Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for deletion/Others

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Requests for verification/CJK
add new CJK request | history

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

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

Requests for moves, mergers and splits
add new | history | archives

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

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

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

Requests for deletion/CJK
add new CJK request | history

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

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

{{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{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 200 tagged RFDOs


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)
  • Deprecated changing retemplating them with {{form of}} - now safe to delete MooreDoor (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2021 (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)

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

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

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)

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

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)
Weak delete - these are closed categories that won't have any new entries, and they don't strictly need to be categories due to that. IMO it'd also work better as an appendix. — surjection??⟩ 18:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)





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)

If we really want this data we could centralize it in an Appendix. —Suzukaze-c 08:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@KevinUp It hasn't been deprecated, just nominated for deletion because "I Don't Like It". —Suzukaze-c 05:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I would support deleting these templates, because this information is more suitable for a database such as Wikidata:Q3595028. KevinUp (talk) 07:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

February 2017Edit


Apparently descendants are not real. I don't see reason why this entry should exist. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Presumably to explain prefixed forms in daughter languages, no idea how to handle it properly though. Crom daba (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Author could create entry with prefix (for example *orzmysljati, *otъmysljati). —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

As far as i understand, *mysliti is imperfective, so what is *mysljati? —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @Useigor, CodeCat, Benwing2: What ought we to do with this? Edit: Sorry if that ping directed you to the wrong section; there was an edit conflict. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    • If *mysljati has no direct descendants, then we have to ask where the derived verbs that have it as a base came from. Could these derived verbs themselves be of Proto-Slavic origin? If so, then there should be a Proto-Slavic page for those, and the existence of *mysljati is only guaranteed for Pre-Slavic, not Proto-Slavic. If they can't be posited for PS, then is it possible/feasible that the languages created these -mysljati verbs independently? If so, then there's no merit for a PS page, but if not, then reconstructing *mysljati for Proto-Slavic seems warranted. —CodeCat 20:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Neither of the above are the case. -jati, producing Russian -я́ть (-játʹ), is a common imperfectivizing prefix that is added to prefixed perfective verbs to form imperfectives. Hence *orzmysljati was formed directly from orzmysl(iti) + -jati, and similarly with *otъmysljati. This means there was never a *mysljati, and the entry should be deleted. Benwing2 (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@CodeCat, i don't see reason why it's guaranteed for Pre-Slavic, unless *mysliti originally was perfective (so *mysljati is imperf.) but it's just assumption. At this moment, it's better to delete. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Moved to RFDO. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete if @Benwing2's reasoning is indeed correct. —Rua (mew) 17:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

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)

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

You haven't read the discussion. There are currently two such categories. —Rua (mew) 14:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
I've seen both categories, & they seem to serve different purposes. this one is general-purpose (any template related to references), & the other one Wiktionary: Reference templates seems to be narrowly-defined (a list of dictionary-reference templates). So either merge or differentiate them better? & 'Reference Templates' is still the obvious meta-category for ALL reference templates. Lx 121 (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
After some more cleanup, the category now has only six members. —Rua (mew) 16:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete in favor of Cat:Translingual reference templates. Dixtosa (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


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)

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.-- 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)
Here is the RFD for anyone who wants to read it. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 23:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Please delete per above. --Soumyabrata (talksubpages) 07:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep per Mahāgaja. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 21:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Appendices are very flexible about what they can have and the entry mentioned above has been deleted. @Barytonesis, Soumya-8974: visibility since the entry was deleted after your vote. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
@PUC Chuck Entz (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Delete. This was a silly entry outside the appendix since this hasn't ever come up in any casual conversation I've ever had. What makes this appendix-worthy either? What value does it add? This question doesn't seem to have been answered in any above keep votes. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: With due respect, that’s your problem. What if I showed you a YouTube video of a song (in a particular language) and say it is a beautiful language? ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
@Inqilābī For the phrasebook more than just one song would be needed. I never said the phrase never appeared anywhere, but that it's not nearly commonplace enough for me to consider it worthy of inclusion in a phrasebook, per evidence given in the last RFD. And my point here was, what makes the appendix then a proper place for this? What role does it fulfill for our readers? Who would look this up and why? PseudoSkull (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2022 (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).-- 10:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep or move somewhere; it is useful as a link target for this Wikisource project. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 22:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

July 2017Edit

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)

  • Keep for reasons stated in Appendix talk:English words by Latin antecedents#RFM discussion: August 2015–September 2016. Note that the nomination lacks a rationale and as such is not a contribution to a meaningful discussion about merits. If this nomination results in deletion, please move the two pages to my user space. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Dan Polansky: I'm tired of having to deal with half-baked and full of mistakes appendices (I can already see one error in these two lines!). This is subpar to the quality we're trying to achieve, and just gives a poor image of the project. At least for now, we will be better served by a CAT:English hybrid compounds or the like. Categories are much easier to fill. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
      • But the appendix namespace is specifically for very trivial or marginal content. Plus, there is no deadline on this project: it's all a work in process. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
      • For the record, User:Per utramque cavernam above is User:Barytonesis above.

        As for the Şdeletion rationale now provided: 1) half-baked: yes, wiki pages are incomplete, and you are not required to deal with them, especially in the appendix namespace. 2) "full of mistakes appendices (I can already see one error in these two lines!)": One error does not indicate "full of mistakes"; let's correct the mistakes and move on. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete? - we do have Category:English terms derived from Greek (and Latin, French, German, Spanish, Japanese, Native languages and all others we can identify). Although there are a huge number of terms in ...Greek starting with an uppercase letter that could maybe go into a subcategory? Facts707 (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Facts707: This is for words that have both Greek and Latin intermixed. Is there any category for that? —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep No rationale other than that it's "boring". —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
IMO should be achieved with categories. (I don't know if it's yet possible to search by two categories together.) I really can't see this tiny page (two entries!) even beginning to keep pace with the actual mainspace content. Equinox 22:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • It's possible to search the intersection of two categories: using MediaWikiSearch, external tools. However, most of the results are for English terms deriving from Ancient Greek via a basically-identical Latin intermediary. Whereas, I think the goal of this appendix is to present terms that are a compound of morphemes ultimately deriving separately from the two ancient languages. That cannot be achieved using present category searches, and IMO is interesting. 23:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Userify. CAT:Hybrid compounds by language would be an interesting category. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


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)
  • Keep - again, if it's properly sourced to credible material, we keep it. if there are conflicting opinions in sourced material, we include information about the conflict. we shouldn't be making the call on which is "right", that is original research (though debating/arguing about it is fun! ^__^). our job on wiktionary, as with wikipedia, is to provide a compilation of the existing information. it's not our job (on here, in the article-space) to express our own ideas/opinions about the etymologies (or definitions, etc.) Lx 121 (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2019 (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. 18:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

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

  • "Keep" - There are now 25 members of this category. John Cross (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Delete - this category is not useful. - TheDaveRoss 13:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
TIFLL (anyone guess the meaning of this?) --Java Beauty (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Mild keep - can we just auto put in all four letter words that are all in uppercase letters? Facts707 (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete, not useful. Ultimateria (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Delete. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 21:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

December 2017Edit


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)

Category:English terms spelled with -Edit

Previously deleted; manually re-introduced. —suzukaze (tc) 08:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep How is this any different than anything else in Category:English terms by their individual characters? —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete As I understand it, these "terms by their individual characters" are for categorizing terms using characters that are unusual in the given language. For English, that would be e.g. letters with diacritical marks, like é and ç, but there is nothing unusual about terms using a hyphen. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 09:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I am curious as to the intended use case for such categories. Equinox 09:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I think some people like the idea of using a dictionary to find lexicographical/orthographic oddities. We keep a category of English terms spelled with Ç for the same reason we list anagrams or keep a category of English palindromes. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
The anagrams and palindromes are at least useful in solving word puzzles. Equinox 10:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - We have a category for all plural forms even though most plurals are not at all unusual - I can't see why we cannot have a category for hyphenated terms. I do appreciate the point that hyphens are not unusual (hence the 'weak') but the use of punctuation within a word is somehow less standard than the use of the letters A to Z. John Cross (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
If it's kept please edit Module:languages/data2 so people don't waste their time adding it manually. DTLHS (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
It's a category that potentially has some use for less experienced users who are trying to search for a term beginning with "-". What would be more useful would be a category for terms beginning with "-". The problem that is addressed is the impossibility of finding such terms without using the relatively advanced "insource" feature of CirrusSearch. DCDuring (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Are there any English entries beginning with "-" that aren't in CAT:English suffixes or CAT:English suffix forms? —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 16:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Isn't that easy to determine using CirrusSearch, with "insource"? DCDuring (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete, useless crap. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

If this is kept, the code that prevents it from being added by automatically by the headword templates needs to be removed again. Please don't close this discussion (at least, in a way that keeps this) without fixing that. Weak keep, IMO. I sometimes want to check for words spelled with a certain character, and it's easier to check a category than to go to the bother of performing my own database dump search. - -sche (discuss) 16:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete per Mahāgaja. – Julia (talk• formerly Gormflaith • 18:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep. I like it. Supevan (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 19:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep. Removing this category is just more kicking sand in the face of the hyphen. "We don’t notice it, but over the last few years, a mass murder has been happening. On a micro scale, it may not seem too obvious, but when you look at the big picture, you’ll see it. In 2007 alone, the Oxford English Dictionary released a new edition wherein 16,000 compound words had their hyphens removed. This change is seen as a death caused by the Internet age." [1] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete per above arguments to delete. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 14:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I've gone back and forth on this for a while, I vote we keep this category. Binarystep (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep - it isn’t nearly as common as people are making out. Theknightwho (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

January 2018Edit

Template:missing template and all redirects to the pageEdit

I don't think how this template is useful. Module:category_tree already checks whether the template exists. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by Zcreator (talkcontribs) at 21:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC).

If used comprehensively, it could eliminate missing templates from inclusion in Special:WantedPages. For example: Template:Jpan‏‎ Template:ase-prod‏‎, Template:cardinal‏‎, Template:hbo‏‎, Template:italbrac-colon, Template:ordinal‏‎, Template:pluralonly‏‎, Template:zh-ts‏‎, all with 15 links. Removing items that will not be created from Special:WantedPages would make room for items that are truly "wanted". Another way, much better way would be to have Special:WantedPages count only links from principal namespace. And finally, best of all would be actually adding some of those "wanted" pages and not creating templates and modules that create spurious "wants". DCDuring (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
DCDuring's suggestion is actually a useful way to clear out WantedPages. Whether it will work in practice I don't know, perhaps we should give it a try. —Rua (mew) 17:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

February 2018Edit

Category:Languages of the CaucasusEdit

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

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

March 2018Edit

Appendix:Lingwa de Planeta Swadesh listEdit

Do we want this and Appendix:Lidepla? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason to delete it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I edited this list and it looks better now, doesn't it? Don't think this language is used often, but it is interesting, with some Mandarin and Sanskrit derived words. HansRompel (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Appendix:Lidepla no longer exists. Is this still relevant? — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 14:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

November 2018Edit

Category:Netherlands EnglishEdit

Rather useless category with rather useless contents. Insofar English is natively spoken in the Netherlands, these varieties are going to align with any national variety of English with perhaps some interference from Dutch, Frisian or Low Saxon. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

See also Category talk:German English ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Keep. Why would there not be value in documenting what English subjected to interference from Dutch looks like, and categorising it as such? (Not that such interference would be the sole source of uniqueness; there do seem to at least be some acronyms that would not be understood outside of the Netherlands.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep Potentially useful per Metaknowledge. DCDuring (talk) 15:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Because we have no way of definitely establishing whether any such interference occurs among native speakers of English living in the Netherlands or (more likely) among foreign language speakers making typical mistakes. My guess is that a lot of the contents are (mis)spellings produced by non-native speakers, and would either fit in cat:Non-native_English or could be deleted as rare misspellings. This category is also unusual within cat:European_English, as the Netherlands don't have a large population of native speakers of English, speaking one coherent, dominant variety. And as far as I can tell there hasn't been any test at all whether these variants are exclusive to the Netherlands or whether they also occur in Flanders.
As for acronyms, I'm not convinced that it is useful to include Dutch acronyms used in English in this category, any more than it would be useful to categorise ACT as Australian Sotho or NYC as United States Norwegian Nynorsk. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Why does the fact that a group of speakers is non-native make their usage less valid? Would you delete Category:Indian English and Category:Nigerian English, which are also produced by non-native speakers from countries without a "large population of native speakers of English, speaking one coherent, dominant variety"? Your acronyms, by the way, are straw men AFAICT, but I welcome serious examples. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Non-native speakers' usage isn't per se less valid, but I fail to see why a dictionary should include it if their usage violates native speakers' sense of orthography, morphology or syntax. Not to mention that plenty of their compatriots would consider this use of diaereses a misspelling.
Whether they are technically native speakers or not, English is an official language in both countries that is widely used in national discourse and from a young age many inhabitants speak varieties of English that aren't derivative of other varieties of English. Also, what you quoted was a description of what "Netherlands English" isn't, it wasn't a definition of any variety of English that is desirable to categorise. (The stress on "one" and "coherent" is only for the sake of categorisation, if having just one category isn't justifiable there is no reason there could not be more.)
"NPR" in the meaning "National Public Radio" seems citable in Norwegian - I wouldn't object to the creation of that, but a label "United States Norwegian Bokmål" seems a bit much for this kind of thing. [2] [3] [4] [5] ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as totally useless. So a few Dutch people didn't spell the words correctly because they are used to a Dutch keyboard, irrelevant. --Vealhurl (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. They should be called misspellings and possibly be put in Category:Non-native_speakers'_English. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 04:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
DeleteSvārtava [tcur] 05:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep because this is the wrong process for dealing with a category like this: why would we delete an {{lb}} category which isn't empty? It's populated in the same way as any other category is that uses that template. Just amend the terms if they need amending, and then the category will be deleted by an admin if it's empty. No need for this vote. Theknightwho (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

