Open main menu

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for deletion/Others

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

{{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfd-redundant}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

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




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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Current RFDO discussions:

Older discussion:

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

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

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

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

I've now deleted all the ones that had no transclusions. The remainder still needs to be orphaned. —Rua (mew) 17:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


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

There are still two transclusions that the new template does not yet support. --WikiTiki89 15:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89, your yearly (or whatever it is) reminder. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Yep. Haven't forgotten. I'll get to it. --WikiTiki89 15:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: Can you please fix these two? —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@Koavf: Sorry, it's not a simple fix. I have to implement a whole new feature in Mod:yi-verb. I'll get around to it when I have time. Perhaps we should close this discussion as a keep and renominate it later? --WikiTiki89 14:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
That seems sensible to me but it would be nice if we can ensure that it's on a to-do list somewhere. What is it about these two verbs that is so tricky? —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
They are phrasal verbs, which the conjugation template does not support yet. I've been planning to add it, as it would be useful in general (not just for these two verbs). --WikiTiki89 18:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89 another reminder... --I learned some phrases (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Appendix:Glossary of idioms – A et al.Edit

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

I agree, categorization is much better in terms of better quality of definition (likely to be seen by more editors), alphabetized, divided by language, easier to navigate. Any genuine-looking red links can go on WT:RE:en (and so on) a few red links isn't enough to save it. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I can see some value in keeping them, or something like them, mainly for the convenience of people learning English as a second language. Setting out a list of the main cases where a meaning isn't the obvious one from the meanings of the individual words provides a better resource than simply listing them (along with a lot of rare idioms, without the meanings beside them). Maitchy (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Double agree. The category is just fine. Or put it in a user subpage. --Cien pies 6 (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Delete, if someone likes it a lot they can backup it somewhere but this is redundant to our more complete and more neutral categorization system. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Certain talk pagesEdit

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

These relatively few pages seem pretty harmless really. However, it might be good for somebody to talk to the creator next time and point out that Wiktionary is far from "complete". The more extreme case of this was when somebody was disruptively adding Etymology requests to every ety-less entry. Equinox 16:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
This same IP has been adding "can it be added" requests to a great number of Chinese character talk pages for years: try this for the more common variant. As for talking to them, I believe @Atitarev has had discussions with them on other issues (they make lots of several types of requests relating to several languages) without much cooperation. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I am annoyed with these numerous questions with no answers in talk pages and the usage of {{attention}} but what can I do? Some people just pepper entries with requests, genuine and not, ignoring if we have any resources or interest to fill them. The situation would only be slightly better if those unanswered requests were in the Tea room or similar.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 21:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I think if we delete these, we have to delete all talk pages with information in them relevant to the entry they pertain to. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree. This is part of what talk pages are meant for. Keep.​—msh210 (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Keep. --WikiTiki89 18:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Many of these cases of multiple readings is because the initial data was imported from a shitty database, and
  1. many of the entries have been cleaned up since
  2. the ones that aren't are likely to be obscure dead characters no-one cares about
  3. when someone does get around to cleaning up the page for the character no-one cares about, the wrong reading will be removed in the process if the one who cleans up the page has the common sense to check other dictionaries
FWIW there are currently 1,128 items in Category:Mandarin terms needing attention. —suzukaze (tc) 07:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete all the relevant sections. If nothing is left, delete the talk page. Wyang (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep (including those listed below). How do these discussions sit for so long? This has been here for over three years...! — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

These tooEdit

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

TBH another reason I want these gone is that the formatting of pages like Talk:苦 really ticks me off. When I see that there's a talk page, I expect a meaningful question or note, not this trash. It's like a child whining.suzukaze (tc) 07:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC), edited 06:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete all the relevant sections. If nothing is left, delete the talk page. Wyang (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

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

This isn't a request to delete a specific page that can be fulfilled or not, but an ongoing process. I'm closing the discussion here so that it can be archived. —Rua (mew) 17:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


Category:French verbs with conjugation -erEdit

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

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

Hello everyone, I'd like to add my considerations to this deletion request. I am an user of the Italian wiktionary, and I use en.wikt basically for consulting, and I must say that, as a reader, I find these categories useful: they provide an insight on the inflection models of the french verbs (on a more selfish note, I use them to retrieve lists of verbs this). That said, I see Renard Migrant's point, but maybe the objection could be bypassed by reorganizing these categories as subcategories of the "group" categories, with a cat tree like:
and so on; the same could be made for Category:French third group verbs, which could contain Category:French verbs with conjugation tenir, eventually a "French verbs with conjugation -dre", "-indre" and so on...
there could only be a problem with the Category:French second group verbs, since a category "French second-group verbs with conjugation -ir" would probably be redundant, the only outgroup would only contain haïr (if I'm not mistaken); anyway it could be helpful to differentiate these verbs from the third goup's verbs in -ir, like partir or soutenir...
these were my very personal two cents, I hope you could find them useful... in any case, keep up your great work and have a nice day :). ciao, --12:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Catalan has the same alternations, but we still just put them in Category:Catalan first conjugation verbs. They are not a special verb class, the alternation is purely orthographical. —Rua (mew) 13:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Category:Vyadhikarana compounds by languageEdit

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

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

Citations:Kernikteri, Citations:FrühgeburtskernikteriEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:neuter singular of and Template:neuter ofEdit

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

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

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

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

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

Category:English derived termsEdit

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

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

Category:English terms with alpha privativesEdit

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

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

Category:Japanese terms using characters outside JIS X 0208Edit

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

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

Keep - as argued above :) Lx 121 (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Danish noun plural formsEdit

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

Is there interest in doing something like "XYZ definite ablative plural forms"? (We seem to have the makings of this kind of a system for at least a few languages, including Bulgarian, Cornish and Hebrew.) If yes, it might be possible to sort these forms down to that level, and perhaps also to cat-tag non-lemma forms by a bot. This category could then remain as a parent category for the four typical plural form categories. However it does seem rather arbitrary to have just a plural forms category, while not having a definite forms category, possessive forms category, etc. --Tropylium (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Categories for each inflection form (as seen on {{da-noun-infl}}) might be interesting to some, and should be easy to do. I completely agree that number seems like an arbitrary choice.__Gamren (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Unnecessary, delete. DonnanZ (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@Gamren: If you can't get this deleted just empty the category by moving the contents to Category:Danish noun forms. There is more chance that an empty category can be deleted. DonnanZ (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:ca-adj form ofEdit

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

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

Template:es-adj form ofEdit

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

Deprecate and keep, preventing further use through abuse filters. - [The]DaveRoss 12:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Categorisation of non-lemma forms is not without use. embryomystic (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Kangxi radicalsEdit

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

Category:CJKV radicalsEdit

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

Category:Han rad supEdit

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

Category:Han rad extEdit

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

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)


Reasons for deletion:

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

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

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

Template:grc-cite-* templatesEdit

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

The full list

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

Orphan and delete. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 06:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Japanese-only CJKV CharactersEdit

Category:Japanese-coined CJKV characters used outside JapaneseEdit

Category:Korean-only CJKV CharactersEdit

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

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

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

Category:Han characters from which kana were derivedEdit

Category:Han characters from which hiragana were derivedEdit

Category:Han characters from which katakana were derivedEdit

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

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





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)

Category:Japanese Asahi charactersEdit

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

Various ergative-related pages for EnglishEdit

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

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

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

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

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

Gee, I thought the problem with the ergative label was just that normal users don't understand the word. Apparently some contributors who add the label to definitions don't either. DCDuring TALK 01:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Ergative verbs are a useful category, and can't simply be replaced by "transitive and intransitive" because they're not the same. Ergative verbs are passive or middle voice when used intransitively, but when used transitively the meaning flips to that of a causative, to make the object undergo the intransitive sense. For example, "the boat sinks" is intransitive and does not have a clear agent. But when you say "the storm sinks the boat", then the storm is acting as an agent on the boat. In Dutch, the intransitive use has a passive/stative perfect construction too, whereas the transitive use has an active construction. —CodeCat 18:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with ergative as a label for other languages, provided those editors have a use for it.
My primary concerns are that 1) I don't see this as a useful label for English, and 2) this use of ergative to refer to a special kind of intransitive-and-causative verb usage does not agree with either our definitions at ergative, or the way the term is employed in other linguistic contexts (viz. the w:Ergative–absolutive language article). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I think the single definition at ergative is meant to encompass both the ergative case and the ergative verb, though it is really not very clear. The specific meanings of the term when applied to nominals and when applied to verbs should be elaborated more. — Eru·tuon 03:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I always thought that ergative verbs (in English) were as defined here and here, which, as far as I have observed, is how the label is used (or intended to be used) at Wiktionary. Therefore, I don't see a problem, unless the label is seen as too technical for readers. I don't understand the comment above that "any semantically transitive verb can be used in an ergative construction just by putting the object of the verb's action into the subject slot in the syntax of the sentence". That would mean that "John loves Mary" should mean the same as "Mary loves (John)", wouldn't it? Mihia (talk)
@Mihia: -- The definitions you linked to provide senses that are indistinguishable from the more widely used descriptor, ambitransitive, or simply by stating that a given verb is both transitive and intransitive. For this sense, using the term ergative instead only invites confusion. As described by others at [[w:Talk:Ergative_verb#Not_standard_usage_in_linguistics]], this usage of ergative appears to have arisen out of confusion, and usage of this sense also appears to be limited to a narrow subset of fields that use the term (perhaps just ESL?). In light of these issues, I see no usefulness and too much potential for user confusion were we to use ergative as a label for any and all English verbs that are both transitive and intransitive, such as boil in “he boils the water” and “the water boils.
Cases where ergative actually starts to make sense for English outside of the confused ambitransitive sense are cases where the verb itself is semantically transitive, and is used in an intransitive grammatical construction where the grammatical subject of the verb is also the semantic patient of the action, and the semantic agent is left unstated. Restating from a separate thread, over at [[User_talk:Eirikr#Discussion_of_ergatives_and_perfect_tense_in_Germanic]]:


... words like melt and sink and grow cannot usefully or correctly be described as ergative. For a sentence like "the boat sinks, there is no ... agent that is making this happen. The action in question "happens by itself". These words are fundamentally [semantically] intransitive, where the modern EN transitive uses have developed from a causative sense.
This is not to say that separate causative and passive constructions could not also exist. Compare:
  • The ice melts. -- intransitive
  • The ice is being melted by her. -- passive
  • She melts the ice. -- transitive
  • She makes the ice melt. -- causative
Semantically, in the kinds of environments that humans have historically found themselves, actions like melting and freezing are precisely the kinds of actions that "happen by themselves". There doesn't need to be any actor causing the action of "melting" to happen. Similarly for freeze, sink, grow, etc.
Meanwhile, the description of "ergative" could apply quite well to verbs that are semantically inherently transitive, such as cook. "Cooking" is not something that naturally happens by itself in the kinds of environments that humans have historically found themselves; this action requires an agent, an actor. This could be something inanimate, such as "heat", but the verb semantically requires someone or something to carry out the action. Note that there is no similar causative for such verbs, precisely because there is no semantically intransitive sense. When used causatively, the implication is that A causes B to do something transitively to C.
  • He cooks the eggs. -- transitive
  • *He makes the eggs cook. -- unnatural, incorrect causative
  • He makes him cook the eggs. -- causative, still transitive
  • The eggs are being cooked by him. -- passive
  • The eggs cook. -- ergative
This last instance is where the "ergative" label finally makes sense, as I've understood your [CodeCat's] description and the description in the WP article [at w:Ergative_verb]. This could also be analyzed as a kind of passive construction where the actor carrying out the transitive action is left unstated.
However, this kind of ergative usage is mostly a matter of English syntax, which would further limit the usefulness of this term as a label. Per utramque cavernam had a good breakdown regarding transitivity, intransitivity, and ergativity in an English verb context over at [[User_talk:DCDuring#parse]].
HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I object to the label, as it is not part of any US education other than some formal education in FLs and linguistics. If we had different labels for users of different preferences, I'd be down with "ergative" as a label, as long as it was not the default.
As to the category and appendices, I personally don't care, but they are probably useful to some. DCDuring TALK 22:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


