Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for deletion/Others

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new request | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Reconstruction add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for deletion of pages in the main and Reconstruction namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/Others add new request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.
Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new request | history | archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.			Language treatment requests add new request | history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's language treatment practices, including renames, merges and splits.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5

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

Newest 10 tagged RFDOs

Template:CJKV
Template:CJKV/documentation
Appendix:Sports
Template:ru-xlit
Template:ru-xlit/documentation
Category:2-letter words by language
Category:1-letter words by language
Category:Krama Inggil Javanese
Category:Krama Javanese
Category:Ngoko Javanese

Oldest 200 tagged RFDOs

Template:sla-pro-root-h₁rewdʰ
Module:template utilities
Template:he-wv
Category:Korean syllables
Template:rfv-term/documentation
Template:rfv-term
Appendix:Terms derived from toponyms
Category:en:Multiracial
Template:ethnologue
Template:kk-regional
Template:table:colors/zh
Appendix:Old Prussian Swadesh list
Template:R:Etymological Dictionary of Arabic
Category:3-letter words by language
Category:CJKV radicals
Category:Japanese-only CJKV Characters
Category:Japanese-coined CJKV characters used outside Japanese
Category:Korean-only CJKV Characters
Template:liv-compound/documentation
Template:liv-compound
Template:zh-historical-dict/documentation
Template:zh-historical-dict
Template:zh-hd/s/documentation
Template:zh-hd/s
Category:Indo-Aryan reference templates
Category:Sino-Tibetan templates
Template:less common spelling of
Template:prg-noun declension -s ptv
Wiktionary:Frequency lists/Finnish/Press data
Template:blockquote-top/documentation
Template:blockquote-top
Category:Breakable Han characters
User:Sobreira/PIE roots bd
Template:zh-verb
Template:center top
Template:templatetable
Template:center bottom
Template:list:Vaṅga Bengali calendar months/bn
Template:zh-verb/documentation
Template:l-nn
Template:l-nb
Template:rfcoll
Template:kk-scripts
Template:zh-obsolete
Appendix:Glossary of contract bridge
Template:cite-thesis/documentation
Template:cite-thesis
Template:el-UK-US
Category:CJKV simplified characters which already existed as traditional characters
Template:desc/sl-tonal
User:Sobreira/PIE roots s
Template:nan-coll
Template:nan-lit
Appendix:Adjectives indicating shape
Template:bo-decl
Rhymes:Toki Pona/wen
Appendix:Proto-Indo-European extensions
Appendix:Gen Z slang
Category:Borneo-Philippines languages
Category:Czechoslovakia
Category:Yugoslavia
Category:Sunda-Sulawesi languages
Category:West Germany
Appendix:English Wanderwörter
Appendix:Mass Effect
Template:season name spelling
Template:conversion/documentation
Template:conversion
Category:German words ending in -nf
Wiktionary:MW
Template:CURRENTDATE
Wiktionary:Unresolved issues
Template:currentdate
Template:Mon standard keyboard
Template:en-det/documentation
Template:en-det
Category:Requests for date/Ferdowsi
Category:Ambiguity
Category:Reference templates
Category:Requests for date
Template:en-suffix
Template:en-prefix
Template:en-cont
Template:en-part
Template:en-prep
Template:en-prep phrase
Template:en-pron
Template:en-symbol
Category:Requests for date by source
Category:Requests for date/Hanna Minah
Category:Requests for date/信明集
Category:Requests for date/大橋裸木
Category:Requests for date/Johannes Mirkus
Category:Requests for date/Wars of Alexander
Category:Requests for date/Government of the Tongue
Category:Requests for date/Nikolajs Ķurzēns
Category:Requests for date/De Leidse sleutelgaten
Category:Requests for date/Virgil
Category:Requests for date/Gudrun Vinsrygg
Category:Requests for date/Flower
Category:Physical actions
Category:Requests for date/Lancelot Andrewes
Category:Requests for date/Malory
Category:Requests for date/John Romeril
Category:Requests for date/Hal Lehrman
Category:Requests for date/Hearings, Reports and Prints of the Senate Committee on Government Operations
Category:Requests for date/Sir John Hayward
Category:Requests for date/Prior
Category:Requests for date/Roscommon
Category:Requests for date/Bishop Hall
Category:Requests for date/Wintner
Template:zh-no-solo
Template:zh-no-solo/documentation
Template:table:Chinese Zodiac/zh
Template:ne-l/documentation
Template:ne-l
Category:Rhymes:Toki Pona/wen
Wiktionary:Smallest discussions
Template:authority control
Template:ro-adj-1
Category:Northern Mansi first-person singular phrases
Template:R:Reverso/documentation
Template:R:Reverso
Category:Requests for date/Blackwood Magazine
Category:Requests for date/G. Fletcher
Category:Requests for date/Robert Southey
Category:Requests for date/Roger Scruton
Category:Requests for date/The Magazine of American History with Notes and Queries
Category:Terms derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *-dʰlom
Category:Coptic male given names from Greek
Category:Coptic female given names from Greek
Category:Coptic given names from Greek
Category:Coptic terms derived from Greek
Category:Livonian compounds with kū
Category:Arabic definite proper nouns
Category:Norwegian Bokmål terms derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *-dʰlom
Category:Proto-Germanic terms derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *-dʰlom
Category:Toki Pona rhymes/wen-
Category:Toki Pona terms with archaic senses
Template:R:sa:DDSA
Template:R:mr:DDSA
Template:R:hi:DDSA
Template:R:te:DDSA
Template:R:ta:DDSA
Template:R:bn:DDSA
Template:R:ne:DDSA
Template:R:ur:DDSA
Template:vote delete/documentation
Template:vote delete
Category:Requests for date/Cassini Solstice Mission
Template:R:jpx:Tekin:1993
Category:Ngoko Javanese
Category:Krama Javanese
Category:Krama Inggil Javanese
Category:1-letter words by language
Category:2-letter words by language
Template:ru-xlit/documentation
Template:ru-xlit
Appendix:Sports
Template:CJKV/documentation
Template:CJKV