February 2019Edit

Russian prefixes better analyzed as containing an interfix -о- or -е-Edit

(Notifying Atitarev, Cinemantique, Useigor, Wikitiki89, Stephen G. Brown, Guldrelokk, Fay Freak, Tetromino, Per utramque cavernam): I'd like to delete the following prefixes:

Prefix to delete Reanalyse as
английско- (anglijsko-) англи́йский (anglíjskij) + -о- (-o-)
арабо- (arabo-) ара́б (aráb) + -о- (-o-)
арабско- (arabsko-) ара́бский (arábskij) + -о- (-o-)
африканско- (afrikansko-) африка́нский (afrikánskij) + -о- (-o-)
бое- (boje-) бой (boj) + -е- (-e-)
водо- (vodo-) вода́ (vodá) + -о- (-o-)
двое- (dvoje-) дво́е (dvóje) + -е- (-e-)
звуко- (zvuko-) звук (zvuk) + -о- (-o-)
немецко- (nemecko-) неме́цкий (neméckij) + -о- (-o-)
ново- (novo-) но́вый (nóvyj) + -о- (-o-)
перво- (pervo-) пе́рвый (pérvyj) + -о- (-o-)
российско- (rossijsko-) росси́йский (rossíjskij) + -о- (-o-)
русско- (russko-) ру́сский (rússkij) + -о- (-o-)
maybe славяно- (slavjano-) славян(и́н) (slavjan(ín)) + -о- (-o-)
французско- (francuzsko-) францу́зский (francúzskij) + -о- (-o-)

The problem here is that such formations are productive in modern Russian: pretty much any noun or adjective can be made into a prefix by adding -о- (-o-) onto the end of the stem (or -е- (-e-) if the end of the stem is palatal). Otherwise we're going to end up with an indefinitely expanding set of such prefixes, cf. машинно- (mašinno-, machine-) in маши́нно-чита́емый (mašínno-čitájemyj, machine-readable), бомбо- (bombo-, bomb-) in бомбоубе́жище (bomboubéžišče, bomb shelter), etc. The case of славяно- (slavjano-) is a bit special as the corresponding lemma is славяни́н (slavjanín), but the stem of that lemma is actually славян- (slavjan-) as evidenced by plural forms such as славя́не (slavjáne) (nominative plural), славя́н (slavján) (genitive plural), etc. where the -ин (-in) singular suffix drops out. Benwing2 (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

None of these is a prefix. Delete all ASAP. Guldrelokk (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@Guldrelokk What do you think of the following: благо- (blago-), много- (mnogo-), германо- (germano-), англо- (anglo-), одно- (odno-), фото- (foto-), энерго- (enɛ́rgo-)? благо- and много- are maybe not prefixes as they can be analyzed as благой + -о- and многий/мно́гое + -о-. германо- and англо- are *maybe* analyzable as А́нглия + -о- and Герма́ния + -о-, but this leads to the question of why not англе- etc. as well as the fact that in reality the prefixes англо- and германо- were probably borrowed as such (cf. франко-, which cannot be derived from any noun). одно- is maybe analyzable as the stem of оди́н but одно- does feel like a prefix to me. фото- is maybe derivable from the noun фо́то, but that seems questionable as фото- was probably borrowed as such (cf. аудио-, which cannot be derived from any noun). энерго- likewise feels like a borrowed prefix to me, although it's conceivably analyzable as эне́ргия + -о-. Benwing2 (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted, along with военно- (vojenno-) and шести- (šesti-). Benwing2 (talk) 05:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@Benwing2: I think they were deleted prematurely. Although, I don't have a strong opinion about how we show the etymologies - interfixes or combining forms. The forms are useful, at least as hard-redirects as a minimum or, even better, some form of a soft-redirect with usage notes. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@Atitarev Which forms would you want put back? My concern is that the set of actual attested prefixes is a fairly random collection of potential prefixes, with no obvious reason why a given prefix is present or not. Maybe we should keep some extremely common prefixes like много- and благо- and maybe водо-, but I'd argue e.g. that арабско- and африканско- aren't terribly useful. Benwing2 (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@Benwing2: I suggest to make a soft redirect template, using an "adjective form" or "prefix" in the header. The definition line is up to you. E.g. something like in ру́сско- (rússko-): ру́сский (rússkij) + -о- (-o-) (a combining form). I would keep all the deleted ones, hopefully using the same template. You don't have to create new ones. As you said, they are very productive. Might as well help users understand their usage and how they are formed. Consider also back translations for such prefixes in English. What do you think? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@Atitarev I don't really like the idea of keeping a random collection of such prefixes that happen to already be in the dictionary. I think if we keep some of them, we should be logical about what we keep. Note that information about formation of such prefixes could be included on the -о- (-o-) page (it already is, in fact), along with pronunciation of the most common prefixes (e.g. много- and благо- are never stressed, водо- is stressed in some words, etc.).
Another issue is, do we use them in etymologies? For example, do we etymologize водопрово́д (vodoprovód, water pipe) as вода́ (vodá) +‎ -о- (-o-) +‎ прово́д (provód) (as I would prefer) or as водо- (vodo-) +‎ прово́д (provód)? If we do it the former way, the connection to вода́ (vodá) is made clearer, and the word is automatically categorized into CAT:Russian compound words, which appears correct to me. If we do it the latter way, we'd have to manually add CAT:Russian compound words to all such words. OTOH, if we do it the former way, then there won't be any links to водо- (vodo-) (if we decide to keep it), so it's not obvious how a user would find it. Benwing2 (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@Benwing2: I see. OK, delete. I will convert the deleted forms to hard redirects. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@Atitarev If you'd rather have them exist as soft redirects, that is OK with me, as long as we don't have to use them in etymologies. Benwing2 (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

-o- and -e- are not interfixes in Russian. They are just the endings of the preceding noun in a compound, and directly reflect the original thematic vowel that has been lost or modified in many other endings. See the discussion below for Latin, which concerns the same thing. —Rua (mew) 22:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

This analysis, if it ever made sense, doesn't make sense for the vast majority of such compounds, which were formed when the thematic vowel was no longer transparent. Benwing2 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Russian non-rhymesEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 2019Edit

Category:Proto-Nguni languageEdit

I believe that this category should be deleted for a few reasons.

1. All reconstructions are unsourced. The only source I have found about Proto-Nguni is a book called Comparative Reconstruction of Proto-Nguni Phonology by Sambulo Ndlovu. However, in my opinion it is rather poorly done, making basic mistakes such as assuming Zulu <nhl> and Xhosa <ntl> represent sounds, when it is just an orthographical difference.

2. It is difficult to tell which words/features existed in Proto-Nguni, and which words/features spread among the Nguni languages at a later date. For example, the Zulu/Xhosa/Swati cognates iqaqa/iqaqa/licaca "polecat". This word was borrowed from a Khoisan language, but was it loaned into Proto-Nguni, or was it loaned across various Nguni languages?

3. The differences between Proto-Nguni and the modern Nguni languages are very minor. There are only a few systematic differences. Most differences are sporadic. A few systematic changes: Zulu: tʃʰ > ʃ; Swati: z > t, tʰ > ts/tf, d > dz/dv.

4. The current reconstructions on Wiktionary are not parsimonious. From Proto-Bantu to modern Nguni, there was a change CV́CV > CV́CV́ > CV̂CV. The reconstructions on Wiktionary have this as CV́CV́. However, there is no evidence that this was the form in Proto-Nguni, because no modern Nguni languages preserve that. It would be more parsimonious to say that Proto-Nguni already had CV̂CV, same as the modern Nguni languages. Actually, disregard this. I just found out Phuthi preserves CV́CV́.

5. Problems with the reconstruction arise when considering the Lala language. There was a sound change of labial palatalization (in which labials were palatalized in contact with /w/), which affected Nguni languages, Sotho-Tswana languages, and I believe some other Southern Bantu languages. However, the Lala language is the only Nguni language to not undergo labial palatalization. This would imply that Proto-Nguni did not have labial palatalization, so that a form such as *inja "dog" should be reconstructed as *imbwa (which is the form in Lala).

Smashhoof (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to the community's attention. I'd like to address the points you made in order:
1. All our Proto-Nguni entries are by @Rua, who IIRC believes that reconstructions need not be sourced so long as the individual sound changes at work can be sourced. I hope that Rua will contribute to this discussion further. For my own part, I had seen that book by Ndlovu online, and tried (and failed) to get my hands on a copy of it, but I am disappointed to hear that it isn't up to snuff.
2. This is a persistent problem in Bantu historical linguistics, and it's really the same for Proto-Bantu itself. BLR tries to avoid making a claim that their entries are in fact reconstructible to PB, because those with limited geographic distribution could equally well be innovations whose form was modified to make them seem like inheritances.
3. Minor differences are not of themselves a reason to avoid reconstructing a language, but I think you could argue that Proto-Bantu and Proto-Khoe entries can house all the information we need to present, and I would be amenable to that.
5. Lala is a very curious language, and I don't know of any consensus on it. The traditional Zunda-Tekela split would then mean that Tekela is paraphyletic if Lala is indeed preserving the original condition. I don't know why it couldn't be a contact language, however, in a similar manner to Phuthi, which was modified by contact with Sotho. Ownby views Lala as the basalmost Nguni language, producing very different reconstructions, but also employs suspect glottochronology.
Anyway, I've not studied Nguni as you have, but I am concerned by reconstructions unrestrained by complicated reality. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Latin words interfixed with -i-Edit

This isn't actually an interfix, but it's just the form that the thematic vowel of the preceding noun takes in a compound. i is the regular outcome of various Old Latin vowels in most positions. —Rua (mew) 22:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

There actually are a few arguments for -i- being an interfix in Latin compound words. The many examples of words with short a e o u in non-final open syllables clearly show that weakening of short vowels to -i- was not a regular phonological process in Classical Latin. And it seems unlikely that Classical Latin had a productive morphophonological rule of vowel reduction to -i- either: in "Latin vowel reduction and the reality of phonological rules", Tore Janson says that Latin adjective and verb roots with short -o- never have alternative forms with -i- in compound words (e.g. potens forms impotens, not *impitens) (p. 5). Also, Old Latin vowel reduction didn't result in -i- in closed syllables or before r, and usually not before clusters of an obstruent and r, but linking -i- can be found in these contexts (compare lectisternium, quadriremis, herbigradus to incestus, onero, perpetro). In compounds, -i- was used even after consonant stems (such as dracōn- in the category's list of words).--Urszag (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


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

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


Redundant to the much more widely used {{+obj}}. —Rua (mew) 17:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rua I am inclined to agree with you as it appears {{case-gov}} is used on < 10 pages and {{+obj}} is used on 300+ pages, but it's hard to tell for sure because {{+obj}} isn't properly documented. Can you fix this? Benwing2 (talk) 09:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
@Rua It should be noted that we also have {{construed with}} (barely used) and {{indtr}} (used on over 500 pages, mostly Spanish and Portuguese) for the same purpose. Ideally we should have only one. Benwing2 (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Swedish inflectional templatesEdit

@Patrik Stridvall, Vildricianus, Mike, Rua, LA2 There are 34 Swedish inflectional templates for different possible noun, verb, adjective and adverb forms. Most of them are equivalent to simple calls to {{form of}} or {{inflection of}}. None of them do any categorization except adding to CAT:Swedish noun forms, CAT:Swedish verb forms, CAT:Swedish adjective forms and/or CAT:Swedish adverb forms, which is already handled by the headword template on the same page. (Exceptions: (1) {{sv-verb-form-pastpart}}, which categorizes into CAT:Swedish past participles; (2) the obsolete-form templates, see below.) The following is the full list:

A slight complication is that a few of the templates have an extra parameter (usually |plural of=, in one case |obsoleted by=) for obsolete forms, which specifies the equivalent non-obsolete form. When this parameter is specified, the text changes to include the word "obsolete", and the category changes to CAT:Swedish obsolete noun forms and/or CAT:Swedish obsolete verb forms. This encompasses the following 5 templates:

Most other languages have a single template to handle all non-lemma forms, or at most one template per part of speech. I'd like to replace these templates with either (a) a single language-specific template, (b) calls to {{form of}} and/or {{inflection of}}, or (c) a combination of (a) and (b), depending on the template.