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

Keep. See the previous discussion at User talk:Wikitiki89/2014#Template:ll for my opinion on this. Nothing's changed since then. --WikiTiki89 18:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
And your argument is as convincing now as it was then. I still see no added benefit of this template, it provides no extra functions that {{l}} doesn't already. —CodeCat 18:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
That's not true. As I've already said in the discussion I linked, it provides the option of not including formatting, such as if the formatting is already provided outside of the template. --WikiTiki89 18:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The number of transclusions of the template shows how useful that is, I suppose. —CodeCat 19:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Because you keep removing them. --WikiTiki89 19:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The fact that I am able to, is evidence that the template is not necessary. —CodeCat 20:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I've read the discussion linked to above and I still don't see the point of this template. What formatting does {{l}} provide that {{ll}} doesn't, that one might want to exclude? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
    All of the language and script formatting. Look carefully at the examples in the linked discussion for why that formatting might need to be excluded. --WikiTiki89 21:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, or keep and rename. (I'm not sure what "ll" stands for here.) I wasn't aware there was a template to simply link to a language's section of an entry on a word (or a {{senseid}} anchor) without adding spans with language attributes and transliteration. I thought this function would be useful in quotes that use unusual terms (or terms that have several meanings, and you want to link to the particular one that is relevant). It is unsatisfactory to use {{l}}, which adds a lot of unnecessary formatting.
If you are linking an Arabic term in an Arabic quote or example phrase or sentence, you do not want to add a whole nother <span lang="ar" xml:lang="ar"></span> to every one of the words that you want to link, when the text already has that formatting applied to the entire quote or example. It makes the HTML terribly messy. So there needs to be a template that just links and does nothing else.
A simple wikilink would work in many cases, but not those in which the term has several meanings. In that case, having the |id= parameter allows you to link to the applicable meaning of the word in the quote or example. You can't do that unless you want to manually type #langname-senseid after the pagename. It is far easier to have a template with an |id= parameter that can be used in the middle of a quote or example. — Eru·tuon 05:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure that the practice of linking terms in quotations is discouraged. —CodeCat 14:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so that is not an acceptable use of the template. However, I have just found a use for the template in the headword of عَبْد(ʿabd), where the feminine form أَمَة(ʾama) needs an id to direct it to the correct vowelization. Using {{l}} gives bad output. Only {{ll}} works. — Eru·tuon 02:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I've now replaced it with {{l}}, and it works fine. There's yet to be a compelling argument for the template. Messy HTML is not a compelling argument; have you ever seen what MediaWiki itself generates at times? —CodeCat 02:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: I second this being deleted. I don't see any exceptional use for it. --{{victar|talk}} 16:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep {{l|mul}} does not work properly with Firefox, though it does work with Chrome and Edge. See User:DCDuring/FontsizeProblemDemo for an instance with some comparisons. {{ll|mul}} works fine. DCDuring (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@DCDuring: I've got Firefox 66 and don't see the font size difference. I wonder what is making there be a difference in your Firefox. — Eru·tuon 20:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this is the same problem I mentioned before. I just updated to FF 66.0.5, from the Mozilla site, and I still have the problem on both my tower and my laptop, both running Windows 10 Version 1803 up to date through earlier today, last update installed 4/9. I've got Windows font scaling at default (100%) with "Advanced scaling settings" disabled. I don't think there's anything in my custom css. The problem is not limited to lang=mul. I thought it might have something to do with Latf, the font size for which is set at 125%. I can upload (or e-mail?) you a screenshot. The screenshot shots display 1 and 5 the same size, about 10% wider than the other three. Using {{ll}} or no template at all solves the problem. The only reason I would use {{ll}} is to preserve tabbed languages functionality, which matters because there are at least Latin and German L2 section headwords that actually or potentially duplicate taxonomic L2 headwords. DCDuring (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

January 2017Edit

Category:Languages by countryEdit

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

  •   Support, straightforward enough. --Tropylium (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support, the official languages could be categorized by country and continent on wikipedia (but it would not make sense on wiktionary), the categorization of languages independently by country and continent without other criteria, however, has no sense at all because they can be spoken in any nation of any continent, as well as in every ocean and even on the international space station (ISS), so a the category "Languages by country" (or more correctly "Languages by continent") have no sense to exist on wiktionary or other wiki-projects. --DelvecchioSimone12 5 96 (talk) 18:25, 1 January 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! 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)


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)

May 2017Edit


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

I've removed "Air" as the parent of "Wind", so eventually all of these categories will end up empty, except the ones that actually contain entries. We can decide what to do with those next. —Rua (mew) 17:28, 30 April 2019 (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)
Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Appendix:Romance of the Three KingdomsEdit

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

Category:Simple machinesEdit

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

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

July 2017Edit

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 deletion 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)

Category:Counters by languageEdit

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


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

  • This should be listed at WT:RFM, WF. --Recónditos (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily, Rec. Let's delete all of them instead. -WF
  • DeleteCodeCat 18:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, we can merge these. Delete. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


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

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

@JohnC5, stay or go? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: I think stay. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 11:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - 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 would be original research (though debating/arguing about it on talkpages is fun! ^__^). Lx 121 (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary doesn't disallow original research, that's a Wikipedia thing. It's part of how Wiktionary works in the first place. —Rua (mew) 13:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Excuse me? since wheninthehell did that proposition get past the wmf? o__0 please show me where that policy is included in the project's rules & guidelines(!) Lx 121 (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
        • There is no policy that says anything about OR, so it's not disallowed, and given that things do not have to be explicitly allowed to be allowed, it is allowed. Our WT:OR points to a page explaining why Wiktionary doesn't have Wikipedia rules (which is not a policy page btw). We have WT:CFI, which is not an OR policy and is not intended to be one, because it fundamentally requires original research as part of the verification process. WT:CFI would be unenforceable if OR were banned. —Rua (mew) 13:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
        • You may find Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/September#What is Wiktionary's stance on reconstructions missing from sources? enlightening. —Rua (mew) 13:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
          • It's not quite that simple. It's true that it most of the content in entries is OR, but we tend to require something approaching Wikipedia-style sourcing for etymologies and reconstructions. Approaching- not identical. Where to draw the line is a matter of some debate. In this case, though, our practice is clear: there's no point in a dictionary providing a reconstruction that's not connected to attested words. That's not OR, that's editorial discretion. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
            • @Chuck Entz What do you think of this particular case. Keep in mind that the Germanic descendants still violate Verner's law and should not be there. That leaves the first entry with only Celtic as a descendant. —Rua (mew) 14:11, 29 April 2019 (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)

August 2017Edit

Reconstruction:Proto-Southwestern Tai/khaauEdit

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

Proto-Southwestern Tai is revised by Pittayawat Pittayaporn (page 125-149 of the PDF), same author of Proto-Tai. But it does not include any word list. I believe *khaau (rice) should exist in new spelling. I also have some words here but the rice is not stated. However, this is only one word in PSWT right now. --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Moved to RFDO. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

September 2017Edit


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

@DCDuring, this might interest you. If not, it looks like it'll go. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Indeed it does. Let's leave it here for, say, two or four more weeks. If we can't find real uses for it in that time, we can delete it. I think real examples of use would help focus discussion. DCDuring (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@DCDuring: How about fringe science? Try sticking it on there and see what you think. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
[[fringe science]] would be better addressed by {{translation only}} or by a redirect to WP (unless that is forbidden). DCDuring (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Per utramque cavernam 00:19, 18 December 2018 (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 never mind I figured it out 19:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Frequency lists/top 2000 German Wikipedia wordsEdit

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

- 17:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

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

November 2017Edit

Wiktionary:About Spanish/Todo/missing n-sEdit


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

@P5Nd2: Wiktionary:Requested entries (Spanish) gets updated, tho. Seems like these two overlap. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, still a source of redlinks. (Could be made more useful by purging the ones with Spanish sections already or containing ellipses; you might ask DTLHS to do that.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


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

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

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

I have no objection to deleting the template and replacing it with a short phrase. It was just an idea, based on a comment in the beer parlour, and the wording is just an adaptation of Template:seeCites. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Barytonesis (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I shortened the text displayed by the template. I think we can treat this as resolved. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @SGconlaw: Can you please delete the template, given this discussion shows two supports for deletion, and one abstain? The consensus is for deletion, not for keeping and changing the text. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Hmmm, I don't know why I thought there was no consensus for deletion. OK, deleted. I will drop a note to DTLHS to ask him to do a bot replacement. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Keep, obviously. Dan Polansky's intent to delete the template but replace its use with "a short phrase" is ridiculous when we could just have the template generate that short phrase without going to all the trouble of editing every page to remove the invocation. DTLHS (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
The template is not the overwhelming practice. There are less than 500 pages using the template[1]. It is not much trouble, and I volunteer to orphan the template, provided there would be a consensus to delete it. There has to be a better rationale to keep the template. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't add much value, and it's often easier to use {{syn|en|Thesaurus:foo}}. – Jberkel 10:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace as Jberkel suggested. —Rua (mew) 17:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:table:days of the week/documentationEdit

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

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

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

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

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)


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

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

Transwiki:Abbreviations listed in the 1911 Encyclopedia BritannicaEdit

Probably not wanted here --Lirafafrod (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@User:Lirafafrod I moved this discussion from RFDE to RFDO. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Keep while there are still valid redlinks to be created. We could move it to a request subpage or something, though. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:55, 14 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)

Template:index/Ancient GreekEdit

Unused, and obsolete? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Unused?? It's transcluded on 55 pages. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 08:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Delete if and only if we also delete Index:Ancient Greek and all its subpages, which range from horribly incomplete to awfully non-Ancient Greek. (To be clear, I think we should delete both, but we can't delete this template unless the index goes too.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Meh, I hadn't even noticed it was a template; I thought it was a random page with a bunch of red links in it. Delete all, then. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018Edit


I object to this kind of grammatical usage notes being repeated on dozen of entries. It's distracting, and belongs in an Appendix, not in individual entries. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Some templatised usage notes can be good; this one is simply so poorly written that it really reduces the quality of the entries. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


Used on exactly one entry: apologism. I believe we have {{R:OED}} for that now? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It probably is intended to indicate use of the out-of-copyright earlier volumes of the OED. Arguably it should be more widely used, not deleted. DCDuring (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
No, no, we should not be copying content from the OED. The template should be deleted after apologism is reworded so it no longer copies the OED, if indeed it still does. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Why should we not copy out-of-copyright works, like MW 1911, Century 1913, and OED 1923? If it weren't for such copying our coverage and even quality would be much worse than it is. It's hard enough to update older definitions without acting as if we could surpass these past lexicographers starting from a clean slate. We should have our creative hands full working on on new words and new definitions of old words. DCDuring (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
When I see your "creative hands" doing any substantial work improving English entries, I'll try to remember to take you seriously. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I mostly work in Translingual and English vernacular names. I found working on basic English words too hard. What do you work on? DCDuring (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: Do you have any substantive response to my question above? Corrections to my statements above? DCDuring (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
You of all people are complaining about non-substantive responses? We can and should define based on the evidence, and despite being the best we have, the OED is not really that wonderful of a dictionary. We are on track to be able to exceed them in coverage and quality for English etymology, scientific vocabulary, and more, while avoiding their penchant for dated, poorly written definitions and dictionary-only words. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I repeat my request that you address the actual issues at hand. Perhaps you can vent your spleen at me in some other forum. It might help to consider, just for English:
  1. how many contributors you would deem capable of generating acceptable definitions variously:
    1. from scratch
    2. from out-of-copyright works
    3. from the typical definition that we now have.
  2. how many definitions of each such origin or lack a contributor is willing to produce on average in a year.
  3. how much work of each type for these contributors to do:
    1. how many definitions we lack
    2. how many unacceptable definitions we have from out-of-copyright works
    3. how many other "poorly written definitions".
It's then just simple arithmetic to determine how long it will take to finish a dictionary of 2018 English that met your standard of quality and purity of origin. This ignores other kinds of work needed to bring English L2 sections to a uniformly acceptable standard.
The same kind of analysis might be applied to other languages. It would be particularly appropriate to consider the output we could manage in dead languages without copying from reference works. Presumably we don't copy from in-copyright works (eg, Oxford Latin Dictionary) in any language. Do we dispense entirely with copy-and-paste from Lewis and Short? We certainly don't spend much effort on preventing COPYVIO, let alone copying from out-of-copyright sources. Perhaps you might encourage such policing. DCDuring (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete or (my weak preference) move to Template:R:OED1923 and reformat to be like Template:R:Webster 1913 rather than like Template:Webster 1913. We should indeed not just copy information from the OED or Webster without checking the information for correctness, and when we're adding information that we've checked for correctness, the entry shouldn't use this template but rather a "R:" template (just like with the two Webster templates). But a "R:OED1923" could be useful if we want to source an etymological detail that's supported by that dictionary and either it isn't in the modern OED anymore (maybe we're sourcing a line like "until the earl 1900s, it was thougth to derive from XOED1923 but it is now thought to derive from Y"), or the adding editor simply doesn't have access to the modern OED but can indeed cite the older OED. - -sche (discuss) 18:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:script noteEdit

Do we really need that? See its use at the top of the page at ја. {{also}} seems sufficient to me. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Abstain. Unlikely that someone would land on that page and get confused, but it might invite well-meaning vandalism if someone got linked to it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

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).