2016

Category:Kangxi radicals

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

Category:CJKV radicals

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

Category:Han rad sup

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

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

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

Okay:

• RFD-moved Category:Kangxi radicals to Appendix:Kangxi radicals.
• Cat:CJKV radicals has heavy overlap with Cat:Han character radicals, however, some entries are only in Cat:CJKV radicals (㣺, 𠄌, 𩙿, 髙, 飠, 靣, 阝, 镸, 釒, 辶, 赱, 訁, 西, 衤, 艹, 耂, 罒, 糹, 礻, 犭, 牜, 爫, 灬, 氺, 氵, 母, 攵, 川, 卤, 共) while others are only in Cat:Han character radicals (乀, 乁, 乚, 乛, 乡, 冂, 刁, 大, 夨, 孑, 孒, 孓, 已, 广, 戸, 才, 月, 歯, 气, 玉, 疒, 纟, 网, 见, 讠, 贝, 钅, 长, 门, 韦, 页, 风, 飞鱼, 鸟, 麦, 黃, 黾, 齐, 齿, 龙, 龟, 龠). This needs the attention of a CJKV expert, maybe Fish bowl?
• RFD-deleted Category:Han rad sup, as it was completely superseded by Category:CJK Radicals Supplement block and Appendix:Unicode/CJK Radicals Supplement.

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

@Justinrleung since you are commenting elsewhere on this page, I wonder if you can advise how to proceed with the remaining component of this ancient RFDO request? This, that and the other (talk) 09:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@This, that and the other: Entries seem to be automatically categorized into CAT:Han character radicals by {{Han char}}. I'm not exactly sure what the exact mechanism is. @Fish bowl, I'm wondering if you know. Some of the so-called radicals in CAT:CJKV radicals seem to not be Kangxi radicals but Shuowen radicals, like 共, so these would not be automatically categorized by CAT:Han character radicals. I do think that there should probably only one category for radicals, and I think CAT:Han character radicals is probably better as a name since Han characters are not exclusive to the four languages of CJKV. But we'll have to see if these radicals in CAT:CJKV radicals only should just be moved to CAT:Han character radicals manually or with changes to {{Han char}}. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Fish bowl we are waiting for your input here. Could you please state whether you agree with Justin's proposal to merge all of the radical entries in both categories to Cat:Han character radicals and delete Cat:CJKV radicals? This, that and the other (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The mechanism is categorization if there are 0 residual strokes (Module:zh-han#L-125).

