus:cat" or even "puss, pussy, malkin, kitty, pussy-cat, grimalkin; see also Thes:cat" if Thes ever becomes a namespace redirect. A similar template was deleted years ago; see Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-01/Removing Wikisaurus-link template. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Let me ping AdamBMorgan, who created the template and is a formidable contributor to the Thesaurus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

As for a rationale, I'd say, in general, let's be brief. In etymologies, let's write "from X (Y)" rather than "which comes from noun X meaning Y". I admit that a new user will not immediately know what "Thesaurus:cat" is unless they have seen a thesaurus outside of Wiktionary before, but they can figure it out by exploring the thesaurus, and by navigating to Wiktionary:Thesaurus which is linked from the header in every thesaurus entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to deleting the template and replacing it with a short phrase. It was just an idea, based on a comment in the beer parlour, and the wording is just an adaptation of Template:seeCites. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/sъcatiEdit

Consistent with #Reconstruction:Proto-Semitic/Urušalimmi above in RFDO, I propose deletion of this reconstruction via RFDO, seeing no unequivocally better venue. The sourced form seems to be Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/sьcati, e.g. via Derksen 2008.

Some comments are at Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2017/November#Proto-Slavic/sъcati vs. Proto-Slavic/sьcati.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Appendix:Suffix -nikEdit

Not an appropriate appendix. Some of the material might be appropriate to merge into -nik, but much of it is incomplete lists of words in English, Hebrew, or Russian (and some protologisms). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete but do something with the contents. Maybe drop the junk (Badniks only exist in Sonic the Hedgehog) and move the rest to WT:RE if not already extant. Equinox 03:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:zh-compoundEdit

Redundant to zh-forms box which can specify gloss.--2001:DA8:201:3512:DCD:8F19:540F:5089 15:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Could you remove all the uses and incorporate any gloss worthy of inclusion into zh-forms? Will support if unused. Wyang (talk) 07:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:table:days of the week/documentationEdit

{{table:days of the week}} is redundant with {{list:days of the week/en}}, which is used by far more languages. One of the two has to go, but I'd rather keep {{table:days of the week}} to be honest. --Barytonesis (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

{{list:days of the week/nb}}is in use. DonnanZ (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Jonteemil, Daniel Carrero, who worked on {{table:days of the week}} --Barytonesis (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

btw, this might be a good usecase for Wikidata, e.g. Q105 (Monday). – Jberkel (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Meh, I've just found out about {{list:seasons/el}} vs. {{table:seasons/el}}... Seriously? --Barytonesis (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks for the ping. I claim credit for inventing the system of "list:" and "table:"-prefixed templates that are repeated the same way over many languages. As a subjective, arguable rule of thumb, I usually prefer tables everywhere and would suggest deleting the lists. That's just my opinion, feel free to disagree.
    As suggested above, I would love to use Wikidata for all that stuff eventually. But I wonder if maybe using Wikidata here would be actually impossible because, say, we want to use some specific words and Wikidata would use other words. Maybe some language has a lot of synonyms for "Monday" and Wikidata would list them all but we wouldn't, or some other situation like this. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    @Daniel Carrero: I prefer the table as well, but I didn't feel like switching everything manually; the switch to list was out of convenience only. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    @Daniel Carrero: yes, there could be some cases where wikidata returns something incorrect, which we could either fix there (preferably), or override it locally (for that language). For most languages it should work fine. I checked a few samples (Ukrainian, Tagalog, Marathi) and the label data in WD for the language looked fine. Jberkel (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose merger as the usage depends on the layout of the page. One could use one table on one place and the other in an Appendix, and in an other appendix the first one again. Except of course there is a more intelligent way like having one template with a parameter for layout switch. Or even one template for all languages where one has to specify the lang and the layout, the data being held elsewhere. Possibly something with Wikidata which I cannot imagine because I have not yet found out what Wikidata is for. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 02:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    @Palaestrator verborum: "the usage depends on the layout of the page": if you're suggesting that we use one template for the main space, and another for the appendix space, I'm not opposed to it; if you're suggesting that one language can use the list template, and another language the table template because of different layouts, I disagree: we should aim at a consistent layout for all languages. I agree with the rest of your message. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    @Barytonesis:: Lol, actually I did not suggest one language can use the list template, and another language the table template because of different layouts. We surely aim at consistent layouts, though I cannot exclude the possibility that for some weird technical or aesthetical reason one has to deviate on one page. I mainly pointed out that there are all kinds of appendices, and these can indeed have varying layouts depending on what appendix it is.
Something with Appendix:Days of the week could be done too, so it does not have its data in cleartext but elsewhence. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 15:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Todo/Representative entriesEdit