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)


Unused.--Zcreator (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, if you're talking about those data modules listed there, I can see how these can be useful for characters not already included in MOD:zh/data/yue-pron, but then again, Unicode data is riddled with errors. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


Not maintained, very few usages (~100), template is a spaghetti mess. – Jberkel 11:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete. This template links to a multi-word/multi-morpheme entry if its page exists, and to the individual elements if it doesn’t. It seems therefore that the template has two unsolvable flaws: it works assuming that if a page exists, an entry in any language exists in that page, and it serves to disguise the lack of entries. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:Polar question translationsEdit

This template is being used to add translation sections to foreign-language entries. We don't do that. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Although this is not normally done here, such particle exists in a lot of languages besides English; therefore I believe it is important to link all of them together even if an English entry does not exist to act as a medium as is normally the case. --KoveytBud (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
If we're going to do this it sets a pretty big precedent with big implications for how we handle translations. Stuff like this simply needs a consensus through discussion and/or voting first. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 21:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
The appendix namespace is a better fit for this kind of information. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Move to an appendix and delete. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep as a translation hub but move to an appropriate main namespace entry. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I have converted the template to yes-no#English - a translation hub for question particles. The definition may need tweaking. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


Only attested in Avestan with a new formation or borrowing in MP. --Victar (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Calak, AryamanA What are your thoughts on this one? --Victar (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Victar: I can tell you Sanskrit अश्वस्थान (aśvasthāna, stable) is a word. I think though that the Avestan could have possibly been an independent formation. (Isn't aspō- nom. sg.? It doesn't match with the reconstruction.) —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 22:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@AryamanA, yeah, I was thinking about that too, that the Avestan looks like a new formation, like the MP. --Victar (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
On a larger note, I think we really need to stay away from these compounds words unless it can be proven with specific morphology or can be traced it back to PIE. Sanskrit and Iranian just have too many common productive suffixes. --Victar (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@Victar, AryamanA: "Sometimes ō appears as the usual composition vowel: parō.kauuīẟəm, drəguuō.dəbīš, etc. it is typical to substitute the vowel a of the first element with ō: drəguuō.dəbiiō < drəguua°" (read "Introduction to Avestan" by Michiel de Vaan, Alexander Lubotsky, §5.4 and §7.13. 1). The reconstruction is clear. Why should we delete it? You guys can create PIIr reconstruction and merge PIIr reconstruction to it. Thanks.--Calak (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Calak, we understand the origin of -ō- from the, but this is commonly found in new formations, not ones inherited from PIr. Therefore, this entry does not represent a word that existed in Pir, and should be deleted. --Victar (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@JohnC5 can you please comment on this item, as well as the one above. --Victar (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Victar: Eh, since the MP and Armenian both seem to be borrowed from Avestan, they don't necessarily plead in favor of this PIr construction. Indeed, it is telling that the MP doesn't have an inherited *asa- form. As to Sanskrit अश्वस्थान (aśvasthāna), it is first attested in Yājñavalkya and Pāṇini, who are not late but are also not the earliest. The analogical aspiration from *stāna- > sthāna- had occurred by Vedic, so that's neither here nor there. So really the only question is whether aspō.stāna can be reconciled with aśvasthāna. Assuming there was an active process of first member -ō- compounding in Avestan, then a compound *aspa.stāna could have been “renewed” to form aspō.stāna since the compound was probably still apparent. I'm curious whether Armenian aspastan points to *aspa.stāna or aspō.stāna. @Vahagn Petrosyan, any notion? —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 08:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Armenian ասպաստան (aspastan) is not useful in this case. Whatever the underlying Iranian form, the Armenian word would have been reshaped as a quasi-native compound with the interfix -ա- (-a-), as if *ասպ (*asp) + -ա- (-a-) + -ստան (-stan). Compare ասպարէզ (asparēz). And in any case, there are probably no direct Avestan borrowings in Armenian.
Hinz on page 45 reconstructs Median *aspastāna- based on an Aramaic personal name. --Vahag (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@JohnC5, Vahagn Petrosyan: The Armenian is all but certainly borrowed from the Middle Persian, and this Aramaic personal name could be from an unattested Old Persian new formation using 𐎠𐎿𐎱 (aspa). A Median compound isn't required, and this is the more likely scenario. --Victar (talk) 06:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Vahagn Petrosyan: I think that ասպարէզ (asparēz) morphology is not like ասպաստան (aspastan), compare Kurdish village name ئەسپەرێز(asparēz) [2].--Calak (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Calak: Could be, the other borrowings too have a vowel there. --Vahag (talk) 12:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018Edit

Wiktionary:Todo/phrases not linked to from componentsEdit

This Cleanup page is probably so outdated it's no longer useful --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Where is the code by which User:Visviva, of blessed memory, did this? (He's not really dead) DCDuring (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

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)


Obsolete, useless. Has been RFD'd before, kept for lack of consensus. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

March 2018Edit

Category:Languages of TibetEdit

Small category with little potential to grow as we already unified most languages of Tibet.--Zcreator alt (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Keep. This is generated automatically by {{langcatboiler}} from manually-entered parameters, and there are lots of small categories- why delete just this one? Besides: even though the vast majority speak Tibetan, I would be very surprised if there weren't a fair number of small Tibeto-Burman languages scattered here and there. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Appendix:English/my hovercraft is full of eelsEdit

Don't think how this phrase is useful.--Zcreator alt (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete. It's a joke. Equinox 19:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep, it is OK to have some lighthearted appendices, as long as they don't become overly common. - TheDaveRoss 12:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't see why we should have it at all. What purpose does it serve? Per utramque cavernam 12:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Delete it is not OK, Dave. Not OK at all --XY3999 (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep. I wish to plead incompetence. – Jberkel 01:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Keep. Yes, it's silly and a joke, but I see it as more of an easter egg to put a smile on the face of who runs across it. It's also clearly separated from everything else, and if conlangs are any indication, the Appendix namespace is where we put things we don't want but don't want to delete. —Rua (mew) 17:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep. Doesn't hurt. We can't let Omniglot have a monopoly on translations of silly phrases. — Eru·tuon 18:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:English appendix-only phrasesEdit


What is this meant to be? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It's double verlan (mère > reum > meureu; arabe > beur > rebeu). These are pretty rare and can go in the main category though, so delete. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
And it's a badly worded category name anyway. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
This was created by a Thai IP who's been leaving a trail of bad edits in a wide variety of language. They have an unhealthy fascination with automated inflection and pronunciation templates, and routinely add them where they don't belong. I hope they're not branching out into unnecessary categories, too ... Chuck Entz (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. It made me check his other edits, and I found yévairé, which is unattested. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


This strikes me as a misuse of this template series. Unlike modern languages the color templates were mainly created for, Proto-Indo-European is unattested and there's no direct evidence as to which colors were called by which name. When you have different branches of Indo-European using descendants of the same PIE word for completely different colors (compare English blue and Latin flavus (yellow, golden), for instance), any color terminology reconstructed tends to be rather vague. By contrast, this template shows precise colors, with the visual message of certainty overriding any caveats/weasel wording that may be in the text. If this is kept, it will need to be cleaned up. I sincerely doubt there will ever be a name reconstructed for magenta, cyan, or mint green, so they shouldn't be displayed. Even when there are descendants, we should remove uncertain/vague ones like the aforementioned blue/flavus ancestor (if it was even truly a color name in PIE) and stick to a few relatively solid identifications like white, black, red, and possibly brown. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete. I agree, this template should not be applied to protolanguages. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Mh, while this one seems too speculative, I'm not sure I'd want to delete Template:table:colors/sla-pro, if only because it's pretty complete. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Nevermind, Vorziblix has convinced me that that Proto-Slavic template should be done away with as well. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Keep, because [[Category:ine-pro:Colors]] is not empty. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Delete per nom: 'When you have different branches of Indo-European using descendants of the same PIE word for completely different colors (compare English blue and Latin flavus (“yellow, golden”), for instance), any color terminology reconstructed tends to be rather vague.' --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Keep, Template:table:colors/egy also uses a different template, maybe we can take this as a reference to reorganize the PIE template?--AngeCI (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


There are literally thousands of templates in Special:WantedTemplates that are subpages of this. The category and, I assume, the system was developed and administered by User:Kephir, who has not contributed since September, 2016. I doubt that it was ever a good idea to use redlinked templates (or redlinked categories) in this way. Can we eliminate this entire template/module system? DCDuring (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It's ugly but I guess it's the only way to keep track of things when it is technically undesirable to use categories. —Suzukaze-c 22:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Who or what uses us? DCDuring (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Lots of modules use it. You can find most examples by searching module: insource:"module:debug track". — Eru·tuon 05:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Special:WantedTemplates is pretty cluttered. At the moment, only 735 of the wanted templates are not tracking templates. Some of the tracking templates are generated by a rule (like headword/sc/redundant/Thai‏‎) and more than a hundred each seem to be generated by certain modules or templates (Module:headword: 582; Module:ru-noun: 531; Module:ru-adjective: 445; Module:links: 380; Module:ugly hacks: 333; Template:inflection of: 254; Module:ar-headword: 236; Module:number list: 235; Module:ru-verb: 195; Module:compound: 121; Template:descendant: 116; total: 3428). — Eru·tuon 06:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
This system is extremely important for debugging modules and shouldn't be removed. Benwing2 (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

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)

April 2018Edit

Template:list:degrees of comparison/ltEdit

We don't need a template for that. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Appendix:Fiction/Live-action seriesEdit

Doesn't seem useful for us. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox 08:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
(@Daniel CarreroSuzukaze-c 20:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC))
Keep. It meets WT:FICTION. My opinion is this: in most or all cases, it's best to have catch-all appendices for terms of fiction like that one than having individual appendices for each universe like Appendix:Star Wars. I see Appendix:Star Trek was deleted after a mere 2-people RFDO, so I moved most (not all) of the terms there to Appendix:Fiction/Live-action series now. (I would have voted "delete" Appendix:Star Trek too, for the reason I just said.)
See also this discussion above: #Appendix:Fiction/Films, to be archived at Appendix talk:Fiction/Films. Suzukaze-c, thank you for the ping. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
What is "Doesn't seem useful for us" supposed to mean? That's a pretty bad rationale for deletion. This, that and the other (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Delete, I don't think we should host fiction terms anywhere (unless they've been integrated to the language, in which case they belong in the main space). Per utramque cavernam 12:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam: Why not? As I said, the appendix meets WT:FICTION. Other Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedia, Wikiquote and apparently Wikibooks (b:Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter) have pages about works of fiction too. Why should Wiktionary be different? These terms are even in the appendix namespace. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

June 2018Edit

Category:Cold weaponsEdit

Unsurprisingly barely used. The category in and of itself is not a terrible idea, but it's not something that I (or, it seems, most other native speakers) would think of as a natural conceptual category, and this we don't look to use it as a category on Wiktionary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Not to sound like an idiot but I've never heard of "cold weapon" before seeing this. And Category:Spears, Category:Swords seem to cover them. – Julia (talk• formerly Gormflaith • 18:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete. I expected this to cover freeze-ray guns, and would not have considered spears to belong here. - -sche (discuss) 20:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Just commenting: it does appear to be a term in use. If we had more non-firearm weapons in the category overall, it might be useful. Equinox 20:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Manx genitivesEdit

It's the only category like this, and is added manually rather than by a template. Is there anything special about Manx genitive forms that they deserve a category? – Julia (talk• formerly Gormflaith • 01:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Bizarre category that could always be populated automatically if desired. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 10:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Terms transliterated from other languagesEdit

Per Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/May § unadapted borrowings. I'll quote myself:

"We've been saying of English words such as Petrozavodsk or Manasseh that they're "transliterations". But in this discussion, Mahagaja explains that "When used as English words, they're not transliterations. A transliteration is when you write (for example) a Hindi word in the Latin alphabet. But if someone says "I added some methi to the aloos", they aren't speaking Hindi, they're speaking English and using Hindi loanwords. A transliteration can only be found in writing, for one thing, while a loanword can be found in speech. It doesn't make sense to say "transliteration of Hindi जीरा (jīrā)" in the etymology section of an English word."