Whatever the difference between Category:Han character radicals and Category:CJKV radicals is, it's a poor one as the names are essentially equivalent. —Fish bowl (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree - let's merge them into Han character radicals. Theknightwho (talk) 09:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

So the entries requiring manual review are those only in CJKV radicals. It appears to me, as a CJK outsider, that many of these are essentially alternative forms of radicals. Many of these have corresponding radical appendices, and many of them have the residual strokes parameter set to "00", which I assume is meant to do something magical.

• 㣺 Appendix:Chinese radical/㣺
• 𠄌 Appendix:Chinese radical/𠄌
• 𩙿 Appendix:Chinese radical/𩙿
• 髙 Appendix:Chinese radical/髙
• 飠 Appendix:Chinese radical/飠
• 靣 Appendix:Chinese radical/靣
• 阝 Appendix:Chinese radical/阝
• 镸 Appendix:Chinese radical/镸
• 釒 Appendix:Chinese radical/釒
• 辶 Appendix:Chinese radical/辶
• 赱 Appendix:Chinese radical/赱
• 訁 Appendix:Chinese radical/訁
• 西 Appendix:Chinese radical/西
• 衤 Appendix:Chinese radical/衤
• 艹 Appendix:Chinese radical/艹
• 耂 Appendix:Chinese radical/耂
• 罒 Appendix:Chinese radical/罒
• 糹 Appendix:Chinese radical/糹
• 礻 Appendix:Chinese radical/礻
• 犭 Appendix:Chinese radical/犭
• 牜 Appendix:Chinese radical/牜
• 爫 Appendix:Chinese radical/爫
• 灬 Appendix:Chinese radical/灬
• 氺 Appendix:Chinese radical/氺
• 氵 Appendix:Chinese radical/氵
• 母 Appendix:Chinese radical/母
• 攵 Appendix:Chinese radical/攵
• 川 Appendix:Chinese radical/川
• 卤 Appendix:Chinese radical/卤
• 共 Appendix:Chinese radical/共

This, that and the other (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@This, that and the other It's a really badly-named category. It's added by {{ja-kanji}} if grade=r is manually set, which is (a) not what that parameter is supposed to be for, and (b) clearly not something that should be controlled by a Japanese template. I suspect this is a holdover from the very early days of Wiktonary.

The entire kanji grade system is something that's already handled via the back-end anyway and shouldn't have any kind of manual override since it's all strictly defined.

The reason the residual strokes parameter is set to 0 is because residual strokes are defined by reference to a character's radical (e.g. it's radical X + 3 additional strokes). This is useful for sorting purposes, as the radical is used as the primary sorting weight, with the residual strokes being used for fine-tuning within that. Naturally, characters which are themselves radicals have 0 additional strokes. Theknightwho (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Category:Japanese-only CJKV Characters

Obvious Keep because of reference value. Nonetheless, for safety, I have archived the page as a precaution:

• [1]
• [2]

--ゴミバコ (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Korean-only CJKV Characters

Was this created to distinguish "exclusively" Japanese and Korean inventions from Chinese characters? The Chinese will use it anyway. —suzukaze (t・c) 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 (t・c)