Note that 11 of the templates (not including any of the templates with obsolete-form support) are mentioned in Module:accel/sv, which will have to be changed accordingly (not hard).

Benwing2 (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. There's no real reason that these templates should exist when we have generic templates capable of doing the same thing. —Rua (mew) 21:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
What is broken? Which problem are you trying to solve, except creating therapy work for yourself? These templates exist, they are used in hundreds of articles, and they work fine. By changing or renaming them, you will waste a lot of your own time, which you could have used to add new content. --LA2 (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
@LA2 I am trying to clean up these various templates and make them properly documented and more consistent, and having so many inconsistent, badly documented and often poorly written templates is a maintenance headache. It also makes it more confusing for end users to have so many different ways of doing things. Also keep in mind that renaming templates with a bot is extremely easy; I'm not doing this by hand or anything. In a couple of hours, I can write and test a script that will rename all 34 templates; then I just let it run overnight and voilà. Benwing2 (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete - these serve no purpose and are a potential maintenance headache. We need a cull of pointless lang-specific templates. Theknightwho (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

April 2019Edit

Template:abstract noun ofEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lesser used multicolumn templatesEdit

Now that {{ant2}}, {{coord2}}, {{der2}}, {{hyp2}}, {{rel2}}, and {{syn2}} are all aliases of {{col2}}, and similarly for other numbers of columns, I suggest eliminating the lesser-used aliases. Following is a table of all the aliases and their uses (note that the #uses for the main template includes uses of the aliases). I suggest replacing and deleting all aliases with #uses < 1000 (the threshold I've been using for the need for deprecation). By this measure, we should keep {{der2}}, {{der3}}, {{der4}}, {{rel2}}, {{rel3}}, {{rel4}} and rename/delete the rest.

Aliased template Canonical template #Uses Suggested disposition
Template:col1 Template:col1 21 Keep.
Template:der1 Template:col1 19 Replace with {{col1}} and delete.
Template:col2 Template:col2 4605 Keep.
Template:ant2 Template:col2 6 Replace with {{col2}} and delete.
Template:coord2 Template:col2 64 Replace with {{col2}} and delete.
Template:der2 Template:col2 3015 Keep.
Template:hyp2 Template:col2 53 Replace with {{col2}} and delete.
Template:rel2 Template:col2 1647 Keep.
Template:syn2 Template:col2 19 Replace with {{col2}} and delete.
Template:col3 Template:col3 10951 Keep.
Template:der3 Template:col3 8204 Keep.
Template:desc3 Template:col3 16 Replace with {{col3}} and delete.
Template:hyp3 Template:col3 96 Replace with {{col3}} and delete.
Template:rel3 Template:col3 3122 Keep.
Template:syn3 Template:col3 26 Replace with {{col3}} and delete.
Template:col4 Template:col4 4104 Keep.
Template:ant4 Template:col4 2 Replace with {{col4}} and delete.
Template:der4 Template:col4 2732 Keep.
Template:hyp4 Template:col4 416 Replace with {{col4}} and delete.
Template:rel4 Template:col4 1507 Keep.
Template:syn4 Template:col4 21 Replace with {{col4}} and delete.
Template:col5 Template:col5 108 Keep.
Template:der5 Template:col5 106 Replace with {{col5}} and delete.
Template:rel5 Template:col5 0 Delete.
Template:col2-u Template:col2-u 0 Keep.
Template:der2-u Template:col2-u 0 Delete.
Template:col3-u Template:col3-u 513 Keep.
Template:der3-u Template:col3-u 513 Replace with {{col3-u}} and delete.
Template:col4-u Template:col4-u 20 Keep.
Template:der4-u Template:col4-u 20 Replace with {{col4-u}} and delete.
Template:col5-u Template:col5-u 7 Keep.
Template:der5-u Template:col5-u 7 Replace with {{col5-u}} and delete.

Benwing2 (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I support merging all the column templates into a single one. There is no rule or even guideline for choosing how many columns to use, it's left entirely to the personal preference of the editor, which results in different entries having different numbers of columns for no apparent reason. We should pick a number and make everything use that. —Rua (mew) 15:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@Rua OK. For now I think I'll just orphan the less-used templates and we can figure out later how to choose the number of columns automatically. Benwing2 (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I guess we should delete {{col1}} because it doesn't make the 1000-uses threshold. DCDuring (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@DCDuring {{col1}} serves a specific purpose and isn't just an alias of something else. OTOH it's true that {{col1|LANG}} is replaceable with {{col|LANG|1|...}}, which is only one character more, so maybe we should in fact delete it. Benwing2 (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure there is a lot of arbitrary variation, but you're proposing to take away all flexibility so there's no way to deal with exceptional cases except by hard-coded kludges. There are factors in choosing a format such as the length of the terms (Chinese is very compact, an agglutinative language is going to be more diffuse), the number of the terms, the desired height and width to be occupied, and possibly others that neither you nor I is aware of. Sometimes two columns look fine and three look awful for no easily explainable reason. There's a fine line between a consistent "house style" and procrustean rigidity- "make everything use that" sounds a lot like the latter. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
My point is that the need for such flexibility has never been explained, and the way that one should choose the number of columns has never been documented anywhere. Instead, it's arbitrary as you say. It is trivially easy to choose the number of columns based on the length of the terms, so that in itself is not a reason to favour manually choosing. It merely codifies and automates what we already did by hand before. But perhaps we are going a step too far, and should really codify the guidelines first. I invite you to participate. —Rua (mew) 18:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I think we should provide the capability of auto-choosing the number of columns (and probably encourage people to do so) but not force all users to use it. Benwing2 (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Isn't the "right" number of columns substantially dependent on the effective width of the browser frame. I don't get the impression that we are very good at that kind of thing. I have a fairly wide monitor, but I like having at least two browser windows visible and I like to be able to easily read our content without spectacles. Sometime the high-column-count tables are unusable. Until such time as we can make the number of columns auto-adjust to browser frame width, this exercise could be a waste of time. DCDuring (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Much of the unusability or ugliness in the high-column-count templates is due to the length of the longest word in a given table entry. If that length exceeds the available space, then the long word runs over into the next column, possibly overwriting format elements (eg, "*") or content. DCDuring (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@DCDuring Are you saying it's a waste of time to implement auto-choosing the number of columns? I guess I agree with you if we're doing it independently of the frame width, but maybe there's a way to make it dependent on the frame width using CSS. I know that other sites are able to do this. Maybe we could do something like create CSS classes "multicol-2-3-4" (which means "two columns with narrow frames, 3 columns with mid-width frames, 4 columns with wide frames"), "multicol-3-4-6" (similar), etc., and then have the module code compute the length of the longest word and choose the appropriate CSS class. Benwing2 (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
You have obviously taken my concern on board. I appreciate that, but cannot be any help on technical aspects of implementation. Other sites, though not all of them, do seem to have resolved this kind of thing satisfactorily. The good news about solving this is that the solution will appear in many entries. The bad news is that it probably will take a while to address implementation issues, including interaction with things like the right-hand-side table of contents and other right-hand side elements. I expect that folks will have some different preferences about spacing between columns. DCDuring (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be a good idea to use the column-width CSS properties instead of the column-number properties, and choose a column width that displays most of the terms to good advantage. It would probably be better to do it by hand rather than by module, since optimum width depends on the fonts that browsers happen to choose (though they may be nudged towards certain fonts by MediaWiki:Common.css), and a module can't adequately determine the widths of characters. If this option were taken, all the numbered column templates could be deprecated in favor of a single one with a width parameter, or maybe they could be replaced by column templates for narrow, medium, and wide columns. I use column width in the table of contents of my possibly incorrect header page. (It may not display correctly in all browsers.) — Eru·tuon 21:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete - this can easily be solved with using CSS in the {{col}} template. This is not 1999. Theknightwho (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


Does nothing useful and nothing Latin-specific. Can easily be replaced by {{head|la|pronoun form}}. —Rua (mew) 19:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

In general things that save keystrokes should be kept, but in this case I agree with you because non-lemma pages should be generated by bot or gadget, not by hand. For Russian, for example, we have only {{ru-noun form}}, and use {{head|ru|...}} for everything else. Benwing2 (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
There are more considerations than just saving keystrokes. If every language has its own copy of {{head|xx|whatever}} just for the sake of saving keystrokes, then something is wrong. They can just use the generic {{head}}, what else do we have it for? We shouldn't encourage laziness to the point that people find 24 characters too much but not 19. —Rua (mew) 17:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@Benwing2, could you take a look at handling this and the next few sections according to your plans? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete - more template standardisation please. No reason to have this separated off, and it's a potential maintenance headache. Theknightwho (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Template:la-proper noun-formEdit

As above. This also requires a gender to be specified, which is wrong for non-lemmas. Non-lemmas do not require a gender, as it's just duplication of information from the lemma. —Rua (mew) 19:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that it's wrong to include gender in non-lemma forms. It's more a matter of preference on the part of the specific subcommunity handling that languages. We do include gender/number specs in bot-generated non-lemma noun forms in Russian, for example. Benwing2 (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I see it as unnecessary duplication of lemma information on non-lemma pages. Avoiding duplication is a basic principle, and is why we do not include inflection tables, etymologies and usage examples on nonlemmas either. —Rua (mew) 17:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, gender is important for non-lemmas as well. The inflected forms Alten m. and Alten f. differ by gender, similar with Alte m. vs. f. and Alter m. vs. f. --Der Zeitmeister (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Delete - pointless duplication. Theknightwho (talk) 11:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


As above. This one doesn't do anything with genders, so it's just straight up the same as {{head|la|noun form}}. —Rua (mew) 19:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, see above with pronoun forms. Benwing2 (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Please note, this template is used on well over 10,000 pages, so if obsoleted it should be deprecated rather than deleted outright. Benwing2 (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
That goes without saying. It shouldn't be deleted until there are no more transclusions. —Rua (mew) 17:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete - pointless duplication. Theknightwho (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


As above. —Rua (mew) 20:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete - pointless duplication. Theknightwho (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Template:lv-inflection ofEdit

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

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

Category:Translingual numerals or Category:Translingual numeral symbolsEdit

We currently have both Category:Translingual numerals and Category:Translingual numeral symbols. If there's a difference, I'm not sure what it is. If not, I'm assuming we should merge on into the other. -- Beland (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Numerals can be words (one, two in spelling alphabets), while numeral symbols are not (Roman numerals). The difference is subtle, but I think it is there. — surjection??⟩ 18:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Category:Mongolian pronunciation spellingsEdit

Phonetic respellings should be handled differently. We normally don't have entries for words, which are phonetic representations of another word, unless they are attestable common respellings. It is useful to show them (unlinked), though, as in баярлалаа (bayarlalaa) (revision|52386186}}. If pronunciation module for Mongolian is eventually developed, these spellings can be used as parameters. Someone suggested displaying respellings in the headword, as in Nelai फूल (phūl), which says "pronounced फुल (phul)" --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