Based on that, it is my opinion that we should abandon the use of {{translit}} as an etymology template."

Per utramque cavernam 19:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Delete per that discussion. - -sche (discuss) 20:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


I think this template is now pretty redundant if we consider that stress can be easily added like this: {{hyphenation|buò|no|lang=it}} (which is what I usually do). @GianWiki, since you use it regularly, what is your opinion? [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] (parla con me) 16:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I think {{hyphenation}} is better used to show the hyphenation of the lemma form of a word; that is why I find {{it-stress}} to be useful in indicating accents where they are not explicit. — GianWiki (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I see… but in the end most Italian dictionaries that show hyphenation show stress in the same instance; I mean, I think it’s just more practical to have both things together. Let’s hear some other opinion. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] (parla con me) 19:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. I concur with Ivan. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - didn't know it existed. Italian stress is pretty uniform anyway. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
    That is very untrue. Italian stress is not predictable from orthography, and our entries should ideally indicate the stress with IPA and maybe the hyphenation template too. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Erutuon: I'd like to fail this template, but where it has been used, the stress has generally not been marked on the corresponding {{hyphenation}} template. Is there any bottable way of copying it over? (The information itself won't be lost either way, seeing as we also mark stress in the IPA, but it would be better to do this than to remove {{it-stress}} and leave the hyphenations without stress marking. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge: I'll see if I can write a function in Python to transfer the accent mark from {{it-stress}} to {{hyphenation}}. — Eru·tuon 19:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    I wrote a function that takes {{it-stress|èssere}} and {{hyphenation|es|se|re|lang=it}} and returns {{hyphenation|it|ès|se|re}}, so that's something. I'm not sure if it can deal with everything, like the odder cases of {{it-stress}} here. — Eru·tuon 01:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Erutuon: Is that a complete list of odd cases? I can do those by hand if so. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, it's a complete list as of June 1st when the dump came out. It's anything that when decomposed contains characters other than hyphen, space, basic Latin letters, and acute and grave. — Eru·tuon 23:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Benwing2: I cleaned up all the odd cases by hand, so the only ones that remain fit Erutuon's function as described above. Would you be able to clean these up by bot? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge I wrote a script to do this and I'm running it now to check that it can do the accent transfer. Note that there are additional "odd" cases not included in Erutuon's list above, e.g. places where {{it-stress}} is used but not {{hyph}}/{{hyphenation}}, which will need to be handled by hand. Benwing2 (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Benwing2: How many of those are there? If it's a few, I'll do them by hand, but if it's a lot, it's probably not worth the effort and we should just remove the it-stress. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge There are 149 of them, and 21 other cases (multiple it-stress templates, two accents, mismatch between it-stress and hyphenation, etc.). I'm not sure whether 149 is too many to do by hand; I think it's probably worth it to add hyphenation to all of them, but you're the ultimate arbiter. Benwing2 (talk) 06:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge The list of warnings is here: User:Benwing2/remove-it-stress-warnings. Benwing2 (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Benwing2: 149 seems like a lot — would it be possible to run a check on whether there's hyphenation in the corresponding it.wikt entry that your script could use? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge Yes, I think that's possible, I'll look into it. Benwing2 (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Metaknowledge Another possibility is just for you to edit User:Benwing2/remove-it-stress-warnings and add hyphenation to the page links, e.g. change palindromo to This should be quick even for 149 entries, and I can write a script to copy the hyphenation to the appropriate pages. Benwing2 (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete; move its function either to the hyphenation template or the headword line. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete; thanks everyone for working on this. – Jberkel 07:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thesaurus:musical instrumentEdit

Seems pointless, we already have Appendix:Musical instruments. Per utramque cavernam 18:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep imo, the appendix mainspace is more of a catch-all than the clearly defined thesaurus namespace, which is also more closely linked to mainspace. Port the content from that appendix to the thesaurus entry, if anything. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


Unsourced and grossly incorrect. --Victar (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I found *ml̥dus as a derived form of *mel(h1)- in "The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World", by J. P. Mallory and D. Q. Adams, with similar reflexes listed. Don't see *moldus or any initial laryngeals in there, though. Topynate (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


Only used in a set of appendix pages that links to Special:PrefixIndex/<character> instead of <character> for some reason. —Suzukaze-c 05:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@suzukaze-c, Justinrleung: What's the story here? Can we orphan this? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I believe we can replace it with plain links to a character. —Suzukaze-c 19:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

July 2018Edit

Redundant or superseded Albanian declension templatesEdit


Redundant to Template:sq-noun-m in the first place, specifically the existence of the |pl= and |def= parameters. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 11:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


All this one does is add a schwa to the definite plural ending depending on whether the syllable preceding -t(ë) was stressed or not. I've superseded this with an extra parameter for Template:sq-noun-m. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 11:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


Redundant: Template:sq-noun-f does the exact same thing in the first place. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 11:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblockEdit

I don't see the point of this category. We should just modify the template so it doesn't categorise. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

{{unblock}} has a |nocat= parameter that can be used when a request is declined. —Suzukaze-c 04:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
But that parameter 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 05:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


Made by Wonderfool, probably when (s)he was studying International Food Science at university. I'm sure we have a category that trumps this page, and the red links may be shitty. Some could get moved to WT:RE:FR perhaps. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Delete. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete. Fay Freak (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Category:fr:Food and drink is probably better; there are a few red links in this appendix worth looking at, though. Equinox 19:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete. The idea is not so bad, to understand a menu you need more than just Category:fr:Food and drink, but looks like there's too much cruft in there. – Jberkel 12:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

August 2018Edit

Category:Templates using ParserFunctionsEdit

Lots and lots of templates use parser functions. This category only has two templates in it, but even if it were complete, why would we want it? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

November 2018Edit


This template is misused, inaccurate, or unreferenced almost everywhere it occurs. As a particularly egregious example, see mark. It purports to provide some degree of research into an entry's definitions that we almost certainly did not do. In cases where it is not referenced it is often plagiarized from sources like the OED. We should be providing textual evidence for datings and not random, unsubstantiated notes at the end of definitions. DTLHS (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)`

Keep. There are serious problems with this template, but I don't see how deleting it is a solution. I have seen a great deal of examples that are not misused or inaccurate and need not be referenced because they are original research, just like our definitions. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep It looks nice and is useful. Including on mark it is beauteous. We should be providing textual evidence for datings but we can’t; also some would go to to other language headers (Old English for quotations for “mark”, when the given date is “9th century” …). Plagiarizing dates is nothing that should raise an eyebrow, it’s like plagiarizing mathematical formulas. Also senses are often sorted by chronological appearance anyway, this template just makes it explicit. Fay Freak (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
It is in no way like plagiarizing mathematical formulas. Assigning a date to a specific sense is a subjective exercise that depends heavily on the researchers available sources and what they consider English. It is the worst kind of dishonesty, and we're presenting it like we have some kind of crystal ball into the past of English. "This definition is from X year" is not a mathematical fact, it is the product of serious scholarship and requires evidence to back it up. Cite your sources and stop pretending like you came up with it out of nowhere. DTLHS (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Reform the system somehow (???). —Suzukaze-c 00:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep. At least some of the data is useful. I am certain that we will never have sufficient citation information to replace what {{defdate}} instances have, let alone all the definitions that have no such information and sorely need it. There are important unaddressed issues about sense dating, eg, How uncommon does a term have to be in a century before we show it as out of use? But we do not even have relative frequency indicators for current usage, which allows users (including those who prepare FL entries here) to believe that rare and obsolete terms are suitable for use in definitions. DCDuring (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep. Sometimes assigning a date is subjective; sometimes (e.g. when there’s only one sense and a well-defined corpus) it’s objective. Sometimes original research is done (I often comb through Egyptian attestations in various sources to check attestation dates) or sources are cited; sometimes they aren’t. There are many given dates that are neither bad nor copyvios. The rest should be improved. (As far as the particular case of the OED goes, the earlier fascicles of the first edition OED are in the public domain, so many of the apparent copyvios are probably not such in any case.) Providing textual evidence for every dating would be ideal, but deleting all attestation dates seems like the wrong way to go about getting it. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 03:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I never said anything about copyright. Copying from a free resource is just as bad if no attribution is given. DTLHS (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Right, sorry, I must have mentally blurred this discussion together with the other current discussion about defdate. If there’s no legal issues involved, that’s all the more reason to improve what we have/add attributions or other evidence rather than delete, IMO. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 18:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep. It is true that in quite a number of cases we don't have the evidence to accurately provide accurate datings of senses without borrowing them from other sources. On the other hand, in other cases we do have such information – when the coinage is fairly recent and can be pinned down to a particular writer's work. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep per above. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep Jberkel 01:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Delete as visual noise placed on definition lines behind definitions, adding very little value to the main use case of a dictionary. Those who want to know the date of the first quotation should look at quotations, whether in the mainspace or in Citations: namespace. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Keep - as argued above. "plagiarized from sources like the OED" - if it's not a copyvio, it's not a problem. sources should be properly cited, but the OED doesn't "own" the research; word origins/1st known useage are facts, whoever looked it up. intellectual property is bad, but it's not that bad. yet. when ip gets that bad, it's time for the revolution... :p Lx 121 (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Kept.msh210℠ on a public computer 13:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

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. [3] [4] [5] [6] ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018Edit

Appendix:Russian prefixesEdit

(Notifying Atitarev, Benwing2, Cinemantique, Useigor, Wanjuscha, Wikitiki89, Stephen G. Brown, Guldrelokk, Fay Freak, Tetromino):

Obsolete, redundant with CAT:Russian prefixes. Per utramque cavernam 23:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

OK to delete, IMO. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Completely redundant in this form. Delete. Guldrelokk (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Keep. Currently this page doesn't show any advantages (definitions, synonyms, antonyms, ...) but it can be improved.—Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


Hardly used. Where it is used it appears to be a hard to spot typo for {{l}}. If someone is actively using this for its intended purpose (substing) it should be moved to a better name. DTLHS (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I was about to comment at Wiktionary:Grease_pit/2018/December#Capitalise that a template like this would be useful, especially one that didn't need to be subst:ed. I agree it should be renamed if kept, or we could just create a template from scratch that didn't need subst:ing...Template:capitalize with a redirect from the short form Template:cap? - -sche (discuss) 00:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Rename as suggested by -sche. Personally I’m not sure it saves much time, but the Grease Pit discussion suggests some editors would find it useful. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep because I started using it and found it useful. --Pious Eterino (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • How can you tell, DTLHS, that it's "hardly used", when its documentation says it must be substed? Keep the useful template; note that the GP discussion linked above actually shows an editor seeking just this template! so it obviously is useful. That said, I wouldn't object to a change in name ({{subst:cap}}, I guess) if this one is confusing, so long as the deletion summary indicates the new name so people looking for it at the old page can find it.​—msh210 (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
It is obviously "hardly used" because it has a stupid name that nobody even knew existed as evidenced by the GP discussion. DTLHS (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Appendix:Goethe-Zertifkat A1/A2Edit

Is it a copyvio?