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

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

Keep them, it is of practical value. Maybe Chinese will use it, or not, will understand it, or not, doesn't matter. What is important in it the Koreans / Japanese respectively and the lerners of Korean / Japanese respectively will find the respective category valuable. NoychoH (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree to keep per NoychoH, I found this Japanese-coined CJKV characters used outside Japanese and was surprised to see anyone wants it deleted. It's just curious, for which reason it's valuable. I just see no reason to delete it. Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 19:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Keep for the same reasons as Kiril kovachev.Auvon (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@NoychoH @Kiril kovachev @Auvon If its starts being used in Chinese, then it stops being a Japanese-only character. The big problem with the category is that it relies on other languages not using it, which is essentially impossible to keep track of. Theknightwho (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Theknightwho Okay, good point. I could suggest removing a character from the category once we have a Chinese entry for it, but this would require more work on the part of Chinese editors. I don't necessarily oppose deleting the Japanese-only and Korean-only categories, but I don't know why Category:Japanese-coined CJKV characters used outside Japanese is being included in this RfD. That doesn't have the same problem in that it doesn't run the risk of misinformation, and is rather much more interesting for language learners. I say we should keep that one, delete the rest if that's what we want. Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 22:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

If this does exist, it needs to be done automatically, which would involve checking if there are entries for other entries on the page (excluding Translingual). I'm not a huge fan of that, but it could work, but I suspect it won't result in a very useful category since there will be many characters that see rare use in other languages. Theknightwho (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment/Keep: I realize this discussion is old, but the deletion templates are still there, and I find these categories to be of novel educational interest and would hate to see them deleted. As expressed above, this might just be an issue of terminology. What's to stop us renaming Category:Korean-only CJKV Characters to Category:Korean-coined CJKV Characters and maintaining it along the same lines as the Japanese line, making no distinction as to whether it's used exclusively in Korean? 104.246.217.171 03:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

2017

Category:Reference templates

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

Yes, but the category shouldn't be deleted, as the lang-specific catgs should be kept here. Perhaps rename Cat:Reference templates by language if necessary. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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

I presume that such templates are categorized by the target language, not the language in which they are written. Do we not care about the language in which the reference is written? What about a multilingual dictionary? (There are at least two such templates.) DCDuring TALK 16:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

They're placed in whichever language they're relevant to as a reference. So the language it's written in is not taken into account, but they can be placed into more than one language category. —CodeCat 16:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't this category be kept as a parent category for "Category:Reference templates by language"? Also, there may be translingual templates such as {{R:Reference-meta}} which I have been working on. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Why should Category:Reference templates by language be placed in this category? It already has its own parent category. And translingual reference templates naturally go in Category:Translingual reference templates. —CodeCat 18:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know "Category:Translingual reference templates" existed. However, isn't it usually the case that when there is a category in the form "X by Y", "X" exists as a parent category as well? At least that's what happens at the Wikimedia Commons. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Not on Wiktionary. I can't imagine Category:Nouns being very useful as a parent of Category:Nouns by language. —CodeCat 19:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

@CodeCat: I'll do some work on it. — Eru·tuon 21:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

When it's deleted, where shall we put Category:Quotation reference templates? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

What about the templates not in another category, like Template:R:Wordorigins.org! Will they become orphant-templates upon deletion of Category:Reference templates? Thx, B Lemeukx (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• The suggestion is to recategorize them. {{R:Wordorigins.org}} is now only in cat:English reference templates. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 05:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

• Category:Quotation reference templates was deleted by Rua in 2019 without any explicit reason given. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 05:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

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

You haven't read the discussion. There are currently two such categories. —Rua (mew) 14:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I've seen both categories, & they seem to serve different purposes. this one is general-purpose (any template related to references), & the other one Wiktionary: Reference templates seems to be narrowly-defined (a list of dictionary-reference templates). So either merge or differentiate them better? & 'Reference Templates' is still the obvious meta-category for ALL reference templates. Lx 121 (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

After some more cleanup, the category now has only six members. —Rua (mew) 16:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete in favor of Cat:Translingual reference templates. Dixtosa (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant to cat:Reference templates by language. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 02:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant due to obsolescence. Fay Freak (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:English 4-letter abbreviations

There are only two pages that are in this category right now and all of the edits of this page were by the same person, so it should probably either start being used or be deleted. 24.13.226.156 18:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The page isn't showing up for some reason it's https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_four-letter_abbreviations never mind I figured it out 24.13.226.156 19:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Keep" - There are now 25 members of this category. John Cross (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete - this category is not useful. - TheDaveRoss 13:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