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

May 2019Edit


It may seem weird to nominate such a widely-used and critical template, but bear with me. Right now, we have templates that automatically split lists into columns, and as a result {{mid4}} and its cousins actually contain no template code at all, they're just kept for compatibility. So, why not do the same for translation tables? If {{trans-top}} is modified to use the automatic columns instead of the current table-based approach, then {{trans-mid}} becomes obsolete just like {{mid4}}. —Rua (mew) 13:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, though we should ensure that the translation adding tool continues to work with whatever changes are made to the {{trans-}} templates. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I seem to remember asking about making our translation tables sort into two columns automatically instead of manually with {{trans-mid}} a few years ago, and was told that for now at least manual columns were necessary because otherwise the translation adding tool wouldn't work. If that's been fixed in the meantime, then by all means delete. But if not, first fix the tool. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the translation editor is the main roadblock in making this change. Which editor understands it the best right now? Do we have any kind of dedicated JS maintainers? User:Erutuon maybe? —Rua (mew) 14:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I've been doing some JavaScript maintenance, as well as User:Dixtosa, who now I think doesn't have as much time to do JavaScript stuff. There are a variety of changes that need to be made to the translation adder, and I've looked at it but not made enough headway in understanding it to implement them. It would at least be a good idea to list the desired changes on the MediaWiki:Gadget-TranslationAdder.js/documentation. — Eru·tuon 17:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I've added a "todo" item to the page. I really hope we can find someone to do this. If the gadget is so complicated that nobody can maintain it, then maybe that's a sign we should rewrite it from scratch in a form that we can maintain. —Rua (mew) 17:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree, this is a sign of bad code quality and/or missing documentation.--So9q (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
FIX READY :) @Rua, Erutuon. I took a deep look at the code and removed the TranslationBalancer function which was the only relying on Template:trans-mid. This change needs to copied to MediaWiki:Gadget-TranslationAdder.js and then we can proceed.--So9q (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Note: Remember to edit Wiktionary:Entry_layout#Translations after the change.
But does that mean the TranslationBalancer function will no longer work? That's not a desirable outcome. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I've applied User:So9q's change to MediaWiki:Gadget-TranslationAdder.js. Now {{trans-top}}, {{trans-mid}}, and {{trans-bottom}} need to be edited so that translations use CSS columns. — Eru·tuon 18:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Reverted my edit because new versions of {{trans-top}}, {{trans-mid}}, {{trans-bottom}}, and a plan for implementing them, need to be worked out first. They should be tested using {{trans-top/new}}, {{trans-mid/new}}, {{trans-bottom/new}}. — Eru·tuon 18:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@erutuon: The new templates are now ready. Trans-mid/new is not needed. See example here. This CSS needs to go into MediaWiki:Common.css. I could not test if this breaks the TranlationAdder because it does not run on userpages.--So9q (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I now also altered the my ImprovedTranslationAdder.js to work when no tables are present in the translation sections by adding this code at line 1365:
	function createTranslationAdderTable(li) {
		var $ul = $("<ul>").append(li);
		// TODO div instead?
		return $("<table>")
			.append($("<td>").css("text-align", "left").append($ul));
	// main - this calls the three functions above.
	// Support divs
	$('div.translations').each(function () {
		// these divs have only one ul directly beneth them.
		if (util.getTransGloss(this) != 'Translations to be checked') {
			var ul = $(this).find("ul");
			if (ul) {
				var li = document.createElement('li');
				// place TA after the div to avoid ending up in between the 
				// translations
				new AdderWrapper(editor, new TranslationAdder(ul), li);
				var div = $(this).parent().parent().find('div.NavHead')[0];
				if (div) {
					new TranslationLabeller(div)
	); //close each function
This can be tested in User:So9q/sandbox by installing the User:So9q/ImprovedTranslationAdder.js to your commons.js. The TA code hiccups on the /new addition to the trans-top and -bottom and therefore cannot preview/save.--So9q (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
It relies on "TD" being a parent element in at least one place. After having studied and tried and failed porting the code to jquery for many hours I have concluded that it is a terrible unmaintainable insufficiently commented kludge that would really benefit from a good rewrite in modern es6 with jquery, functional let-syntax and good inline documentation. The idea behind this add-on to mediawiki is really sound which is proven by the fact that it is in use in many wiktionaries by now. For the benefit of the whole community I hope someone will step up to this task.--So9q (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, if the change is done then delete. It saves work for humans and bots. Fay Freak (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Deprecate or keep this wery widely used template: keep revision histories legible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Keep this deprecated template in some form that minimizes impairment to legibility of edit history. By the same token, we should restore other common old templates, like {{context}} to support edit-history legibility. DCDuring (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Sure, keep for history legibility. Ultimateria (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Deprecate. Imetsia (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Deprecate so that it’s easier to add the translation table. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Deprecate. Archaic faff that's easily replaceable. Theknightwho (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Category:English words suffixed with -estEdit

Category:English words suffixed with -ethEdit

This contains non-lemmas, and we do not categorise nonlemmas by etymology. Compare Category:English words suffixed with -s, which does not contain all plurals and third-person singular forms, and Category:English words suffixed with -er, which does not contain all comparatives. —Rua (mew) 19:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete. It's not really accurate to say they're suffixed anyway. Ultimateria (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ultimateria: oh? Do explain – I’m intrigued. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@Sgconlaw: I believe the point I wanted to make but failed to elaborate was that if we're not going to provide etymologies for most non-lemma forms, it doesn't make sense to categorize them by etymology. Ultimateria (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ultimateria: righto. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
As an aside, the Category:English words suffixed with -s category mentioned above also has some simple plurals in it which need to be gone over, if they are not supposed to be there... - -sche (discuss) 23:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
@-sche: a bot has created “Category:English words suffixed with -s (regular plural)” … — SGconlaw (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I guess if the -eth and -est categories fail, that one should also be RFDed. - -sche (discuss) 00:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
No opinion - but I would like to see Category:English plurals not ending in s, now that would be useful for both newbies and veterans of the language. Cheers! Facts707 (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@Facts707: we have “Category:English irregular plurals”. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks SGconlaw! I wonder why I have't come across this before. Can you set me straight though - these are plurals of English words that don't make a "regular" plural? So plurals ending in ... would be a different category? Also it seems there are a lot of terms that are in both e.g. "Category:English irregular plurals ending in "-i"‎" and in the base category “Category:English irregular plurals” such as abaci and abaculi. Is this intended? Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 05:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@Facts707: Note that this category (and its subcategories) are very incomplete (hundreds are missing) as they have to added manually. J3133 (talk) 05:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that the template for creating irregular plural forms dumps all of them into the parent category. What is needed is an "ending=" parameter for that template to indicate specific common irregular ending cases, and categorize terms accordingly. bd2412 T 03:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: I have proposed this at Template talk:en-irregular plural of#Add a parameter to subcategorize?. bd2412 T 03:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep but depopulate of all nonlemma forms, keeping only things like shooketh, which is using the suffix not in its canonical grammatical function but as a humorous archaicism. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
    Also keep for ordinal numbers like thirtieth. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:feminine equivalent ofEdit

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

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

Judging from the two uses of this template, the intent is not grammatical gender. What would be a suitable alternative name for referring what is often referred to as natural gender? DCDuring (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not redundant at all as there is a huge difference between gender (of words) and sex (of things and living beings).
English actress (no gender; refering to someone with female sex) is the female equivalent of actor (no gender),
while German terms in (...-er)-in (feminine gender; female or no sex at all) are the feminine equivalent of terms in -er (masculine gender; male, female, unknown or no gender). Real-life examples:
  • "Lenin sah in der Partei die Führerin und Lehrerin der Massen" - Führerin and Lehrerin are feminine but here refer to a sexless thing.
  • "ein weiblicher Lehrer" (sg.), "weibliche Lehrer" (pl.) - Lehrer is masculine but here refers to female beings.
  • "männliche und weibliche Lehrer", "Lehrer beiderlei Geschlechts" - Lehrer is masculine but here refers to male and female beings.
  • "der Glaub ist der Führer der Hofnung" - Führer is masculine but here refers to a sexless abstract thing.
--B-Fahrer (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@B-Fahrer, Fay Freak, DCDuring, Rua I don't really see the point of having separate templates {{feminine equivalent of}}/{{female equivalent of}} and {{feminine noun of}}. All the templates are in practice used equivalently. The three examples above of Lehrer/Führer are irrelevant as they refer to the masculine form, which in many languages can also be used of female beings. The feminine form Lehrerin, as far as I can tell, does normally refer to female beings. All examples on Glosbe of Führerin [6], for example, refer to women. It seems clear to me that the above example where Lehrerin and Führerin are used to refer to a political party is a marginal case as well as a clear example of personification. It is comparable to the use of she in English to refer to boats, airplanes, countries, etc. and he to occasionally refer to various programming language constructs; this does not change the fact that he and she are natural-gender pronouns. As a result I am planning on merging these templates. Benwing2 (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
BTW I thought about this a bit more. There are cases in German like Herstellerin (manufacturer) that are often used of non-human entities (in this case, companies) and cannot be called personifications. (Sammlerin (collector) is claimed to be another instance, although the examples in Glosbe [7] all appear to refer to women.) This situation appears to be specific to German, and exceptional even in that language, where most words in -erin do appear to refer primarily to women. In my opinion, words like Herstellerin should not use {{female equivalent of}} or any other similar variant, but should simply be defined as "manufacturer", possibly with a usage note indicating that they are normally used only to refer to feminine nouns (if that is indeed the case). If Sammlerin can equally refer to a woman who is a collector or to a non-human feminine-gender collecting object, it should have two definitions, one with {{female equivalent of}} and the other defined as [[collector]] {{gloss|object that collects}} or similar, with a usage note. Benwing2 (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
glosbe doesn't matter in any way; and as for Sammlerin it has examples not refering to women but to forager bees:
  • Wenn eine Sammlerin eine neue Nektarquelle findet, kehrt sie zum Bienenstock zurück, um die gute Nachricht zu übermitteln.
    Mockingly ]The duck may swim on the lake, but my daddy owns the lake [this english text is no translation]
  • Andere Arbeiterinnen, gleich welchen Alters, unternahmen vergleichsweise wenige Sammelflüge, solange eine aktive Sammlerin vorhanden war.
    It was great [this english text is no translation]
BTW some entries with good examples that show that it is about gender (masculine/feminine) and not sex (male/female):
Also related: Blaue
--B-Fahrer (talk) 07:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@B-Fahrer You are 100% not listening to what I'm saying. Since the predominant usage of {{feminine noun of}}, {{female equivalent of}} and {{feminine equivalent of}} is to refer to female beings (which BTW includes bees), they should be used for this purpose and not distorted due to vagaries of German. Wiktionary needs to cater to all languages, not just to German. Please reread what I said about (a) masculine nouns referring to female humans (irrelevant for this discussion as they don't use {{female equivalent of}}), (b) feminine and neuter nouns referring to male humans (similarly irrelevant), (c) personification, (d) nouns in -in that refer to things other than female beings (which should do something else than use {{female equivalent of}}). BTW feel free to use {{feminine of}} if the primary meaning of a given word does *not* refer to female beings. Benwing2 (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, normal practice when giving quotes or usage examples is to include a translation into English; please do so in the future, thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, for different languages there can be different templates or approaches if the languages are different.
(a) & (b) It's relevant for the related issue with {{de-noun}} and its incorrect text for the parameters m= and f=.
(c) "and cannot be called personifications" - indeed.
(d) "which should do something else than use {{female equivalent of}}" - indeed, as that's incorrect as shown by the examples.
(Quotes) It's also normal practice to not provide translations (whatever the reasons may be, like lazyness or lack of time, lack of translation skills or vocabulary), although it's indeed nice to have them. --B-Fahrer (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

September 2019Edit

Deletion of rel-top, der-top and related templatesEdit

Hi, now that we got the {{der3}} and {{rel3}} working on the mobile frontend I suggest we retire the box-templates for derived and related terms that is not supported by a majority of users according to the vote in BP in 2018. If we need a new vote, please state so and I will create a proper one.

The following templates are proposed deleted:

The consequences of this will be:

  1. We will only have boxes left on the translations
  2. We will have to convert from the old box-templates to the supported rel3/col3 ones. This might be possible with a clever bot.