--Brown*Toad (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I spurn this legal opinion “Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich geschützt.” The list does not seem to be a persönliche geistige Schöpfung (the rather high threshold of originality requirement in the law of the FRG) nor can I characterize anything as Datenbank which would give it fiveteen years protection from publication. Fay Freak (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019Edit

Appendix:List of Proto-Indo-European rootsEdit

@Ivan Štambuk, Rua et al, I am again recommending this page for deletion as I think we've surpassed the need for it and its subpages, such as Appendix:List of Proto-Indo-European roots/bʰ. They now just house unsourced and incomplete reconstructions and detract people from Category:Proto-Indo-European roots, superseding it in Google search. --{{victar|talk}} 19:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Inclined to delete. Unless someone is really prepared to work on it and turn it into something reliable and truly useful... But I'm always reading about vague plans, "should" and "could" with that sort of appendices. Per utramque cavernam 00:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong KEEP it's not unsourced, & the usefulness is obvious. if it does get deleted, sooner or later we're going to end-up RE-creating it. which wastes time & effort duplicating work that we have already done. the fact that it needs work is not sufficient grounds to delete. tag it for the needed work/problems, if you don't feel like working on it yourself. renamed it if that help you to feel better about it. respectfully, the nominator lost the debate last time, because it was a bad idea. that hasn't changed & we should not be having this "do-over". it would be more useful to spend the time fixing the article. 11:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
& a category-page is not a substitute for an article-page that properly explains the subject. Especially for end-users. Which is who & what WiktiCategory:Proto-Indo-European rootsonary is for. 11:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
AND they don't even all (549) fit on one category page (@ 200/page). So an end-user has to flip pages to find what they're looking for. & that tiny little alphabetic widget-thing @ the top of the page is NOT an adequate tool for the purpose, not for end-users. Not good enough/not good design. 12:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment - is it worth mentioning here that a couple of editors (including the nominator for deletion user:victar) are now/currently persistently stripping the article to a "bare-minimum" state, without explanation, or discussion on the talkpage, in spit of repeated invitation to do so. See page history ( 18:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Burn it with fire. It is redundant, always lags behind the entries, and is generally a trash heap of bad etymologizing. With regard to @ complaints:
    1. These appendices do not have sources. The 4–8 meager sources found at the bottom of AP:List of Proto-Indo-European roots neither contain the majority of this information nor say which items actually come from which source.
    2. They actually explain less accurately than the entries and are just as hard, if not harder, to find in the structure of en.Wikt for the end-users than the category pages themselves (categories have many links to them, but appendices have very few).
    3. As to the "stripping the article" AP:List of Proto-Indo-European roots, the information is all on subpages. Concatenating full articles redundantly is not the practice of en.Wikt, nor should it be, both because it is unnecessary informationally and in terms of server overhead.
    4. As for the notion that we should have them so users can look up the word for cow in PIE, this is not the way in which en.Wikt works. We could conceivably add translations for reconstructed languages to translation tables in the mainspace, but it is not our practice to provide wordlists for languages. Furthermore, I suspect the demand for English-to-PIE lookups is vanishingly small, and this is not the best way to slake this mildest of thirsts.
    5. Most of all, these appendices have always been a place for IP's to put in ill-formatted, ill-researched, and ill-understood ramblings. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 19:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
"As for the notion that we should have them so users can look up the word for cow in PIE, this is not the way in which en.Wikt works." - Perhaps it should be? The number of users who actually use Wiktionary, compared to Wikipedia, is "vanishingly small", & Wikt has not achieved anything like a comparable level of success or presence as an online dictionary (when compared to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia). Wikt entries for word definition, spelling, etymology, etc. are not the top Google-search result, often they're not even close. Urban Dictionary gets ranked higher than Wikt. So clearly we are not doing something right here. & funny, I don't have trouble finding those roots in the sources. Which roots in particular are you claiming "are not there"? For my response re: end-user utility, see my comments above & below.
Howso "unmaintainable"? "Maintaining" the material on Wiktionary is part of our job. How is it any different for this page? Are new PIE roots being created every day & we have no hope of keeping up with them all? Please explain. 22:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, now replaced by the category. Fay Freak (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up - & now the page has been "protected", by Mahāgaja (see above), "to stop edit-warring". The user has "protected" the page in stripped-down form, & then voted to delete it. Nice one. Crap like that is why I do not spend my time working here. And nobody has yet explained how it is "easier" or "better" to make end-users hunt through 3 pages of category-listings to find the thing that they want, rather than to have it all on one page? #goodluckwiththat 22:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out that the reverting editors keep mindlessly removing the link to Category:Proto-Indo-European roots, & leaving in place a key-list of language-name abbreviations that is pointless without the charts that they keep removing. Clearly they have made a detailed, careful, thoughtful review before acting here. 22:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I find your way of writing exceedingly annoying (especially your frequent recourse to italics and bolding). Are you being grating on purpose? Per utramque cavernam 23:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@Per utramque cavernam I don't the IP is trying to be annoying. I think they're simply upset at the page being locked down (I might be, too, if I were in their shoes ...) and feels strongly about keeping the page. I see the reasons why someone might want the page kept, it's just that it's difficult to keep it maintained. Benwing2 (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment - That's the second time somebody has said the page is "hard to maintain". * i am not clear on why? PIE is a dead language. how hard is it to keep a list of roots "current"? maybe once a year somebody could look @ what's been published on the subject? & if it really bothers somebody about the sources, they could annotate items as *Pokorny/deprecated/whatever. & we could collapse the sections for each root, as is done commonly on wikipedia articles now. 01:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
A root in a reconstructed language is a theoretical construct, a model based on data and analysis from multiple sources, many of which are inaccessible to most people. It's not uncommon for details to be discovered to be incorrect as information becomes accessible over the years, and as people have time to look into the specifics. In addition, you have people constantly making changes, and not everyone knows what they're doing or is completely honest, so someone has to check those edits. With a reconstruction entry, everything about that reconstruction is on that page, and the references are specific to that item. Having an appendix also covering the same material means making sure that changes to the reconstruction entries are reflected in the appendix, and vice versa, and rummaging though the general references for the appendix to find the relevant parts to check against. The appendix simply can't contain all of the information in the reconstruction entries and still be usable, so most of the detail work happens in the entries, and most of the clueless amateur work happens in the appendix, where it's more convenient if you want to work on several things at once. In effect, you're doubling the amount of work by having two places to watch. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment - & of those 2 things, a list is more convenient & useful for end-users. & it's not "effectively doubling the work". How hard is it to copy & paste the content? Or to watchlist & revert? (& it's not like we have vast numbers of noob editors to babysit on this project...) Lx 121 (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The page is only semi-protected, so all autoconfirmed users can edit it. I've reverted it to the anon's preferred version (the long version) so people can compare. But my vote remains Delete for either version. —Mahāgaja · talk 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong KEEP This very useful material, and it is convenient for the casual user. It is a good starting point for more informed users. It largely conforms to Rix LIV and Mallory & Adams. The complaint seems largely unfounded, and as noted earlier if it were deleted we would need to replace it. It is FAR more efficient to continue up grading it (which is, after all, the very nature of historical linguistics) than to delete it and wait for some imaginary perfect solution. -talk 20:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    Are you the same person as You seem to match their style, so I want to tell you that voting twice in the same RFD is very bad form. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No, I am not that person and I have not voted before. But I did read that post and I very much agree. All those points are quite valid. I believe my point about the evolutionary of our understanding of PIE is distinct here so far. - talk 20:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • "No, I am not that person": I don't believe you. ChignonПучок 23:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I ran a check, and there's no suggestion of any connection as far as I can tell. The checkuser tool isn't 100% foolproof, of course, but everything points to a different device editing from a completely different location. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
        • All right. If I'm mistaken, I'm sorry and I apologise. ChignonПучок 17:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge, Per utramque cavernam, Victar: So are we ready to delete these now? There seems to be a majority. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 23:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Fine by me. (I'm PUC) ChignonПучок 23:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
A simple majority is not consensus. Valid points have been raised; we're talking about removing something that is useful to readers/end-users, & replacing it with nothing. Scanning long, multi-page category pages (@ 200 items per page, with dodgy ordering) is NOT user-friendly. Nor is having to click each item, to go to a new page, just to get basic information about it. Talk about "doubling the effort", for end-users that's a hell of a lot more than "doubling" their required efforts. Lx 121 (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I am going to begin deleting these pages. There is a strong majority of reliable editors for deletion, and the counterarguments for deletion all wrongly suppose that en.Wikt should provide word lists to users, which is not our practice as they are unfeasible to maintain accurately. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 21:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:German superseded forms (or German superseded spellings after moving its content)Edit

There were only four pages in this category, which all belonged to German superseded spellings (72 pages). I moved them there, so it's empty now.

In fact, the other categories in Category:Superseded forms by language are all named "forms" so the ideal solution would be to move all pages in "…spellings" into "…forms", in which case the "…spellings" category could be deleted. If it's done, the template that uses this category would need a little change too.

Thanks, Adam78 (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019Edit

Category:Pagename-based auto-fill-in templatesEdit

All the templates in this category (but not those in any subcategory). These date to when I was patrolling Special:WantedCategories by hand, and we didn't have the extensive Lua infrastructure we have now. They were basically shortcuts that I would subst to save some typing, and I was also experimenting with ways to automate things (tcez1, in fact, was a sort of a crude proof-of-concept for the idea that Rua eventually developed into {{auto cat}}).

Now that we have {{auto cat}} and Special:WantedCategories is being patrolled by a bot, these are obsolete. I haven't checked all of them, so there might be one or two that might be worth saving, but I doubt it. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:cite-video gameEdit

This template had gone unused for 10 years and I see no practical use for it. --{{victar|talk}} 16:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Worth merging into {{cite-av}}? — SGconlaw (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I would say no. I think the direct use of {{cite-meta}} should be revisited, but that's for another discussion. --{{victar|talk}} 18:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Personally I don't think this should be merged into {{cite-av}}; it seems too different as there's no actors, episodes, etc. If anything, we might need {{quote-video game}}, e.g. for use by Template:RQ:YGO FRM, which currently abuses {{quote-book}} for this purpose. {{cite-video game}} seems less useful, but if we create {{quote-video game}} we might want to keep it for parallelism. Benwing2 (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Should we be encouraging people to quote video games by creating {{quote-video game}}? From a durability point of view I suppose they are on par with films and TV programmes … — SGconlaw (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
What, so we can have another unused template? If someone found a need for it, it would have probably would have been created by now. --{{victar|talk}} 04:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking of {{RQ:YGO FRM}} that is essentially a video game quotation template. It is currently used to provide quotes for three entries, but it seems to me that the entries could be easily attested by quotations from more traditional sources such as books and journals. — SGconlaw (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Or, it was uncreated and no one wanted to go through the hassle of making it? There is no doubt in my mind that we have quotes from video games that do not use a quote- template. Even {{quote-book}} is often shunned in favor of plain text. —Suzukaze-c 01:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c: so you think we should create that quotation template? — SGconlaw (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:English words prefixed with terti-Edit

Same as sext-. —Rua (mew) 10:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

You need to empty the category before it can be deleted. DonnanZ (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Categories are RFDed based on whether they should exist, not whether deletion is technically possible. They should be emptied out only after the RFD process has led to a deletion decision, not before. —Rua (mew) 16:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Delete. My statement is still correct, however. DonnanZ (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but not relevant at this moment, not to mention obvious. —Rua (mew) 16:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep — One, every word in the category is an English word.  Two, every word in the category has the prefix terti-allixpeeke (talk) 12:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
It was created as a wanted category, but regarding it as a prefix could be a false assumption; tertiary comes from Latin tertiarius for example. "English words beginning with terti-" is perhaps technically correct, but I'm not sure that we cater for that. DonnanZ (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Yep. If you take away the "terti-", you get *parous, *ary and *ate which are really the suffixes -parous, -ary and -ate. That would be like analyzing watery as the "prefix" *water- + *y. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I suspect the etymology for tertiparous should read Latin tertius +‎ -parous. DonnanZ (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Delete per proponent. Per utramque cavernam 16:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

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; errors): 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)

Wiktionary:Main Page/Redesign 2006Edit

Old; irrelevant. DCDuring (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it will please @Dangherous for this page to be deleted. - TheDaveRoss 19:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
There are incoming links. Why delete? At the very least, userfy and fix the links. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Why waste time fixing anything? It's dead. It has joined the choir invisible. All of the junk that we retain clogs up one or more special pages, this one clogs up wanted pages because of the redlinks. If it isn't junk, someone should say why. DCDuring (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
It seems like you are contradicting yourself: this isn't currently on any report from a special page but introducing redlinks will put it on one... Why is that a good thing? —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I’d say see whether there are elements worth importing to the current Main Page (the quick alphabetic links look interesting), remove links from other pages to it, then delete it. Do the same for other Main Page experiments (I think there are a few, like "Wiktionary:Main Page/Old 2007" and "Wiktionary:Main Page/Old versions"). — SGconlaw (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:en-ing form ofEdit