TIFLL (anyone guess the meaning of this?) --Java Beauty (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Java Beauty I do not understand, and (from a cursory google) it seems the Internet does not, either. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 18:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I am going to take a guess. "This is five letters long.". John Cross (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Mild keep - can we just auto put in all four letter words that are all in uppercase letters? Facts707 (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Probably not. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 18:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Delete, not useful. Ultimateria (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 21:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

We also have two-letter abbreviations with 12 entries and five-letter abbreviations with 5 entries. (Three has over 300, but it looks like they have still been added manually.) - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 17:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Keep, but limit to the kind of terms found in cat:English abbreviations (i.e. exclude terms in other subcategories of cat:English shortenings, like initialisms). — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 18:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• Delete, or failing that, generate automatically. Benwing2 (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Keep Of potential use for maintenance, eg. RfC, RfV, RfD, RfM. Easier to work with shorter list to develop criteria for longer lists. DCDuring (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Delete, not useful enough to maintain. Fay Freak (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Deletion seems unhelpful at best, and the reasons boil down to "I'm not interested in this", which isn't a valid reason to delete something. Theknightwho (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

RFD kept. Theknightwho (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

2018

Category:Languages of the Caucasus

Another one of these regional, rather than national, holding categories. See Category talk:Languages of the Middle East. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Unlike the Middle East, the Caucasus is close-knit linguistic area with many shared traits. This is why one hardly ever hears about the “Middle Eastern languages”, but the Caucasian languages are very often referred to as such in linguistic literature. Guldrelokk (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

While regional groupings of languages are of course useless in general, I think they have their merits in the case of Sprachbünde. The current name is poorly chosen and this category should be deleted but a category like Category:Languages belonging to the Caucasus Sprachbund is something I'd support. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 10:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Keep a shorter name like CAT:Caucasian languages. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Kept for now, due to discussion stagnation TypeO889 (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

February 2019

Russian non-rhymes

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

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

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

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

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

@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 2019

Template:liv-compound

@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)

• Delete the template (and categories "Category:Livonian compounds with foo") as redundant to {{af}} + Derived terms. Ultimateria (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

April 2019

Template:lv-inflection of

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

@Rua Don't worry, this is on my list. As it has > 106,000 uses, though, it's not high on the priority list, and some thought needs to go into whether we really want to deprecate such high-use templates. For references, here's a list of all the lang-specific form-of templates with >= 10,000 uses:

Aliased template	Canonical template	#Uses	Comments (as of June 2023)
Template:es-verb form of	Template:es-verb form of	441646	Converted to auto-determining template; < 100 old uses left.
Template:es-verb form of/subtense-pronoun	Template:es-verb form of/subtense-pronoun	337361	< 10 uses left.
Template:es-verb form of/subtense-name	Template:es-verb form of/subtense-name	337360	< 10 uses left.
Template:es-verb form of/indicative	Template:es-verb form of/indicative	185279	< 10 uses left.
Template:es-verb form of/subjunctive	Template:es-verb form of/subjunctive	144578	< 10 uses left.
Template:es-compound of	Template:es-compound of	114260
Template:lv-inflection of	Template:lv-inflection of	106703	Deprecated.
Template:eo-form of	Template:eo-form of	99100
Template:pt-verb-form-of	Template:pt-verb-form-of	94585	Obsoleted and deleted.
Template:ca-verb form of	Template:ca-verb form of	78144	Entirely converted to auto-determining template.
Template:es-verb form of/adverbial	Template:es-verb form of/adverbial	63386	< 10 uses left.
Template:de-verb form of	Template:de-verb form of	54762	Deprecated.
Template:fi-form of	Template:fi-form of	54262	Deprecated.
Template:es-verb form of/imperative	Template:es-verb form of/imperative	52546	< 50 uses left.
Template:ru-participle of	Template:ru-participle of	47321	Deprecated.
Template:de-inflected form of	Template:de-inflected form of	46670	Deprecated.
Template:pinyin reading of	Template:pinyin reading of	40032	Obsoleted and deleted.
Template:el-form-of-nounadj	Template:el-form-of-nounadj	31509	Deprecated.
Template:nl-verb form of	Template:nl-verb form of	30619	Deprecated.
Template:bg-verb form of	Template:bg-verb form of	30114	Deprecated.
Template:en-past of	Template:en-past of	28731	Deprecated.
Template:pt-verb form of	Template:pt-verb form of	28730	Entirely converted to auto-determining template.
Template:nl-noun form of	Template:nl-noun form of	27827	Deprecated.
Template:en-third-person singular of	Template:en-third-person singular of	26977	Deprecated.
Template:es-verb form of/participle	Template:es-verb form of/participle	24257	Obsoleted and deleted.
Template:ja-romanization of	Template:ja-romanization of	16472
Template:pt-adj form of	Template:pt-adj form of	15455	Deprecated.
Template:io-form of	Template:io-form of	10429
Template:sv-noun-form-def	Template:sv-noun-form-def	10063	Deprecated.