These have probably been cleaned up by now --Spreaderofwords (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete, I guess. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:el-phrasebookEdit

This is a Greek-specific template whose purpose is to hang a notice in the upper right-hand corner of the entry informing readers that it belongs to a certain phrasebook. This seems like where {{phrasebook}} should be used, if anything. We should cut down on language-specific versions of things that should be the same for all languages anyway. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 21:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Redundant to the generic template. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just edited {{phrasebook}} because it was too huge and yellow and distracting. It also repeated twice that the entry is part of the "(language) phrasebook", the second time inside a collapsible div. I made {{phrasebook}} shorter now, more or less inspired by {{el-phrasebook}}, which was already short, right-floating and arguably inconspicuous when I found it. Yes, in my opinion we can delete {{el-phrasebook}} now. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep (for the time being) — @Daniel Carrero: thanks for noticing why I created this template, the generic one was very intrusive. But have a look at "I love you", isn't more work needed on {{phrasebook}}? — Saltmarsh. 07:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I daresay it's a little too subtle--a background color would probably help. But I also agree that the old template was a bit garish and intrusive. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the generic template is too garish, then forking a language-specific template is not the solution. Fixing the generic template is the solution. —Rua (mew) 12:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    I agree. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    I couldn't agree more — however (see above) — can't face the interminable bloody discussion :) — Saltmarsh. 06:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    I agree. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, per others' arguments above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Mandarin given names and all entries includedEdit

This is essentially an interminable set.--2001:DA8:201:3512:BCE6:D095:55F1:36DE 16:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

How is this any different than anything else in Category:Names by language? —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Category talk:Mandarin given namessuzukaze (tc) 23:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Keep, same as last time. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete. I'm sure most Chinese editors would agree with the anon above and the one who requested last time that Chinese given names are just a combination of any two characters (or even any character for one-character given names). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:el-future-formEdit

This template is used for definitions that should not exist, as they are simply showing how the particle θα (tha) can be used with verb forms to create other forms. It would be like having a template for showing a definition at come for will come. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

  • @Metaknowledge: It isn't so much a definition as an example of usage - isn't that a useful thing for someone new to a language to find — "κάνει" illustrates — Saltmarsh. 06:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, it is a definition, because that's just how Wiktionary works. But it obviously doesn't deserve to be one. And I don't think it's that useful, because learners will have to apply a little grammar in order to conjugate, that's just how it is. Our job is just to provide and document the words, which these are not. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Now modified to give usage example - rfd removed. — Saltmarsh. 18:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
That's a lot better, but I still think we'd be best off removing it altogether. I'm willing to accept this, but I'm reinstating the RFD because I'd prefer to let it run its course. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@Saltmarsh: I don't mean to hassle you, but why do you feel this is different from {{el-dep}}, which you agreed to see removed (as per the template talkpage linked above)? --Barytonesis (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@Barytonesis:My purpose was to illustrate a usage and its a shorter way of achieving this with resorting to {{ux}} which requires a translation. — Saltmarsh. 06:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Not necessarily, you can use {{ux|el|xxx|t=-}} --Barytonesis (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:el-model-pageEdit

No other language has model pages, especially not with labels in the upper right-hand corner advertising them. I raised this before at Template talk:el-model-page, but now I'd like to see what others think. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

  • keep — I would suggest that other languages should consider having model pages. (1) New editors find them a useful guide. (2) They form the basis for any discussions about page format. Does an unobtrusive note do any harm? — Saltmarsh. 07:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, you know my stance on this. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of "model pages", I'm just opposed to any kind of notice in the main space: this piece of information concerns the editors, not the viewers/readers. --Barytonesis (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:el-big-linkEdit

Used in one appendix. What's the point? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

But it is used more than 100 times there — Saltmarsh. 18:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm still not sure what the point of it is. Can't you just apply whatever formatting you want directly on that appendix? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Czech words interfixed with -nič-Edit

Please delete this page, unused, no interfix like that exists in Czech. It was made because of typographical mistake. Awewewe (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

First: If you delete your own mistakes, you do not need a formal request here, the template {{delete}} is enough. Second, the etymology of pralesnička now is also unbelievable. You say: “pra- +‎ les +‎ -n- +‎ -ič- +‎ -ka”. I say: “pra- +‎ les +‎ -ník +‎ -ka”. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 15:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Even better: "prales + ...". --Barytonesis (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

User:RajasgoredEdit

No content. No contributions. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@SemperBlotto: WT:Beer_parlour/2017/December#request_to_add_to_WT:AWBsuzukaze (tc) 07:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)