@Dan Polansky, DCDuring, Purplebackpack89, Mahagaja, Erutuon, I'm so meta even this acronym I'd like to revisit this and propose deleting it. It was RFD'd previously Mar 2014 - Jan 2017, and the consensus was "keep" with low turnout and a split vote. In the intervening two years absolutely nothing has happened with this template and it's used on exactly ZERO mainspace pages. For that reason alone I feel I can probably just speedy-delete it, but since it passed a previous RFD I'd like to make sure others are OK with deleting it. It can trivially be recreated if needed. Benwing2 (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I probably would've ignored this discussion if not pinged, but I stand by the reasons younger me had for keeping it. At the very least it should be redirected to a template that does the same thing. Purplebackpack89 04:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I also agree with what I said three years ago. Rather than deleting this, we should use a bot to put it on all English -ing forms instead of {{present participle of|lang=en}}, since English -ing forms are not only present participles, they are also gerunds. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd be interested to know how many 21st century entry-level grammars and ESL/EFL texts use participle, rather than merely mention the term and put it in a glossary.
The term participle gives short shrift to gerund use of the term formed by adding "ing" to the base form of the verb. Any -ing form can be used as adjective, uncountable noun, and a component of progressive/continuous aspect of verbs. (I don't think it is always possible to use an ing-form as a countable noun, eg, ?cookings, ?freezings, ?snowings, ?drivings, though such use may just be rare for some verbs.) CGEL argues forcefully that there is little to distinguish participle/adjectives and gerund/nouns, not only in form, but also in syntactic properties. (The argument is in the chapter "Non-finite and verbless clauses" §4.3. CGEL refers to the form as gerund-participle, which has the advantage of preserving the connection with the classically derived terms, but presupposes knowledge of those terms.
To me the question is when we should switch from displaying "present participle" to displaying "ing-form". DCDuring (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know which CGEL you're talking about, but I'm astonished that they say there is little to distinguish present participles from gerunds "in syntactic properties". In Singing makes you happy, singing can only be a gerund, while in I gave the singing boy a dollar it can only be a participle. I'm not in favor of displaying "ing-form"; I prefer the current wording "present participle and gerund". It's really only an etymological coincidence that the two forms have become homonymous for all verbs in English. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
There is no question but that there are functional differences at a gross level. It is in complement selection and structure that there is no difference in most cases. I leave it to them to try to convince you. The CGEL I always cite is the Cambridge one, more recent by 17 years than the Longman one. But the Longman CGEL doesn't make the distinction either.
I don't really see the point of entrenching word history when it is no longer relevant to English grammar and is unhelpful to most language learners. Those who like linguistic history or are interested in comparing English to other languages which have gerunds and/or participles and distinct forms thereof can surely manage to deal with the -ing-form display. I don't see why their views should be imposed on all language learners, including those whose first language doesn't have participles or gerunds or confusingly applies the terms to words or forms with different functions. DCDuring (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't much care whether we display only "present participle" or "present participle and gerund", but I don't much like "-ing form". Benwing2 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
How about gerund-participle (CambridgeGEL) or -ing participle (ComprehensiveGEL)? DCDuring (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd be OK with "gerund-participle" but "-ing participle" doesn't sound much better than "-ing form", and worse than "present participle". I actually think that "active participle" is significantly better than "present participle" because English has two simple participles, ending in -ing and -ed, which are both either present or tenseless participles but differ in being active vs. passive. They can both be made into specifically past participles viz. "having killed" (active), "having been killed" (passive). Benwing2 (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Passivization in English is attributable to the use of be. DCDuring (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
In any event {{en-ing form}} is intended to be shorter for typing than what is displayed. Please give my arthitic fingers a break. DCDuring (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I like gerund–participle best. It provides a bridge from the older terminology ("this is a form that subsumes what is traditionally known as the gerund and the present participle") and suggests that there is similarity between some uses of the gerund–participle form and those of the past participle. -Ing participle seems like a misnomer because some uses of the gerund–participle are not participle-like at all, but nounlike. -Ing form would be my second choice. At least it describes the morphology of the form. — Eru·tuon 18:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with gerund-participle as the display. What should the name of the template and, especially, its redirects be? I'd like one redirect to be [{temp|ing-form}} because its short.
That still leaves with with the not-so-appropriate PoS, to wit, "Verb". "Participle" would be more accurate and would also work for the -ed forms which can be both verbs and adjectives. DCDuring (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep and use it instead of {{present participle of}} for all entries. English does have a gerund, that's a fact, and it is clearly distinct from the present participle in function. —Rua (mew) 13:20, 29 April 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)

Category:Quenya lemmasEdit

This language as a whole does not meet our inclusion criteria, so there should not be any entries for it. Languages should not be left "in limbo", disallowed but still allowed. Either delete it or make it a real language. Appendix is not a place for dictionary entries, and it's disingenuous to hide them there "out of sight of CFI". —Rua (mew) 18:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep for now. There needs to be a formal vote on this, rather than picking at it one language at a time. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:44, 21 March 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)

Category:en:Polymer scienceEdit

I'm guessing we don't want this category. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz. Do we have a suitable alternative category for the two members? DCDuring (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Why bother? It seems overly specialized, and after 5 1/2 years it has only two entries- both of which are already in Category:en:Organic chemistry. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Old Polish terms with secondary nasalizationEdit

Created by @Hergilei. Is this a useful category that could hold many more entries? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

We might need some finer categories in our Chemistry categories, but this wouldn't seem to be the right wording for the category names. DCDuring (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Ancient Greek irregular neuter nounsEdit

@Erutuon, {{grc-noun}} seems to be adding this category, but it should add Category:Ancient Greek irregular nouns instead. We don't normally categorise irregular nouns by gender in Greek or Latin. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: It is probably overkill. The module currently generates categories for each combination of gender and declension, even for irregular nouns ("irregular declension"). There's not much point in separating irregular nouns by gender. The same entries can be found by searching for entries that appear in the gender category and the irregular nouns category. I'd prefer to get rid of gender-and-declension categories and categorize by inflection patterns, like -ος vs. -ον in the second declension. — Eru·tuon 04:33, 31 March 2019 (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)

Template:agent noun ofEdit

This is used in several languages, but the motivation is the same. Again, this template is used either by itself or in combination with real definitions, and again, in diff a real definition was substituted for a meaningless "agent noun" definition. The original definitions should be restored where possible. —Rua (mew) 21:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Ping @Lo Ximiendo who is the editor who added it to pages. —Rua (mew) 17:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:verbal noun ofEdit

Again, like the above. "Verbal noun" is not a well-defined concept anyway, and we are not in the habit of defining nouns derived from verbs like in shortening. Instead, a full definition and etymology is provided since they are considered lemmas of their own. —Rua (mew) 21:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Not all languages work like English. Several languages have forms conventionally called "verbal nouns". Arabic is an example; every verb has one or more associated verbal nouns, which function somewhat as infinitives (Arabic has no infinitives as such). These verbal nouns are listed in dictionaries next to the verb, because you need them in many syntactic constructions. I'm really not sure what you would replace them with if you removed this template. Benwing2 (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Arabic rarely uses this template (see the census below), so it must use {{ar-verbal noun of}} almost exclusively. {{ar-verbal noun of}} has the |form= parameter, which makes it harder to convert to {{verbal noun of}}. — Eru·tuon 07:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I take it that, for English the idea of having "verbal noun" as a definition of an -ing-form of an English verb is that it thereby includes all current and future definitions of the verb lemma. As we put "present participle" alone as a definition under the Verb PoS, there is no explicit acknowledgment that -ing-forms can be used as nouns (eg, 'these belated shortenings of [] '). This notion applies to all English -ing-forms of verbs. In fact, the two English uses of the template in question also put shortening and blottoing in Category:English verbal nouns with some 90 members.
IMO, for English, the underlying issue would need to be addressed before we could take any action that would limit uses of this template and the category in English. If verbal noun is a term that is well defined as it applies in any language, as the census table below suggests that it does, then the template should be kept. Whether we should have the template throw an error message for languages for which we assert that the 'verbal noun' concept does not apply is a separate matter, linked to whether the corresponding categories should be deleted.
If this complicates our template/module practice, so much the worse for our uniformitarian template/module/category architecture. At least the module data tables allow for the complexity, though I wonder how much of the module's memory is consumed by invoking the tables. DCDuring (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
If verbal nouns are a well-defined inflection of verbs in some languages, then it might be ok to keep it. However, I have noticed that many entries, even in Irish and Arabic, give additional idiomatic definitions alongside the verbal noun definition. They are also categorised as noun lemmas in those languages, not as verb forms. That suggests to me that they are still derivational rather than inflectional. The fact that Irish has more than 10 different ways to make a verbal noun again suggests that this is word derivation, not inflection. —Rua (mew) 21:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
For all stems except the base stem, with rare exceptions that are still regular (I only know تَجْفَاف(tajfāf) from جَفَّفَ(jaffafa) and تَكْرَار(takrār) from كَرَّرَ(karrara), normally form II has the verbal noun taKLīM but a few geminate verbs deviate), all verbal nouns of the stems II and higher are utterly predictable. For base stems they are usually too depending on the meaning and the past vowel: transitive verbs with the pattern KaLaMa are likely to have the verbal noun of the pattern KaLM, even if other forms also exist (for example كِتَابَة(kitāba) is normally the verbal noun of كَتَبَ(kataba) but كَتْب(katb) is understood too), verbs of the pattern KaLiMa that have a meaning that would be or is the passive of a transitive verb with the measure KaLaMa are likely to have the verbal noun form KaLaM. But not even plurals are wholly predictable. This shows that the predictability or the different ways to form certain needed forms does not say anything about their categorization.
It does not need to be a “well-defined concept”. It is a lexicographical device to refer to “all current and future definitions of the verb lemma”, since that’s the point, that these forms stay linked to the verb meanings, may they have additional idiomatic meanings or not. The link is there in all the languages I know: Arabic with you know what, the forms that are given in the conjugation tables, German with -en or -ung (the former related to a more concrete or singular act and the latter to procedures), English with -ing, Latin with -tiō, its descendants also or by a clipping with a minor added vowel (Spanish rechazo for Spanish rechazar, Spanish toque for Spanish tocar), Slavic especially *-nьje and some specialized minor ones.
Grammatically Arabic verbal nouns accept accusative objects and genitivus objectivus, the analogous in English, while Slavic, Latin, German only take genitivus objectivus, by I don’t think this distinction is relevant here.
As a side note, the etymology is not relevant either for the categorization: The verbal noun may be formed from the verb or the verb be denominal.
I note a false dichotomy that being a “lemma” entails having own definitions, or in a compulsion to shed “derivation” and “inflection”. But it must not be like that we either attach forms like an appendage to “true, full” entries or cut any knot: this sacrifices reality for schematism, with little gain – not even for the dogmatics, for who told you that derivation and inflection aren’t ambiguous in languages? You see, it’s even in English ambiguous and at the same time something that one would not care about for anything.
Now I see why I {{perfective form of}}/{{imperfective form of}} has been deprecated, it is for the same reason while not being “not well-defined”, which I would have had difficulties to agree with. It would have been better to recognize that one item of such a pair is not “form of” but it still would be wise to refer from one to the other in the meaning. These forms live and die together, while they can as well live separately or only represent a part of the other (like пере́ть (perétʹ) which has different perfective forms according to sense). Fay Freak (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Fay Freak It isn't a false dichotomy if you understand what the categories of "lemma" and "non-lemma" mean in the first place. A lemma is the kind of form you'd expect to find in the average dictionary, along with a definition. A non-lemma is a form that isn't given its own entry, but is instead grouped with the lemma it belongs to. Another way to see the split is between independent and dependent. An inflection can't exist without the verbal paradigm it belongs to, whereas a derivation can exist independent of other lemmas. If a verbal noun has a sense that it does not share with its verb, then that sense is its own noun, because it's independent from the verb. But the verbal noun itself is still dependent, attached to the verb, so the verb form and the noun are distinct. Moreover, a key difference between inflection and derivation is whether the category is optional or required.
@Rua This is exactly where the average dictionary is ambiguous, the nominalizations being mentioned in varying fashion, variously headword-like.
Be it so that a sense makes an own noun, it would mean that only because of this we would have two headers, two times “Noun“, from which the reader does not benefit. We might use a headword template that categorizes both as lemma and non-lemma. But this has nothing do with whether the definitions should have “verbal noun of”. The definitions and their organization shall not be based on how one will categorize them. So no, T:verbal noun of can’t be deleted. I disown the notion that because “a sense” “is a lemma” or “a non-lemma” we can’t refer to other senses to define it – {{synonym of}} is also handy, just by the way. You are committing a great paralogism here exemplified by your utterance “sense is its own noun”: Nay obviously, a sense is not a noun, this confuses subjects and predicates fundamentally. There are nouns and we see senses in them (hence their “senses”, because humans sense them), and the senses of one form might be either independent of another term, or wholly dependent on it as a mere inflexion, or loosely dependent on it. The lexicograph can tell people how usage is without deciding whether something is “derivation” or “inflexion“, or “enclitic” or whatever, however nice there is a distinction in principle. I don’t know or don’t think what a form like عَلَيْهِ(ʿalayhi, to him, to it) with so-called “pronominal suffix” is dogmatically but I know without this that nouns with these personal suffixes should not be included. For other things one knows that they should be included and how to gloss them but wits not how they should be classified or related to other terms: but one knows what is economical, knows a good effort-information ratio. The question for including or writing something is always: Will it provide essential information rather than just be expensive? Be it that the distinction is imprecise in this matter, so is language, and still if this is bad it does not follow that we can’t gloss this way. Semantics trumps grammar. The distinction has also nothing to do with predictability and lexicalization: it can vary by language and in a language what one has to memorize or if there are special forms that one has to know, with varying degrees of predictability. Fay Freak (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mahagaja Would a verb without a verbal noun in the Goidelic languages be considered defective, or is that a normal state of affairs? @Benwing2 The same question but for Arabic. That's not a rhetorical question, it's something I'd actually like to know because it's important in deciding whether to call these lemmas or non-lemmas. Based on the model of English gerunds, the standard treatment of such cases is to use the Verb heading for inflections, which are part of the verbal paradigm and whose sense is tied to the verb, and the Noun heading alongside that Verb heading for cases where a verb form has developed special senses that do not arise from the verb. If verbal nouns in these languages are inflectional, then this is the precedent we should follow for them. —Rua (mew) 22:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@Rua: Of the verbs in CAT:Irish defective verbs, only ar(sa) and feadair don't have verbal nouns; the others do. (The fact that Irish is doesn't have a verbal noun is one of the many reasons why syntacticians, unlike language teachers, consider it a particle and not a verb, not even a defective one.) So even defective verbs tend to have verbal nouns; and nondefective ones always do. On the other hand, there are some verbs, like caint and magadh, that exist only as verbal nouns and have no finite forms. I do agree that from a purely morphological point of view, Goidelic verbal nouns are probably derivational rather than inflectional, but for speakers (both L1 and L2) the verbal noun is still an essential part of the paradigm, so you might say that they are "semantically inflectional" while being morphologically derivational. If you want to delete {{verbal noun of}} to reduce the overall number of form-of templates, then that's okay, as long as I'm still allowed to use {{inflection of|...|verbal noun}}. (Incidentally, the verbal noun is just as essential in Brythonic languages as in Goidelic ones; the reason there are no Brythonic languages in the table below is that for Brythonic languages we use the verbal noun as the lemma.) Lower Sorbian is in the list too; in that language verbal nouns are definitely inflectional and clearly part of the paradigm. As for the other languages I know in the table below, we can IMO eliminate "verbal noun" as a category for German, English, and French. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
We can keep the template if they are indeed a verb inflection for Goidelic. I'm not sure about the need for categorising them, though, but that is part of my suspicion of categorising non-lemmas in general. I don't find Category:Irish verbal nouns particularly useful, anymore than something like Category:Irish first-person singular present indicative forms would. More pressing, though, is that verbal nouns aren't in Category:Irish verb forms, when they clearly should be. I'm also not sure how to deal with an entry like atriail. Given a strict separation of lemmas and nonlemmas, there would not be a "verbal noun of" sense here at all, because the verbal noun would be treated as a verb form and thus gets a Verb header and not a Noun header. On the other hand, verbal nouns have noun inflections and even genders, and it would be somewhat redundant to have two sections with the same inflections, one for the verbal noun and one for the remaining senses. But it still does not sit right with me that we treat verbal nouns as lemmas, when they are also a part of the verbal paradigm. Looking at English participles gerunds as an example, we don't have nouns defined with {{gerund of}} either, nor do we have adjectives defined with {{past participle of}}. Instead, whenever there are senses that are separate from the verb, they receive their own header, while those belonging to the verb get Verb. But that doesn't work as neatly with languages where verbal inflections can have genders and inflections, not just Irish but also Dutch and German. I'm not sure what to do here, and the discussion in WT:BP about gerunds stalled with no useful conclusion. I would like situations like this to have a standard treatment that fits many languages. —Rua (mew) 10:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I think verbal nouns are similar to participles in being in sort of simultaneously lemmas and nonlemmas, and we do have categories like CAT:Dutch past participles and CAT:Dutch present participles, as well as CAT:Dutch participle forms, and I think we should keep them. So I don't think we can commit to "a strict separation of lemmas and nonlemmas" anyway. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Census of language codes
in {{verbal noun of}}
language code count
ar 3
bg 5
de 4
dsb 18
en 2
fo 1
fr 1
ga 660
gd 506
gv 442
ha 2
he 3
jaa 1
ka 17
mga 4
oge 3
pl 1203
sga 63
sh 10
te 99
tr 9
xmf 1