WDYT?--So9q (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

This does need a vote, because the BP discussion wasn't about getting rid of these templates. I would be against, because these templates have capabilities that {{col3}} and its sisters don't (nested lists for instance), and it's good to keep histories readable. — Eru·tuon 22:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I had not thought about historyreadablility. Could you give an example of a nested list - I don't think I encountered one yet?--So9q (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
A nested list: σέβομαι (sébomai). Another thing, lists with interspersed headings: λύω (lúō), πλέω (pléō). Though they don't all look great, they convey extra information that a simple list of links does not. Perhaps there wouldn't be loss of information from the ones with interspersed headings if they were converted to {{col3}} by splitting them into separate lists with a header (|title=), but I kind of like the more compact format. — Eru·tuon 06:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Currently, {{der-top}} and {{der-bottom}} is being used in Han character entries for Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese compounds, so it is not possible to delete these two templates. The reason for using {{der-top}} is because {{der3}} consumes Lua memory whereas {{der-top}} does not. See CAT:E for Han character entries that have already exceeded default Lua memory despite using {{der-top}}.
As for {{der-mid}} and {{rel-top}}, {{rel-mid}}, {{rel-bottom}}, these templates can be kept for historical reasons or deleted altogether. KevinUp (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I understand.--So9q (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I think the benefit of the top, mid, bottom templates in some of the Han character entries is that you can put anything inside them, including a linking template that invokes Lua only once (for instance, {{ja-r/multi}} in 月#Japanese). But they may be less memory-efficient than {{col3}} if they contain many instances of templates that invoke Lua (for instance, {{ko-l}} in 學#Korean). In general the fewer Lua invocations, the less memory. — Eru·tuon 20:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize {{der-top}} could be less memory-efficient if it contains a large number of Lua-invoking templates. When I tried to use {{der3}} instead of {{der-top}} for 學#Korean I found that {{der-top}} used 4.04 MB compared to 4.49MB used by {{der3}}. Since it is possible to further reduce memory for {{der-top}} by using linking templates such as {{ja-r/multi}}, it would not be wise to delete {{der-top}} and {{der-bottom}}.
As for {{der-mid}} and {{rel-mid}}, these two templates can be removed, because they currently do not work as a divider, unlike {{trans-mid}}. KevinUp (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
If I understood correctly we are now ready to vote about deleting {{der-mid}}, {{rel-top}}, {{rel-mid}} and {{rel-bottom}}. Additionally I would like to get rid of {{rel-top3}} and {{rel-top4}}. {{rel-top}} and {{rel-top3}} is used in about 4000 pages that will need to be (bot) edited and converted to e.g. col3 when there are more than a few terms. Anyone against deleting any of these?--So9q (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Strong keep - we should deprecate templates which have been heavily used in the past rather than deleting them. It is very inconvenient when viewing a historical version of a page if you can't see any of the content because the previous version had used old templates. If we want to prevent people from using a certain template going forward we can orphan it and then add an abuse filter which prevents it from being added back. - TheDaveRoss 12:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, keep, there are times when you can't use {{col3}} or whatever. Anyway, I hate the terrible presentation given by {{col3}}, and now prefer to use {{der-top3}} etc. DonnanZ (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep, per above keeps. I don't see any good in deleting these. Deprecation, filtering out new usage, redirecting maybe. DCDuring (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for chiming in. I agree with the deprecation in favor of deletion argument. The argument of Donnanz about col3 being ugly has already been voiced during the vote mentioned above.
I then propose to delete {{rel-mid}} and {{der-mid}} as they have no function whatsoever (since {{der-top}} and {{rel-top}} use CSS columns now) and deprecate the others ({{rel-top}}, {{rel-bottom}}, {{rel-top3}} and {{rel-top4}}). WDYT?--So9q (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
{{rel-mid}} and {{der-mid}} were necessary once, but are now redundant. I remove them when I come across them without any ill effects. So they probably can be deleted, but keep the others. DonnanZ (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019Edit

Category:Entries needing topical attention, Wiktionary:Entries needing topical attentionEdit

The theory behind this category and Wiktionary page is that several request templates take a |topic= parameter, which if used places the page in Category:Entries needing topical attention. Then, the page is added (by bot, ideally) to Wiktionary:Entries needing topical attention, and is eventually supposed to be processed and removed. In practice, however, this mechanism is quite dormant. There are only 23 pages in Category:Entries needing topical attention, and Wiktionary:Entries needing topical attention hasn't been updated in 5 years (it was formerly updated by the bot of User:msh210, who is now mostly inactive). I'm not sure if this mechanism ever worked well, and no one seems to care about it anymore, so I suggest removing it (i.e. delete the category and Wiktionary page, as well as the code in the various request templates that place pages in the category; see Category:Request templates). Benwing2 (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Since we haven't attracted very many topical experts in the 10 years since the template and categories were introduced, we can reasonably expect not get any in the next ten years either. I suppose pinging individuals is likely to be more effective for those of use who know about the specific interests of some of our active contributors. And if we do attract some expertise, they can help by reviewing all the entries in our topical categories, rather than a select few. DCDuring (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I must confess to not having run that bot in approximately forever; not do I plan to do so. If anyone wishes to take it over, the bot code is ready available (linked to from that project page). I recommend the project page remain, with a notice atop it indicating its dormancy and that anyone is invited to revive it. Unless and until that happens, the category should probably be depopulated: it's pretty useless without the project page. (Not necessarily deleted, though. Again, a note on it indicating its dormancy and how to revive it should suffice.)​—msh210 (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete. It's not used and it doesn't have much potential for use. In almost two years, no one has come to its defense. Ultimateria (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:English derived terms and all categories under it, Template:dervcatEdit

@DCDuring, -sche, Rua, Renard Migrant Almost all categories under Category:English derived terms are empty. The ones that aren't empty are populated manually, as there are no (remaining?) templates to populate those categories automatically. The idea appears to be to create categories for terms derived from common English words like "cat" and "load". This is potentially a good idea but doesn't seem to have worked out in practice. If we are to implement something like this it should probably be done either through {{affix}} or {{compound}} or through a mechanism similar to {{desctree}}, which would automatically scrape a specified pages for derived terms. Rather than have what's essentially dead weight at this point hanging around, I propose deleting all the individual categories and the top-level category, removing the few manual invocations of those categories and removing the category boiler {{dervcat}}. Benwing2 (talk) 05:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The idea of autopopulated categories which would enable automagical displays under Derived terms headers is perfectly consistent with what we do under Descendants, but the polylingual lobby for doing so for Descendants has proven more powerful than the monolingual lobby for doing so under Derived terms. I suppose reminders of the loss should be razed. DCDuring (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
@DCDuring I could definitely implement something that works like {{desctree}} and pulls from Derived terms, but I don't think it can populate a category. The problem here is that the only way I know of to get a page in a category is to link to the category on the page itself. What could be done however is create pages in some namespace whose contents are auto-generated, consisting of a table of links in some format, and which pull from Derived terms on a specified page. E.g. it could be called Derived terms:English/cat (with a short-form prefix "DT:"?) and have a simple page definition {{deriv cat}} (or even just {{auto cat}}). Or this could go into the Appendix or wherever. We have namespaces for rhymes, reconstructions, etc. so there is precedent. IMO this is more likely to work than going through {{affix}} or {{compound}} (which in the case of cat means that 118 pages must all have etymologies that mention the word "cat", vs. a single page that lists 118 derived terms, like we already have). Benwing2 (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete unless someone automates the process. Ultimateria (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

November 2019Edit


Not a widely recognised country, and the category doesn't seem to serve much purpose. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Pretty real and bulky country. Recognition is irrelevant, as I have explained also with the example of Artsakh. Don’t exactly know why it must serve less purpose than say Category:pt:Moldova. Fay Freak (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Kept. Although the category is really lame with just one entry, that's not an RFD issue. --ReloadtheMatrix (talk) 08:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Struck that, as nobody has even made a proper vote and you didn't bother to remove the tag. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete, un-useful topic. Across 6 languages, only one category has a member and it's the translation for Transnistria. Ultimateria (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
@Bogdan: The question is then whether you can make aught useful from Category:ro:Transnistria. Someone in there would also do Category:ru:Transnistria. Something other than place-names, there must be specific political and legal terms?
Place-names thus far are in Category:ro:Places in Moldova because you used region/Transnistria instead of c/Transnistria in {{place}} on e.g. Tiraspol with the latter in Portuguese; in contrast Scotland of course gets its own categories as a “constituent country”, in spite of Transnistria being objectively more independent than Scotland. Should we have an option breakaway state in {{place}}? I support retiring the placetype country altogether and replacing it with state. Fay Freak (talk) 06:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

January 2020Edit

Category:Requests for unblockEdit

I sent this to RFD and WF closed it somewhat prematurely, so I'm sending it back. My argument: I don't see the point of this category. We should just modify the template so it doesn't categorise. It already has a |nocat= parameter that is rarely used, and I understand why — it's a waste of time to go around adding that when nobody looks at the category in the first place. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete, you can just go to Special:WhatLinksHere for this. I also noticed that at least one of the unblock requests I've checked has been resolved already. Not a particularly useful category, then. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: How can I find all these user pages using Special:WhatLinksHere? Fytcha (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
The category is added by the template {{unblock}}. You can either click "What links here" in the sidebar at Template:unblock, or type "Template:unblock" into the search form at Special:WhatLinksHere. Either way, it's a good idea to add filtering of links, since what I just typed has added this page to the list. The main difference is that WhatLinksHere has no way to ignore those with |nocat=1. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: Thank you, I can use this feature a lot better now. Regarding the original discussion of whether to delete the category or not, what you've just said is pretty good reason to keep it, no? I've just noticed that Special:WhatLinksHere links 174 entries in the User talk namespace compared to the 113 entries within the category. I imagine the difference is a use-mention distinction for templates. Fytcha (talk) 08:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I think this (or at least, some other parts of our unblock-request infrastructure) were created to appease global admins/crats who didn't know what to do when one particular blocked editor (Gtroy? or a certain one who has since been unblocked?) pestered them because admins here had blocked him, and they found that we didn't have a real request-for-unblock infrastructure. - -sche (discuss) 02:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I believe you're referring to this discussion. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Delete, not useful. Ultimateria (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

February 2020Edit


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

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

Template:zh-o, Template:†Edit

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

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

Template:zh-historical-dict, Template:zh-hd/s, Template:zh-no-soloEdit

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

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

April 2020Edit

Category:Languages of CaliforniaEdit

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

California at one time probably had about a hundred indigenous languages and represented the intersection of the Algic languages (which extend to the east coast), the Athabascan languages (which extend from Alaska to northern Mexico), the Uto-Aztecan languages, (which extend to Central America), a few still-to-be-proven language families like Hokan and Penutian, and a few probable isolates like the Chimariko language and the Karuk language, with a very high percentage endemic to the state. Right now the category contains only one language which was added by a clueless editor based on a bogus etymology, but we already have hundreds of entries in upwards of 5 dozen indigenous languages- about a fifth of Category:Languages of the United States. I should also mention that we have Category:Languages of Hawaii, among others. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Make that over a thousand lemmas. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I've now added 58 indigenous languages to the category, which I will, of course, remove if we decide to delete. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
What about nonindigenous languages? Besides English and Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Tagalog are all widely spoken in California. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and I've been to stores with signs in Arabic, Armenian, Hebrew, Hindi, Indonesian, Japanese, Persian, Russian and Thai, and I've met people from Greek, Malagasy, Samoan and Tongan communities as well. The Los Angeles County election websites can be viewed in Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Hindi, Khmer, Korean, Vietnamese and Thai, and American Sign Language interpreters are in considerable demand. I understand that we have lots of people speaking American Indian languages from the rest of the US and from other parts of the Americas. I've even heard of a radio station somewhere in the Central Valley broadcasting in Assyrian Aramaic. I should add that I know there are lots of people speaking other South Asian languages than Hindi and other Chinese languages than Mandarin, but I don't know which ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
So how do we decide what to include and what not to? And really, that question applies not only to this category but also to country-level categories like CAT:Languages of the United States. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't know, but I disagree with categorizing Category:American Sign Language into Languages of California. ASL is used in all 50 states. I don't think it needs to be in potentially 51 location categories when 1 covers that same information. Leave the demographic specifics to Wikipedia. Ultimateria (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
English and Spanish are spoken in all 50 states too. And they're spoken in other countries as well; does that mean they shouldn't be in CAT:Languages of the United States? —Mahāgaja · talk 05:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
That's what I'm arguing for, rather than put e.g. Spanish in 300 categories for all the states of the US and South American countries. Ultimateria (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete because it is ambiguous. If we talk about native languages we go also beyond the current state borders and might think about the California of the now United Mexican States. Fay Freak (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Deletion for the reason given immediately above is completely inappropriate. The rationale would suggest renaming. "Early languages...", "Pre-Columbian languages..." might work for the instant case.
We use current governmental borders for categories such as this because of the administrative processes that govern almost all the research on such matters and because that is how most of our users would approach the subject matter. California may secede after the coming election so it would seem prudent to wait before any rash deletion or renaming. DCDuring (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
California might secede? Even then there is still a different California. I am not sure that we use governmental borders. Many who use these categories think that. Fay Freak (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep per Chuck Entz as it's important to have the indigenous languages there. AG202 (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

July 2020Edit

Category:Japanese countable nounsEdit

Category:Japanese uncountable nounsEdit

Category:Japanese collective nounsEdit

Japanese doesn't have concept of countable/uncountable/collective noun. 片割れ靴下 (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

(I know no Japanese.) Not having a concept of them doesn't mean it doesn't have them. I mean: The fact that Japanese grammarians and grammar-school teachers don't divide nouns into these three categories doesn't mean that it's impossible to do so. Did you mean only (a) that it has no concept of them, or did you really mean (b) that the division is nonexistent, and the existing categorization into these categories of several entries is baseless nonsense? If you meant only (a) and are correct, then I think we should keep the categories; if you meant (b) and are correct, I think we should delete them.​—msh210 (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

(Notifying Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji, Atitarev, Suzukaze-c, Poketalker, Cnilep, Marlin Setia1, Huhu9001, 荒巻モロゾフ, 片割れ靴下, Onionbar, Shen233, Alves9, Cpt.Guapo): Open for 500 days. --Fytcha (talk) 05:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