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)

Wiktionary:About IndonesianEdit

No useful content. The one example given does not correspond with reality. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Keep. There is a bit of useful content, and the one example can easily be fixed, as I am about to do. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:19, 27 May 2019 (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)

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)


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)


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


No longer used, but potentially confusing (I saw that it was failing lots of testcases and didn't notice that it wasn't even relevant). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Appendix:English terms where 'ch' sounds as 'sh'Edit

Seems pretty redundant given that we have appendix:List of English words with "ch" pronounced as /ʃ/. Personally I’d turn this into a redirect. — (((Romanophile))) (contributions) 23:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Romanophile In my opinion, actually, the nominated appendix actually seems to be laid out more nicely than the original appendix. Perhaps we could perform a merge rather than a full-on deletion? 22:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Seconded. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2019 (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)

Male and Female categoriesEdit

Category:Female nationalitiesEdit

Category:Male nationalitiesEdit

Category:Female artistsEdit

Category:Male artistsEdit

Category:Female athletesEdit

Category:Male athletesEdit

Category:Female demonymsEdit

Category:Male demonymsEdit

Category:Female healthcare occupationsEdit

Category:Male healthcare occupationsEdit

Category:Female musiciansEdit

Category:Male musiciansEdit

Category:Female occupationsEdit

Category:Male occupationsEdit

Category:Female peopleEdit

Category:Male peopleEdit

Category:Female scientistsEdit

Category:Male scientistsEdit


and a number of other "Male" and "Female" categories, apparently all created by User:Hergilei

These are misnamed: they're really masculine and feminine forms of various categories of nouns- there's really nothing in these that isn't covered by the corresponding categories without "Male" and "Female" in their names. In the languages I've looked at, the members for the "Male" category are the lemmas, and the members of the "Female" category are in the headword lines as feminine forms. These aren't anything lexically interesting like boar and sow or king and queen, just predictable products of their languages' gender morphology.

I think these have escaped notice because they have no English-specific categories, with the exception of Category:en:Female people, which only contains a single Old English entry. For some reason, the "Female" categories have been added to the modules, while the "Male" ones seem to all be in Category:Categories with invalid label. I'm sure there's a lesson in that about gender attitudes, but "Male" and "Female" are both equally useless and should both be deleted. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

These two definitely need renaming at least, and maybe deletion as well, but there other Male/Female categories I do think are helpful, such as CAT:Male family members and CAT:Female family members. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Point taken. I've now spelled out all of the ones I'm actually nominating. Also, there may be a few legitimate members in a couple of these, along the lines of king and queen, but they can be transferred to Category:Male and Category:Female. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete. I don't think they should be named "masculine" and "feminine", because these are semantic categories and so they should be categorised by the referent rather than the word. If we really do consider these to be grammatical genders, there's nothing in principle against categories for neuter words in any of these categories, in languages that might have them. Consider that Category:ang:Neuter family members could contain at least wīf, after all. So it's better to consider them as natural genders and keep the names "male" and "female". —Rua (mew) 16:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Julia 02:08, 1 May 2019 (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 (bajarlalaa) (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 (phūla), 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 (phūla). 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)
Yes, if the change is done then delete. It saves work for humans and bots. Fay Freak (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Latin verbs with perfect in -x-Edit

I think this category for Latin verbs can now be deleted. Nothing is in it currently, and any candidates would just be an easily-identifiable subset of the existing non-empty Category:Latin_verbs_with_perfect_in_-s-_or_-x-. But I don't know whether there are any plans for it that I am unaware of.

From a linguistic perspective, perfects in -x- (pronounced [ks]) have no particularly special status as a category compared to perfects in -ps- (pronounced [ps]) or -rs-, -ls-, and so on. The fact that [ks] but not [ps] is spelled with a single letter in Latin is rather arbitrary. All of these kinds of perfects have [s] in common, so I think a single category for them is sufficient.--Urszag (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Agree. I can't think of any special meaning this could have either. DeleteEru·tuon 05:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Sure, deleteFay Freak (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Nonsensical Latin formsEdit

(Notifying Metaknowledge, Fay Freak): These probably fall under speedy deletion rules but I want to ask a few questions related to them. I noticed a bunch of nonsensical Latin forms created by User:SemperBlotto's bot. The list is as follows (all of them end in -iorbus, which should properly be -ioribus):