No opinion. I'm not a grammar expert. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I have never encountered the concept of uncountable nouns/collective nouns during my Japanese studies. I guess it's possible to do so but I don't see how it can be helpful to current and future learners. Shen233 (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Some things are inherently without number even conceptually: "water" is one such. When talking about the substance, "one water" or 「水が一つ」 (mizu ga hitotsu) just doesn't make sense. But even here, "water" in both English and Japanese can be counted, if one assumes the right conceptual context -- "[bodies of] water" or "[servings of] water".
That said, when asking about things that can have number, in Japanese, one uses the word いくつ (ikutsu, how many), and when asking about things that have no number but do have amount, in Japanese, one uses the word いくら (ikura, how much). Japanese does have the concept of "countable" vs. "uncountable", but it is not really a feature of the language the way it is in English, not least as there is no grammatical number in Japanese (no plurals).
I mostly agree with @Shen233 here -- I don't think this is a very useful (or sensible) thing to categorize, not least as this isn't really a language-dependent feature, so much as a distinction of the things themselves -- and thus, it's not lexical information. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with Shen233 and Eiríkr that countable and uncountable are not sensible categories for Japanese. Japanese does not mark plural on nouns (or other word classes). Although, as Eiríkr suggests, the things to which words refer may be collective or individuated, that is not reflected in word classes or morphology. (By the way, slightly counter to Eiríkr's suggestion, one does hear things like 生一つ (nama, hitotsu, “one draft [beer]”) quite commonly. See also universal packager for a related concept in the philosophy of language.) Cnilep (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Weak delete. Without a grammatical basis, the categorization of countable/uncountable/collective nouns is largely subjective and comes more close to a topic category, while the topic seems too broad and not very useful. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

August 2020Edit


@Useigor, this looks like an aborted experiment? PUC – 11:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

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

October 2020Edit

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

December 2020Edit

Category:Sunda-Sulawesi languages and Category:Borneo-Philippines languagesEdit

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

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

Category:English words suffixed with -ulentEdit

See Wiktionary:Tea room/2020/December#-ulent. This is not a suffix; all the examples are taken intact from Latin words in -ulentus, and in almost all cases there is no English word X for X + -ulent to make sense as a superficial analysis. (The entry -ulentus lists -ulent as a descendant and so would also need to be updated.) - -sche (discuss) 23:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

See -ulent at Affixes: The building blocks of English, Michael Quinton. I agree that most English terms ending in ulent are derived directly from Latin words ending in ulentus and that "equivalent to X + -ulent" is not right if X does not exist in English. I took two entries from this category by removing such "equivalent to" language. But the remaining item in this category: puberulent (listed in Century 1911) does not an obvious Latin direct antecedent ending in ulentus. I have no idea whether other English terms exist that arguably have -ulent as a suffix. DCDuring (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Why was "fraudulent" removed? "Fraud" exists as a stand-alone word in English, and ordinary English speakers will be more familiar with the word's relationship to English fraud than its relationship to French fraudulent and Latin fraudulentus.--Urszag (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
It really depends on whether -ulent is actually an English morpheme. If the only English terms ening in ulent correspond semantically to Latin terms ending in ulentus, then ulent cannot really be said to be an English morpheme. As it stands we don't even have attestation for the one word with a Wiktionary entry that does not have a corresponding Latin etymon listed in Lewis and Sullivan's dictionary of Classical Latin: puberulent. For all we know there might be a puberulentus attested in Medieval or other later Latin. DCDuring (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
The Latin term would be puberulens, which does, indeed, have a few hits in botanical Latin texts. I'm not really sure why puberulus isn't used instead, since there doesn't seem to be a verb that the participle could be derived from. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
And in case you're wondering why Latin -ulentus isn't involved: puberulent is semantically a diminutive. Something that's puberulent has shorter and finer hairs than something that's pubescent. The -ulentus suffix is the opposite of a diminutive- "abounding in, full of". Besides which, there's no English word puber. The Latin word is pūbes, which alternates with "puber-" because of phenomena that didn't make it past the end of Latin. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
But, if -ulent is not an English morpheme, then David X. Cohen could not have created cromulent, whether or not he got the "crom" part from "Cromwell". Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Individual invention doesn't need shared meaning of component morphemes. A dictionary entry for a morpheme does. I doubt that anyone inferred the meaning of cromulent from its morphology. "Ulent" may have suggested that cromulent was an adjective, but "ent" might have as well. DCDuring (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Delete, not an English suffix. Ultimateria (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Korean etymologies with first attestations that need to be moved to Middle Korean entriesEdit

Created after this discussion to abandon the functionalities of {{ko-etym-native}} and move to {{inh|ko|okm}} instead, which I can't really agree with. First attestations are given in the standard Korean dictionaries, and there are a number of benefits to Wiktionary doing so as well:

  • It's more detail we won't be providing, which I think is a bad thing.
  • There are important differences between fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Middle Korean, and this is obscured by using {{inh|ko|okm}} only. I would also add that specifying the source immediately allows a knowledgeable reader to understand the nature of the word, e.g. a Middle Korean word first attested in Childae manbeop is highly likely to be southeastern dialectal, and a word first attested in personal letters is likely to be a colloquial form. This is all valuable information lost.
  • {{inh}} will not work at all for Early Modern Korean because {{inh|ko|ko-ear}} causes a module error (a language cannot inherit from a variant of itself).
  • {{defdate}} (suggested in the discussion) won't normally work without a specific academic source because many Middle Korean and Early Modern Korean ancestors of contemporary Korean words had different meanings (cf. 착하다 (chakhada)), but these are not provided in the standard generalist sources which largely ignore semantic shifts.
  • In practice, all editors working in Korean have continued to put in first attestations, so this hasn't really been working out anyways and the category doesn't really do anything.

Also, it includes entries that do have Middle Korean entries now, e.g. 가랑비 (garangbi).--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Module:ko-etym would need to be edited to remove autogeneration of this category, of course.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@Karaeng Matoaya I am fine with deleting this and fixing the module accordingly. Are there any other people working on Middle Korean? If so maybe we can get them to weigh in, and delete the category. Benwing2 (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
@Benwing2, AFAIK the only other people who have been creating entries are @LoutK, Quadmix77.--Tibidibi (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
DeleteLoutK (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense, delete Ffffrr (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

April 2021Edit

Module:template utilitiesEdit

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

Abstain. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The template parsing code there seems to be supplanted by Module:templateparser. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 11:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

September 2021Edit


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

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

Category:Pseudo-loans by languageEdit

Allahverdi Verdizade today remarked that he doesn’t think there are any pseudo-Arabisms in Azerbaijani. So I think there aren’t any pseudo-Anglicisms in German either. All follow some rules.

German Handy may have existed in English when in the early days there existed lots of terms for the new thing, or only the spelling is anglicized and it is actually Händi. And why is Ego-Shooter one? Maybe just a compound of a German word and an English one. The same with Castingshow. Twen is just logical. Fotoshooting is not incorrect either but continues English grammar more than English did itself. Oh, and High Snobiety is too humorous. How containern would be a pseudo-anglicism is a mystery, can’t Germans just form a verb from a borrowed noun.

You can continue this for other languages. What is left but prescriptivism?

In the end it seems indistinguishable from the “false friends” categories which we have agreed not to have but perhaps in appendices: Terms that look like they exist in another language but they don’t there. Fay Freak (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

We do not have a category for pseudo-Sanskritisms in New Indo-Aryan languages, but we have this: Category:Sanskritic formations by language. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Keep, since pseudo-loans are a real phenomenon and it's useful to be able to categorize them. Many clearly cannot be loans of even obscure unrecorded-but-cromulent terms in the "donor" language: for example, pseudo-Latinisms such as illegitimi non carborundum. If some other entries are incorrectly categorized, let's fix them (although only based on evidence, not mere speculation that something could've originally been English and just only ever managed to be attested or mentioned in other languages). - -sche (discuss) 08:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
We should perheps adapt the subcategories' names to fit the usual "[language name 1] pseudo-loans from [language name 2]" scheme, though (otherwise I might have to invent the term "pseudo-Danism" for Häagen-Dazs). - -sche (discuss) 08:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
@-sche: But according to Allahverdi Verdizade, all are incorrectly cateogrized, as quoted. And your example: How can it even be a pseudo-loan if it isn’t even superficially correct Latin? It is another inexactness in our definition: whether for a term to be a pseudo-loan it is necessary that to a speaker of the donor language it likely appears like a term in his language (i.e. from which perspective it is defined).
And you dodged the question what the difference from false friends is, or a subset of false-friends formed from borrowed words. It is inconsequential to have only this subset of false friends. Fay Freak (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Allahverdi Verdizade is correct that deriving Azerbaijani daimi (permanent) from Arabic دَائِمِيّ(dāʾimiyy, permanent), if the Arabic entry is correct (I see it's at RFV), wouldn't be a pseudo-loan but a straightforward loan: why would the Azerbaijani term be categorized as a pseudo-loan to begin with? Because it has more meanings than Arabic? But then it is only a "partial false friend", which has to do with words' semantics (and it's common for loans to acquire additional meanings), not a pseudo-loan, which has to do with perceived origin being incorrect (and is rarer).
A false friend also has to exist in both languages, whereas a pseudo-loan either doesn't exist in the ostensible donor at all (as with many pseudo-Latinisms), or doesn't exist as the source of the "loan". In turn, a pseudo-loan is (incorrectly) perceived as deriving from the other language, like Handy or Beamer are commonly felt to be English but in fact exist in English only as later loans from German, whereas a false friend doesn't have to be and usually isn't perceived as deriving from the specified other language (e.g. Spaniards don't think embarazado is a loan from English).
There is an area of overlap, where literature on the topic also considers things like baby-foot to be pseudo-loans since the sequence of baby followed by foot may be found in English but only in unrelated contexts and meanings that clearly aren't the source of the French construction, but where it could be felt to also belong in a "false friends" category. But most cases don't overlap, and hence literature discusses pseudo-loans as a thing. - -sche (discuss) 18:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep. --Myrelia (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
In the absence of further input in months... kept due to (at a minimum) lack of consensus to delete. - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Category:Tagalog basic verbsEdit

I believe we've already deleted these categories for several other languages. Ultimateria (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

See Category talk:Basic words by language, which failed RFD. Ultimateria (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. The notion of "basic" is subjective and thus arbitrary. –Austronesier (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Appendix:Protologisms/Long wordsEdit

Originally, the Appendix:Protologisms/Long words/Titin/German was tagged for RFV by User:Irekoto, but I took the liberty to change it to RFD, because the creators of this Appendix entry knew that it wouldn't pass CFI, which is why it was placed in the appendix, labelled as "protologism", so an RFV discussion would be pointless. Irekoto may have an issue with the entry being here; in which case, it'd be more consistent to say that everything in Appendix:Protologisms/Long words should be deleted, since they all seem to be there for the same reason. That's why I moved it to the main page, since it'd be more consistent to be against all of them than only one.

We fairly recently had a deletion discussion for Appendix:List of protologisms, a relic of ancient Wiktionary which was essentially a place for users to make up or choose whatever words they want that didn't pass CFI, and list them there with definitions. That discussion resulted in a deletion.

However, I think the case for these particular long word protologisms to be kept is unique, because 1.) They were not just made up by us, like most of the items at LOP were (as it says, the three appendix entries are "notable long words which were formed systematically, or which are mentioned in authoritative sources, but which do not yet meet Wiktionary's Criteria for Inclusion.") 2.) The fact that they are so long and that there aren't many examples of them makes them lexically interesting, and to delete them would be a bit of a shame.

I do wish that the long word entries for titin had a source, however, so as to justify the claim that they are "mentioned in authoritative sources".