Click to show or hide list
Page 2148589 gratiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2148667 graviorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2148729 horridiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2148775 humaniorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2148822 humiliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2155365 illustriorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2156044 impeditiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2163234 incautiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2163520 indiligentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2163676 inertiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2163693 inferiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2163814 infirmiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2163991 iniquiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2164817 insolentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2166703 intolerantiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2167156 inusitatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2168168 iuniorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2168176 juniorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2168394 latiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2168435 leniorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2168447 leviorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2168458 libentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2168476 liberiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2168589 longinquiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2168599 longiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2168918 maturiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2168982 miseriorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2172253 notiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2174687 opulentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2175549 paratiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2175696 patentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2179545 potentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2179769 potiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2183554 propiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2184981 quietiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2186723 remissiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2189374 secundiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2191882 superiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2193350 tardiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2193415 temperatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2193807 timidiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2194284 tumultuosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2194435 tutiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2194981 ulteriorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2195221 vehementiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2217691 prolixiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2222474 honoratiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2223843 nequiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2224372 animaequiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2225472 prudentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2236986 adulescentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2238583 iuveniorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2242126 adtentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2243821 firmiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2246623 pretiosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2250285 sublimiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2250319 utiliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2254077 differentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2255894 penetrabiliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2256048 perfectiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2258275 viciniorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2258875 abundantiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2258918 beatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2259898 excellentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2260105 ignobiliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2261237 miserabiliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2261265 necessariorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2261867 sollicitiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2264984 concisiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2268696 largiiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2268706 largiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2269542 progressiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2269676 robustissimiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2270737 cultiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2270958 hilariorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2271192 propinquiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2282799 decliviorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2301195 planiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2301522 pulchriorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2301809 sapientiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2301834 securiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2311875 nobiliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2312282 pauciorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2325280 pleniorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2327483 eminentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2328570 difficiliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2328729 praeclariorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2333678 proceriorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2339868 amariorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2342215 feliciorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2347707 candidiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2348569 nitidiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2348682 rubicundiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2350050 velociorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2359538 astutiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2360243 ditiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2360289 dulciorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2362694 procliviorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2363356 secretiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2363478 suaviorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2368091 antiquiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2368652 austeriorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2368926 callidiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2369209 celebriorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2374225 crudeliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2374260 curiosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2376584 detestabiliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2382947 faciliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2383567 fragiliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2384416 grossiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2387508 inpeditiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2392238 iustiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2395279 locupletiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2399782 mitiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2399800 mobiliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2400870 obscuriorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2407046 profundiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2407182 promptiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2407905 puriorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2412990 sanctiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2413674 speciosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2414876 subtiliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2416537 superstitiosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2418941 vetustiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2419042 viliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2433692 corpulentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2438553 honestiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2438571 honorabiliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2443603 lucidiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2443642 macilentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2450172 sceleratiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2450183 scelestiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2452477 valentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2452737 verecundiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2453933 apertiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2456693 congruentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2461463 generaliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2465169 solidiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2465254 splendidiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2466242 acceptiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2466292 accuratiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2466381 acutiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2469424 arctiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2469962 attentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2470101 augustiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2470511 calidiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2471358 celsiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2471801 clausiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2471817 clementiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2473427 concinniorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2473835 confusiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2475467 contumaciorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2475716 crassiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2476488 debiliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2477004 delicatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2478060 deteriorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2478834 digniorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2480292 distinctiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2480460 diviniorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2481258 elegantiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2481892 emendatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2482751 exactiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2486554 fusiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2488350 grandiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2488382 habiliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2488971 humidiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2489299 imbecilliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2492279 incitatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2496504 intensiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2498002 justiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2498178 languidiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2498264 laxiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2499231 moderatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2499242 modestiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2499718 molliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2501319 occultiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2501608 opportuniorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2502073 penitiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2502745 perniciorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2503896 porosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2504791 praestantiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2505484 praviorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2506923 proximiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2507560 rariorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2507616 recentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2508682 remotiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2510260 saniorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2510593 severiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2510758 simpliciorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2510776 sinceriorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2511830 solenniorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2511840 sollemniorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2513995 tenaciorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2514092 tenuiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2514925 uberiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2515478 validiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2515798 veriorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2515934 vitiosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2515997 volentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2517169 imperfectiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2518456 acerbiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2519524 editiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2519891 exercitatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2519946 exorabiliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2520416 infestiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2521608 obtusiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2522247 porrectiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2523384 segniorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2523627 suspectusiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2523634 suspectiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2523885 abstrusiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2526130 lubentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2526726 rapidiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2526950 reconditiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2527759 carnosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2527961 contentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2529037 lentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2529066 manifestiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2529395 pressiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2529508 rectiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2542367 ambitiosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2542382 amentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2542869 audentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2543050 blandiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2543871 celebratiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2745619 cunctatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2746963 deductiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2752759 feraciorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2754918 incomptiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2755335 inlustriorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2756371 intolerabiliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2757624 laetiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2758907 morosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2759876 ociorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2759976 ornatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2760088 parciorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2761884 patientiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2762056 pecuniosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2762197 perfidiosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2766941 religiosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2768694 studiosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2770154 tractabiliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2770659 vectigaliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2770773 vinosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2772982 apparatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2773241 artificiosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2773303 atrociorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2773733 calamitosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2773746 capitaliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2773772 captiosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2775060 compositiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2775354 confirmatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2775981 consideratiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2776095 copiosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2776556 cupidiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2778769 dilucidiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2780935 facetiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2781627 familiariorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2781665 fidiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2781803 frigidiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2781855 funestiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2781998 gratiosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2782023 hebetiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2782276 ignaviorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2782449 immaniorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2782575 imperitiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2782649 improbiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2782753 impudentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2783269 indigniorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2783394 ingeniosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2783541 inhumaniorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2783638 inimiciorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2783723 innocentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2783992 inpudentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2784119 insidiosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2784241 instructiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2786055 invidiosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2786340 iucundiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2787426 lectiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2787550 luctuosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2788323 malitiosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2788568 molestiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2789039 obsoletiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2789154 odiosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2789167 officiosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2789487 optatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2791264 pervagatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2792313 placabiliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2793117 pudentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2795417 separatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2795835 similiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2795961 sollertiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2797668 superbiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2798018 tectiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2798512 turpiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2798771 unctiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2800642 vigilantiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2803238 amiciorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2803305 appositiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2803490 attritiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2804069 castiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2805789 importuniorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2806302 magnificentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2807879 solutiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2814983 alieniorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2815375 dilutiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2816256 versutiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2816474 adiunctiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2817142 constantiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2817169 crudiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2817212 defensiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2820199 iniuriosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2820988 liberaliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2821015 nocentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2821528 offensiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2821651 peritiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2821795 probiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2822105 scientiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2822117 sedatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2822637 capillatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2823691 quaestuosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2824077 truculentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2824874 inclementiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2826050 sumptuosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2826560 adrogantiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2826569 arrogantiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2826991 comiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2827001 communiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2827025 coniunctiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2827613 fallaciorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2827794 incertiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2828112 misericordiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2828276 munitiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2829127 propensiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2829500 temperantiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2830851 egentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2831056 inquinatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2833927 desperatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2835035 frequentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2835970 optabiliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2836675 perniciosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2837398 spurciorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2837475 sublatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2837665 verbosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2853319 intemperantiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2853976 iratiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2854679 latebrosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2862831 praestabiliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2866413 violentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2871025 avariorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2871050 contractiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2871452 effusiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2871572 incultiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2871605 infeliciorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2871889 licentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2873771 petulantiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2874580 proterviorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2875260 taetriorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2875579 urbaniorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2876977 argutiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2877075 commendatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2877588 damnatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2878587 dementiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2878598 demissiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2878609 desertiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2879090 enervatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2879118 eruditiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2880074 libidinosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2880148 luxuriosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2881124 sordidiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2883493 incorruptiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2884000 integriorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2884992 admirabiliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2889078 diiunctiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2889087 disiunctiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2889535 erectiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2890027 fideliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2890205 fortunatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2890360 furiosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2890549 gloriosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2890698 impuriorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2891294 inprobiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2891305 inpuriorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2891398 lautiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2892184 oportuniorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2892720 terribiliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2892730 tolerabiliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2893878 iniustiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2895417 cinaediorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2895804 neglegentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2896229 balneariorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2896394 doctiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2896405 ebriosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2896438 expolitiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2896516 ineptiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2896527 infacetiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2897052 maestiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2897069 mundiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2897371 perditiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2897421 rapaciorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2897679 sicciorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2900002 amabiliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2900052 auspicatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2901916 nervosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2902563 pulcriorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2904788 immundiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2904834 pallidiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2908112 fluxiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2908161 inmoderatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2908171 immoderatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2908216 obstinatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2910402 concitatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2911583 depressiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2914460 minutiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2914594 operosiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2915611 perspicaciorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2915684 probabiliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2916207 rigidiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2916799 usitatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2932653 graciliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2973846 echinatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2977431 flaviorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 2989477 spissiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 3250848 caviorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 3650755 onsideratiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 3651288 tiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 3819908 aniorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 3820980 periorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 3821749 insaniorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 3821772 pauperiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 3821782 peiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 3822145 tumultusiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 3836436 beneficentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 3844048 elatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 3844091 inconsideratiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 3854493 vastiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 3879489 testatiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 4801089 esculentiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 4801106 horribiliorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 4801123 impensiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 4801148 pariorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 4801165 putidiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 4801238 turbidiorbus: Languages = Latin
Page 4802044 -iorbus: Languages = Latin

The reason I bring this up here is that some of these are still nonsensical even if you fix the missing i. For example, tumultusiorbus, aniorbus, periorbus, onsideratiorbus, tiorbus. anior doesn't exist but non-lemma forms like aniore, aniores do; similarly, tior doesn't exist as Latin but tioribus does. perior is defined as a Latin noun meaning "disappearance", "death", but this appears to be garbage; the reference given on this page says this is a hypothetical verb (not noun) at the origin of forms like peritus. Another highly questionable form that I happened to notice when looking through the list is balnearior, which is defined as "more associated with baths or bathhouses". I can't find any citations for this outside of Wiktionary, and on top of this, AFAIK, the associated positive form would be balnearius and positives in -ius can't form comparatives in -ior. Another questionable entry is oportunior, which looks misspelled to me. Could I ask the more knowledgeable Latin editors to look through this list and flag the forms that don't correspond to real Latin words? I can then delete the bad forms and related non-lemma forms. Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge, JohnC5, Fay Freak, Word dewd544, Rua, GuitarDudeness, Kc kennylau, I'm so meta even this acronym Sorry for casting a wide net; the workgroup ping above was insufficient and I'm not sure who the active Latin editors are. Benwing2 (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The tumultous-word belongs to tumultuosior, which exists, and there was a typo in the table fixed in diff. The right forms have been created already too. perior (death) does not exist at all and the lemma-form which strangely has non-lemma adjective forms created here needs to be deleted, it is not found in the dictionaries nor texts (only scannos like superior across a line break) nor is it even well-formed, so perior and everything in its table needs to be deleted. Don't know what ānior or tior are supposed to be. onsideratiorbus (also wrong consideratiorbus which you have listed) is cōnsīderātiōribus. In short, just delete everything. Fay Freak (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
For future reference, I'm not a Latin editor. I've done a little bit, and I've worked on Proto-Italic, but on deeper language matters like this I have no clue and no sources. —Rua (mew) 12:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Fay Freak Thanks. What about balnearior? Delete? Benwing2 (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Benwing2 I did not see this but yes, you are right, this cannot exist. Apart from getting no hits this cannot exist a priori. If you have an -ārius adjective this means a loose association which cannot be compared. It might be thinkable with some adjectives with this ending but in general and here this is against the Sprachgefühl. And we know how SemperBlotto often creates pages: See somewhere a scanno or misspelling, or misinterpret something (for example perior is not found in the Gaffiot referenced), soon an entry. Like pesudovirus, bisprectal etc. which are in RFD right now.
oportunior is a somewhat frequent medieval/New Latin spelling or manuscript variant, also the positive oportunus. It might never have been used by the Romans but after antiquity it has been used anyway, sometimes there is such a thing, and it’s okay. We don’t know if calautica or calantica is correct though perhaps only one was. Fay Freak (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, I deleted all the words above, as well as the bogus forms of perior, anior, tior, onsideratior. Any objections to deleting balnearior and non-lemma forms? Benwing2 (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Kill it with fire. If you can think of other ways of finding faulty forms, please go for it, because I suspect there are more waiting out there. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:10, 10 May 2019 (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)


Some unused headword template from 2006. —Suzukaze-c 04:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:ws linkEdit

Only used on four content pages. Redundant to {{syn|xx|Thesaurus:foo}}. —Rua (mew) 20:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Jberkel 22:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:ws pinEdit

No transclusions or even links, no documentation. Seems to have no use. —Rua (mew) 20:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Jberkel 22:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:ws moreEdit

States the obvious... —Rua (mew) 17:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Jberkel 22:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


Rhyme on an unstressed syllable is impossible. None of these words rhyme. —Rua (mew) 12:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


Suzukaze-c 04:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Verb simple past forms by languageEdit

The English category was deleted already, leaving only Scots. Not worth having a category for. —Rua (mew) 10:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


A copy of a template from Wikipedia, used on one citation page. I assume we don't want it, but I'd like to be sure. Potentially of interest to @Sgconlaw.)Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


A stupid template, rendered obsolete by {{place}}. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Speedy delete I don't know how stupid it was but it's definitely not useful now. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
This should be obvious, but it can't be speedily deleted until someone replaces it in the entries. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I replaced all the transclusions; delete. Julia 04:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Appendix:The Divine Comedy/InfernoEdit

Appendix:J. R. R. Tolkien/lembasEdit

Appendix:J. R. R. Tolkien/Middle-earthEdit

Appendix:J. R. R. Tolkien/mûmakEdit

Appendix:The Simpsons/DuffEdit

Appendix:The Simpsons/esquilaxEdit

Appendix:The Simpsons/ShelbyvilleEdit

Appendix:The Simpsons/SpringfieldEdit

Per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-10/Disallowing_certain_appendices: No word from a certain fictional universe should have its own "mainspace like" entry (i.e. only wordlists). I've consolidated any quotations or definitions from the above pages to their main appendix pages. Julia 22:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete all. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete all. Canonicalization (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Equinox 21:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:English false friends for German speakersEdit

This is much better suited to an appendix. Ultimateria (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2019 (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)

June 2019Edit

Unused/underused Latin decl templatesEdit

(Notifying Metaknowledge, Fay Freak): @I'm so meta even this acronym I would like to delete the following:

  1. {{la-decl-1st-1st}}: Unused.
  2. {{la-decl-1st-1st-loc}}: Unused.
  3. {{la-decl-first}}: Unused. A good idea, theoretically, to autodetect the subvariant, but I'd like to redo all the Latin declension templates using a single {{la-decl-noun}} template that also autodetects the subvariant.
  4. {{la-decl-first-loc}}: Unused. See previous.
  5. {{la-decl-second}}: Barely used, easily convertible to use the normal templates ({{la-decl-2nd}} and variants). Same idea as {{la-decl-first}}.
  6. {{la-decl-2nd-2nd}}: Unused.
  7. {{la-decl-4th-loc+2nd-adj}}: Unused.
  8. {{la-decl-qui}}: Unused.
  9. {{la-decl-quis}}: Unused.

Benwing2 (talk) 04:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete. The Latin templates have been in a state of flux, and could still use improvement (including the headword-line templates). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Deleted. Benwing2 (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Appendix:Harry Potter/Draco Dormiens Nunquam TitillandusEdit

Not a dictionary-type phrase but a school motto. Equinox 20:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Per The Divine Comedy and Simpsons entries above, I suppose this should also be deleted per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-10/Disallowing_certain_appendices. Equinox 09:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)