I vote keep, but only started the discussion to honor the tag, as RFV/RFD templates are supposed to be starters of discussions. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep. Harmless. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Delete this and its subpages. "Would be a bit of a shame" isn't reason enough to keep something that would fail RFV. Wikipedia has a page for the German law at least. Ultimateria (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Keep. - -sche (discuss) 08:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: Those lists surely also contained some words not created by us but found somewhere. So following 1), we then could have new protologism lists but with a new rule: A source must be provided, which could also be a blog not durably archived. Regarding 2): See above, there's only one example which is also on a citation page.
@Inqilābī: The deleted lists were harmless too but got deleted.
--Myrelia (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Can't it be a category, if we must have it? Equinox 00:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Delete, including the nonsense subpages. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 03:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep - it may be silly, but these are real words. Theknightwho (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep. I don't think Appendix:List of protologisms should've been deleted either. Binarystep (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Delete IMO this is not meaningfully different from the prior deletion of Appendix:List of protologisms (which should not be relitigated here) and should inevitably suffer the same fate. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

October 2021Edit

Category:Plautdietsch one-syllable nounsEdit

Category:Plautdietsch one-syllable adjectivesEdit

There's no reason to split this by part of speech; all these pages belong in Category:Plautdietsch 1-syllable words. Ultimateria (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there a ways to compute intersections of categories on Wiktionary? Fytcha (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
@Fytcha: Sure, here's an example search that should demonstrate why we don't need these to be one category: [8]. Ultimateria (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I see, thank you. Fytcha (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Not what we do for other languages and no loss of functionality. Fytcha (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Delete. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 15:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Reference templates categories by familyEdit

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

Undeletion of Category:Indo-Aryan reference templatesEdit

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

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

@Inqilābī I'm not quite sure about it, but it seems like these sorts of templates are categorized by languages, not language families. I've seen some templates that were belonged to a category named after a language family but later moved to a new category named after related proto language's name, so I did the same thing. --TongcyDai (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Indo-Aryan reference templates do not necessarily deal with Proto-Indo-Aryan. Indo-Aryan reference templates just pertain to the family as a whole while Proto-Indo-Aryan reference templates are specifically meant for the language. So I do not agree with the deed, but I will at first inform other editors about it. (@Bhagadatta, Kutchkutch, AryamanA) ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 22:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
@Inqilābī: Since there are templates that would be in both categories and many Indo-Aryan templates are named as Template:R:inc:Name, that must have created the impression that they should be merged into a single category. However, there really should be a distinction so that templates that involve more than one Indo-Aryan language but not Proto-Indo-Aryan can be in Category:Indo-Aryan reference templates. For comparison,
Category:Sino-Tibetan reference templates
Category:Proto-Sino-Tibetan reference templates
are currently two separate categories. Kutchkutch (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@Kutchkutch Category:Sino-Tibetan reference templates is currently a category of categories. Do we need this kind of category? In addition, I think it will be fine to add all main languages mentioned in a reference one by one, just like many templates do. --TongcyDai (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@Kutchkutch: You can now recreate the deleted cat. I have fixed those reference templates that deal with the family. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Discussion moved from User_talk:TongcyDai#CAT:Indo-Aryan_reference_templates.
  • Inqilābī RFD undeleted
    TongcyDai The issue with add all main languages mentioned in a reference one by one is that there may be too many languages to list individually and/or a reference may collectively refer to languages as a group rather than as discrete entities. If you still contest this undeletion, then continue here.
    Could you provide examples of I've seen some templates that were belonged to a category named after a language family but later moved to a new category named after related proto language's name Is one of them Category:Iranian reference templates? Kutchkutch (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
    @Kutchkutch I don't really care about it, you can do whatever you want. But for now Indo-Aryan reference templates contains not only the templates which are hard to put into specific language categories, but also 55 subcategories you manually added. I'm wondering what's the purpose of it. If that is really necessary, I think you should consider integrating this feature into autocat. --TongcyDai (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
    @Benwing, Benwing2, Erutuon, TongcyDai: Do you know how to integrate this feature into {{autocat}}? Kutchkutch (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Sino-Tibetan reference templatesEdit

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

November 2021Edit


Incorrect in my opinion; the correct inflection table is the one present in fiecare that I've added (for disclosure). --Fytcha (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bogdan, Robbie SWE Thadh (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I have no opinion in the matter. In all honesty, DEX does not have some of these forms (fiecărui for example). Robbie SWE (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
@Robbie SWE: A quick argument for my POV: Would you say "Iubește pe fiecare." or "Iubește pe fiecăruia."? Analogously for the determiner: Would you say "Iubește pe fiecare om." or "Iubește pe fiecărui om."? I would personally use the first option (with fiecare) in both cases and my Sprachgefühl tells me the second ones are wrong, which (if I'm right) establishes that the accusative form is fiecare for both parts of speech. See also: "pe fiecare om" (137 000) vs. "pe fiecărui om" (5). Fytcha (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
No doubt your first example :-) Robbie SWE (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


Useless templet. Just list terms under ====Related terms==== or ===See also===. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 16:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete as pointless. Theknightwho (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete, completely redundant to {{l}} aside from the text before the link, which all the other languages manage to do without. This, that and the other (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Keep, @Inqilābī, Theknightwho, This, that and the other: (and @Sarri.greek for information)
  • I have used this template over 5,000 times, it saves 9 keystrokes each time. That's why I use it.
  • Looking at περπατάω I see 11 terms listed under "Related…". Using {{el-see}} saves having to repeat the list under each of the related terms as well as multiple edits if additions are made. That's why I created it.
If you don't like it I'm sorry, but I don't see that any of the points you make would justify deletion. — Saltmarsh🢃 12:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Keep, please, as my good admin @Saltmarsh has created it. @Inqilābī: and notifying @Benwing2. The reason, is the lack of an inline Template:see (with parameters e.g. {see|el|xxx}}) which at the moment redirects to Template:also. Which is meant for a different job: to place at top-of-page of similar spellings with different diacritics.
There are lemmata which are central: etymologically they are the source for a huge number of related and derived words. E.g. ψυχή (psychí). At the entry αναψύχωση (anapsýchosi) or ψύχωση (psýchosi), we mention some closely related terms, andddd... last but not least, we need to let the reader know, that the full index of related is placed at ψυχή. Like ψήφος f (psífos, vote), where there is a full index by stem. At any related term, like ψηφιακός (psifiakós), we end the brief Related Section with the phrase: and see ψήφος (psífos).
The central Related sections are not thesauri. They are the index a...z of all compounds, derivatives or etymologically related terms. This index is not repeated, except partially. Thank you. ‑‑Sarri.greek  I 13:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not unsympathetic to these arguments as far as they concern the interlinking and repetition of related terms lists. But is there anything Greek-specific about this template? Perhaps we could replace all uses of {{see}} with {{also}} and move this template to {{see}}. This, that and the other (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@Sarri.greek, This, that and the other, Saltmarsh I think generalizing {{el-see}} to {{see}} is a great solution. What do you think? If everyone agrees, I can do this work; the number of current uses of {{see}} is about 800, which are easily replaceable with {{also}} using a bot. Then {{el-see}} can be replaced with {{see|el}} (same number of characters). Benwing2 (talk) 03:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the constructive response! There's nothing Greek-specific at all about {{el-see}}. Except at the time there was no generic alternative. I think it should retain the {{l}}-related structure — by all means go ahead — Saltmarsh🢃 05:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@Saltmarsh I have renamed the existing {{see}} -> {{also}}. I am in the process of writing {{see}} to work like {{el-see}} but support multiple terms; I have to finish this tomorrow though as it's nearly 1:30am here and time to go to sleep :) ... Benwing2 (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@Benwing2, thank you. A multipositional template would be very nice. @Saltmarsh's el-see inspired the el:Template:cf for such a function. It can be used in any text, and is very useful. Thanks. ‑‑Sarri.greek  I 07:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@Benwing2 — Sounds good, thank you — Saltmarsh🢃 08:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@Saltmarsh, Sarri.greek Should be working now at {{see}}. Benwing2 (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@Saltmarsh, Sarri.greek Do you mind if I do a run to convert existing uses of {{el-see}} to {{see}}? BTW the templates work almost the same, but the handling of gender is a bit different. Because there are multiple terms, the |g= param takes a comma-separated list of genders. In addition, in place of c use mf to indicate something that can be either masculine or feminine. Benwing2 (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Benwing2, Sarri.greek Sorry for the delay and thank you for your work on this. I have just noted that in some places {{el-see}} has been used with positional arguments, they don't work but I would like try and isolate and correct these before you do anything - I hope that is OK? Just one question — is there an intention that comma separated gender parameters should become general (in HWLs, {{l}}, etc)? If not this may confuse. — Saltmarsh🢃 05:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

PS BUT I do think that it's a good idea! — Saltmarsh🢃
@Saltmarsh Hi. I already started running the conversion script but it has a check in it for positional arguments other than |1=, and refuses to make any changes in that case (and outputs a warning to the log file). It should finish soon and at that point all the remaining uses of {{el-see}} will be those involving mistaken positional arguments. As for comma-separated gender params, this is currently supported everywhere there are multiple positional terms ({{syn}}/{{ant}}, {{alt}}, {{desc}}, {{affix}}, ...). It's not yet supported for {{l}} and other templates supporting only one term, but IMO it would be a good idea to support it. Benwing2 (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
@Benwing2, Sarri.greek I see now the need for comma separated |g= because of the use of |g2= with additional terms.
And I have found some badly argumented uses of {{el-see}} and would like to correct those that I can find before you make the change. — Saltmarsh🢃 06:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
@Saltmarsh OK, I stopped the conversion script running. Generally the bad arguments get caught when changed to {{see}} because of the validation that's now in place, and I have been fixing them as I've seen them. Let me know when you are ready for me to resume the script, thanks. Benwing2 (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
@Benwing2 OOps! I understand. — Saltmarsh🢃 06:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
@Benwing2 Thank you waiting - may I leave the rest for you - thanks — Saltmarsh🢃 06:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

December 2021Edit


The concept behind this topical category is obviously fundamentally flawed: the only explanatory text is the sentence: "Verb words about action in the Amis language of Taiwan", but these aren't verbs on the subject of "action", but members of some kind of class of verbs referring to actions as opposed to states.

This has been posted on Requests for cleanup, but it looks to me like we would have to know more about both the concept behind the category and about the language in question to have any hope of making a real category out of it. As it is, this is the ad hoc creation of one person, and could very easily be based on a misinterpretation of the grammar of a language they don't speak.

As for preserving the information it contains, there's very little benefit to being able to see that certain terms are believed to be related to each other for some reason we don't fully understand, and there's no way to maintain the category. Are the verbs that aren't in the category excluded because they don't belong there, or is it just a matter of what the category creator got around to before they stopped editing? If someone adds a new Amis verb entry, does it belong to the category or doesn't it? Pinging @Barbie0117 as category creator, and @Ffffrr, Austronesier as participants in the RFC discussion.Chuck Entz (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I see the category as mostly unnecessary, if it cannot be cleaned up then I guess it should be deleted then. If all Amis verbs were included then that would be redundant as https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Amis_verbs already does that. Ffffrr (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, although I might change my mind if we could still get input from the creator of the category. It appears from various sources about Amis that the term "Action verbs" has been used as a complement to "State/stative verbs", but without known exact criteria and no documentation about its use, the category is not maintainable. The online source that is used for most Amis entries does not categorize verbs in that way, and there are several entries of obviously non-stative verbs that were added, but not categorized as "Action [verbs]" by the category creator. So the current application of the category is not just undocumented but also unintuitive. –Austronesier (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

January 2022Edit

Category:Korean syllablesEdit

Category:Korean syllables without final‎Edit

Category:Basic Korean syllabaries‎Edit

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

Delete. (Notifying TAKASUGI Shinji, Atitarev, HappyMidnight, Tibidibi, Quadmix77, Kaepoong): AG202 (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


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

@Useigor Thadh (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
The amount of fuzzing is ridiculous. The idea of making something even a little bit harder to read when we are supposed to be giving it attention to try to verify is contrary to logic. DCDuring (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge, DCDuring: Apparently, when you hover over the term, it explains the issue and unblurs it. Thadh (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
What about mobile? (Or me, who didn't think to hover over something I couldn't read?) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Since it is a departure from any standard way of indicating that something is being challenged, how would any user or contributor know what was going on? Hovering is not always the response one would make. We have often been encouraged to be sensitive to accessibility concerns. This seems like an occasion to apply that sensitivity. DCDuring (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I did not mean that I think this template should be kept in its current state, I was simply pointing out that blurring isn't the only thing the template does. By the way, what about just putting a dotted line under the term, or something similar? Thadh (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I would change the background colour to orange or the like (one sufficiently distinct from that of {{quoted term}} in any case). I found the blurring bizarre from the beginning (but ignored the template thinking that Useigor was still coding) and the reason boils down to that, as DCDuring said, the idea of making something even a little bit harder to read when we are supposed to be giving it attention to try to verify is contrary to logic. Fay Freak (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Why not just use the same format as Template:t-check? - -sche (discuss) 22:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Cause it was not “for translations” in translation sections, I don’t know whence this equation by Metaknowledge comes from but now have to dispel this conception, but apparently for strange derived terms and descendants in Proto-Slavic entries. The design of {{t-check}} is of course for the background of translation tables while descendants and derived terms sections look different and hence seek different tinge. Fay Freak (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
We could use the same format of adding superscript "(please verify)". Although really, if the term is so likely to be fabricated and the likelihood of someone coming back to provide references is low, maybe just remove it or move it to the talk page or HTML-comment it out... - -sche (discuss) 18:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
It is not supposed to be readable because term is likely fabricated (i do some search before adding the template) and it is unknown when its editor will provide reference for it. Marked term could be removed instead but there is slight possibility that it can be verified. If you want to read, you can hover (swipe) or click and then create page with reference. For me, colored background or excessive text are ugly and distracting when i'm reader and not editor. Any editor can make custom CSS in User:USER/common.css (e.g. #mw-content-text .temp-rfv-term+[lang] {filter: blur(0px); text-decoration: underline dotted; background: orange;}). —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I have a computer that has no mouse input at the moment. It is very cumbersome to interact with words that have this text decoration. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Now blur is changed to strike. I wanted to use 50%-opaque 2px-thick line (text-decoration: line-through 2px rgba(0,0,0,0.50);) but for some reason wiki editor does not let use thickness so i had to use 80%-opaque 1px-thick line (text-decoration: line-through rgba(0,0,0,0.80);) —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I stand by my earlier comment that using the same format as Template:t-check, a superscript note explicitly saying "(please verify)", or even a non-superscript note like Template:rfv-sense, would probably be the clearest thing, although if a term is really most likely fabricated and the likelihood of someone coming back to provide references is low, maybe just remove it or move it to the talk page or HTML-comment it out. IMO we should allow people to occasionally RFV terms that don't have entries yet: then we could just submit the terms this is for to RFV and remove them after a month... - -sche (discuss) 03:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Delete, if this is not rendered more useful/user-friendly. Strikethrough is not a help. Text display of what action is to be taken and where seems essential, but has not been provided in the more than five months this RfD has been active. And deprecate now. DCDuring (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Appendix:Terms derived from toponymsEdit

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

I've added as many as I could extract from that page. – Jberkel 23:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Template:missing templateEdit

Tagged 4 years ago by User:Zcreator (diff) but not listed. User:DCDuring as the creator. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 21:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

This was an attempt to make the special page "Most transcluded templates" useful for templates that I felt responsible for. At the time I could insert the template on a modest number of pages to find templates needed on just a few pages. This template is no longer useful due to thousands of "tracking templates" as well as all sorts of inflection templates flooding that special page. The page only accommodates some 5000 missing templates. A template now needs to be needed on 295 pages to make the page. DCDuring (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:Trichinellidae HypernymsEdit

Tagged 1.5 years ago by User:JoeyChen (diff) but not listed. User:DCDuring as the creator. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 22:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

See [9]. DCDuring (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Monotypic families don't necessarily remain so. In addition there are at least two other genera that are sometimes included in the family. DCDuring (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:Bacillaceae HypernymsEdit

Tagged 1.5 years ago by User:JoeyChen (diff) but not listed. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 00:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Appendix:Star Wars/protocol droidEdit

Tagged by User:Linshee (diff) but not listed. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 22:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
@Andrew Sheedy: what's your rationale for keeping this? Thadh (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
It's an extremely common term in works based in the Star Wars universe, and refers to a specific type of droid (humanoid, with translating abilities, etc.), which isn't apparent from a surface analysis. Maybe the definition could be improved, but it seems worth keeping (as an appendix entry, obviously). Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Thadh, could you speedy delete this page given that the same content is there at Citations:protocol droid? Thanks. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 13:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: I'm afraid I agree with Andrew above: Our CFI doesn't yet allow for this word, but that doesn't mean we can't put its meaning in the appendix. The definition is not repeated in the citations page. In any case, this doesn't warrant a speedy deletion. Thadh (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Policy - Transliteration/Proposal20050614Edit

Tagged by User:Daleusher (diff) but not listed. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 00:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Japanese dictionary coordinationEdit

Wiktionary:Japanese dictionary coordination/Images of kanji radicalsEdit

Tagged by User:Daleusher (diff, diff) but not listed. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 00:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:English appendix-only phrasesEdit

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

No reason to divide by part of speech, I think, but having all Appendix entries that look like English mainspace articles in a Category:English Appendix lemmas would be good. Currently, Appendix:Star_Wars/protocol_droid is in the mainspace's Category:English lemmas. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 00:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Appendix:Toki Pona/tejeEdit

Tagged by User:LesVisages (diff) but not listed. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 00:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be an RFV issue? Though not sure how that works for Appendix-only languages. AG202 (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:Hebrew terms beginning with a begedkefet letterEdit

Nearly every term beginning with a begedkefet/begedkefat letter is changeable, to the point where it should be assumed by default. Why do we have a category for something that's garanteed more often than not? It just takes up space on the page. Also, pardon the not-so-great formatting, this is me first time doing this.

EDITː I'd also like to remove any usage notes describing the situation with begedkefet and dagesh on any page that has it, for the same reasons as removing the category. Starbeam2 (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Starbeam2: I see no such category. Notice that the link is red. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 01:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I have fixed the link. It had an incorrect Unicode character. 02:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 02:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete. This is really silly. The related category CAT:Hebrew terms beginning with an unchangeable begedkefet letter‎, on the other hand, is potentially useful, though woefully incomplete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete per Metaknowledge. Fay Freak (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


Wiktionary:Parsing:Alternative spellingsEdit

Wiktionary:Parsing:Derived termsEdit


Wiktionary:Parsing:Part of speechEdit


Wiktionary:Parsing:Related termsEdit

Wiktionary:Parsing:See alsoEdit


Fytcha T | L | C 〉 02:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps making it a section of Wiktionary:Parsing would help. --Rishabhbhat (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete this and all of the pseudo-subpages of Wiktionary:Parsing. They're little more than someone's observations and opinions from 2008. This, that and the other (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
@This, that and the other: Wiktionary:Parsing:Translations contains some actual content though. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 23:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
That is WELL out of date. It doesn't even acknowledge the existence of {{t}}. But let's hear from @Hippietrail, who has very excitingly rejoined us! This, that and the other (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Pinging @Hippietrail as the creator. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 23:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to deleting if nobody is using it and nobody wants to update it. I often think about taking another crack at parsing Wiktionary but haven't really worked on it properly for ages. If other people are though and do want to replace or update my ancient notes then that's probably a good thing. But I'm not attached to my old stuff. — hippietrail (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Could we use something like "Request for update" ({{RfU}}) for pages like Wiktionary:Parsing (but not talk, not mainspace; not user pages, etc). If something doesn't get updated within a year (or more?) after being brought to our attention, that would be good evidence in support of deletion. DCDuring (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
    In this case, only Wiktionary:Parsing would seem possibly worth the application of a template like {{RfU}}. It would serve to extend our usual minimum period until deletion after posting an RfD. DCDuring (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:redlink categoryEdit

Category:Redlinks by languageEdit

An inefficient system that strains the server extensively and causes memory errors (until it is modded to exclude specific pages), yet is of little help (it doesn't point out redlinks, but entries that contain redlinks). It is a much better idea to generate these from dumps, like has been done in User:Jberkel/lists/wanted. This template and system has all the hallmarks of being an irredeemable kludge. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 16:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete. We already do this on a per-request basis. So why not just make those requests go to someone like you or Jberkel who will generate lists from dumps? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep. It seems like a useful categorization of all red links by language, it does not seem useless. Ffffrr (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
It is not a categorization of "all red links by language", and it is very much useless seeing as a better solution exists already. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep. Compared to Jberkel's lists, it has the following advantages:
* Allows users to view all pages containing redlinks, whereas Jberkel's list only shows the top 1000, with no "next" button
* Allows users to view recent changes
* Continuously updated in real time
* Usefully categorizes redlinks into l, m, t and t+
* Once set up, it works automatically until it is intentionally disactivated, so it is not hampered by a user's temporary or permanent inactivity (unlike Wiktionary Statistics, which is no longer being updated, presumably because Ungoliant has been inactive since mid-January) and does not require communication with individual users Martin123xyz (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
@Martin123xyz: The code is open source, the lists are generated on Toolforge, and it's possible to assign more users to the project (Erutuon also has access), so it doesn't really depend on one single user. Regarding the 1000 limit, you can download the raw data which contains all the links. It's obviously not as powerful as a fully dynamic system, but I think it's a good tradeoff and helps conserving server resources. – Jberkel 19:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Three of those things are easily achievable with Jberkel's solution (the first, third and fourth); the second is not useful (why would you want to see changes to entries with redlinks?), and the fifth is inconsequential if someone is going to view the redlink categories anyway. The disadvantages of this approach on the other hand are easy to name and most of them cannot be fixed:
* It adds considerable strain to server resources and is probably one of the major causes behind memory errors.
* It must be enabled separately for each language, which means that it must be configured weeks if not months in advance (to let all of the necessary categories update).
* It doesn't show redlinks, but pages with redlinks, which defeats at least half of its entire purpose.
* It cannot be sorted correctly due to the previous point.
* It does not consider redlinks in etymological templates, etc.
SURJECTION / T / C / L / 13:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

February 2022Edit

Category:Physical fitnessEdit

Ten years old and hardly used, surely because of its being redundant, partially but not only (as some would sort “chess” etc. therein I foretell) to Category:Sports and else to Category:Exercise, not to speak of Category:Athletics. Fay Freak (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete Seems redundant to exercise. If someone can distinguish the two or make one a subcat of the other, I can be persuaded otherwise. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


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

@Inqilābī: I think you'll need to explain why it's not "proper". — SGconlaw (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  1. It is not in proper category format; we do not have Category:Multiracial. (It was created unilaterally without consensus.)
  2. This category is a hotchpotch of random entries. All ethnonyms, including mixed races (such as mestizo, mulatto, Eurasian), belong in CAT:Ethnonyms; ethnic slurs have their own separate category; CAT:Scientific racism and CAT:Eugenics could be separate categories, if useful.
  3. Even the category name is not grammatically correct, it should be either multiracial people or multiracials.
  4. A lot of mixed-race group names are not dictionary material, being SoPs. Therefore, I do not think we need any category dedicated to multiracial people (the name as used in that category, which itself links to Wikipedia). ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 21:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
    I think a lot of third culture kids would disagree with that last point... Theknightwho (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
    William Jones (philologist) was an Anglo-Welsh person. This racial term should remain as a redlink; tho’ it could have a different idiomatic sense. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nom. —Svārtava (t/u) • 09:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

March 2022Edit

Category:Two-letter words by languageEdit

Category:Three-letter words by languageEdit

Category:One-letter words by languageEdit

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

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

Templates and reference templates by language family rather than by languageEdit

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

Cf. https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?oldid=64486872#Undeletion_of_CAT:Indo-Aryan_reference_templatesJustin (koavf)TCM 02:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
@Koavf: Please see the bottom of that category that contains reference templates pertaining to the Indo-Aryan language family as a whole, rather than specific languages or even chronolects. Since Wiktionary does not treat Indo-Aryan as a united macrolanguage like Sinitic/Chinese, it makes more sense to dedicate a separate category for the current reference templates that deal with Indo-Aryan linguistics. That said, we may remove the 56 individual language categories from the list. (Pinging @Kutchkutch, Bhagadatta, Svartava, AryamanA for more input.)
I’m not sure what to be done with other families, or if consistency is needful across all languages: in that case you could raise the matter in the BP. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 11:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
@Inqilābī: You are correct that some of these are about Indo-Aryan at large, but 1.) they can just be put into specific language categories as they are used on entries for those languages, 2.) what I'm suggesting is already done in practice for several of these categories (and was before I started editing them), and 3.) there are definitely other references that apply to more than one (e.g.) Romance language or Semitic language as well, so we're back to either sorting one reference template into several individual language categories (my preference) or building out the module and hierarchy to include language families. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Todo/phrases not linked to from components + all subpagesEdit

Not maintained. It's annoying because it clogs up "What links here" pages and Wiktionary:Todo#All_subpages. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 17:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Please delete over 10 years old and no longer useful Notusbutthem (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


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

Quite a lot of money, yes! We could tag the template with Template:crippling paywall (or whatever...), I suppose. If not, delete Notusbutthem (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Replace with {{ISO 639}} This, that and the other (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm doing a general rework of how we treat ISO 639 codes at the moment - part of which involves splitting out the ethnologue parameter from {{ISO 639}} because it's a bit of a mish-mash at the moment, which makes it trickier to deprecate things in situations like this. I agree that it's less-than-ideal to link to sites which are hidden behind paywalls, though. Theknightwho (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Delete. This is literal advertising. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 23:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:es-adj form ofEdit

Was unduly tagged as deleted by Wonderfool, despite it not being deleted, and them being unable to delete it. Notusbutthem (talk) 09:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I think we archive deprecated templets instead of deleting them. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 11:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

April 2022Edit

Wiktionary:Entry templatesEdit

Wiktionary:English entry templatesEdit

Wiktionary:French entry templatesEdit

Wiktionary:Hebrew entry templatesEdit

Wiktionary:Swedish entry templatesEdit

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

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Keep I cannot see any reason given to delete, and there is a link from the listing of entry templates, and this entry shows documentation for what they are about. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


This module to transliterate Prakrit from Brahmi is redundant. Its Prakrit-specific functionality has been added to the ancestral Module:Brah-translit. The deletion also applies to its testcases Module:inc-pra-Brah-translit/testcases - they have been added to Module:Brah-translit/testcases.

The documentation of Module:translit-redirect states, "Using a single module to redirect to other transliteration modules will save some Lua memory on pages that tend to go over the memory limit", though this is more a matter of principle for Brahmi. (Devanagari words will probably hit limits before Brahmi words do.) --RichardW57 (