Benwing2 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'll leave them to you then. Thank you for the work! —Rua (mew) 22:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete - yes, agreed. Get rid. Theknightwho (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Deprecate as redundant but widely used. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 19:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Deprecated. I also marked the status of the other templates in the above table. Benwing2 (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Of the unmarked templates in the table above:

• {{eo-form of}} and {{io-form of}} are magical so should be kept.
• {{es-compound of}} also has some special logic, so presumably keep.

Regarding the other templates, the only things left to clean up are

• four individual Spanish entries (hubiérase, hubiérale, habiéndoseme, acercándoseme - these forms seem somehow special or exceptional. @Benwing2 can they be converted to generic {{form of}}? Or do we need a special template ({{es-form of-exceptional}}?) for these four entries?
• The around 50 remaining uses of {{es-verb form of/imperative}} are still there.

This, that and the other (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Mongolian pronunciation spellings

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

I'd RFV these individually; it's possible that the pronunciation spellings are actually used in writing as misspellings (though then they should be changed to {{misspelling of}} or {{alternative spelling of}} depending on how standardized Mongolian spelling is). —Mahāgaja · talk 05:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't like the solution at Nepali फूल (phūl). That info belongs in the Pronunciation section, not the headword line. For Irish I do sometimes write "as if spelled XYZ" after the IPA in the pronunciation section. —Mahāgaja · talk 05:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Kept for now. баярлаа, -наа and -саан are the only 3 entries. TypeO889 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

February 2020

Template:zh-obsolete

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

I support making it more "standard" and less awful UX-wise, but how? It is a long tooltip. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 19:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Labels commonly link to a glossary. Couldn't that be done here too? It doesn't have to be Appendix:Glossary, language-specific pages can be a thing too. —Rua (mew) 19:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess we can also do {{lb|zh|literary|or|Cantonese|...}}. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 19:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

If that conveys the same thing, then I think it's fine. —Rua (mew) 19:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Could something be added to the section that the references template or something else that us used on most or all pages that identifies what the template means? I saw both this template and the "††" symbol for the "zh-hg" template on the page 我#Chinese, and had no idea what they meant. Jimw338 (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

What is the difference between Template:zh-obsolete and Template:zh-no-solo? It seems that only one needs to stay. Or maybe make it redirect. Some characters (eg. 子#Chinese) have both templates and it's very confusing. Betty (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Delete. The title text does not even appear for me when I mouse over any more, and an anon has reported that they don't know what the symbol could possibly mean. We need to bring Chinese entries more in line with the dictionary as a whole, which seeks to communicate plainly and clearly rather than obfuscate with cute symbols. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete. I support using clearer labels, such as those that @Suzukaze-c has suggested above. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete per Metaknowledge, though it do appear for me. It is space-efficient but we have the space to spell it, and if we don’t then due to the other uses of that dagger I still prefer Todesrune in a print-out version of this dictionary, but here it is still safest to just spell it out (although this creates the problem to distinguish obsolete, archaic and dated, then probably use other words such as “outmoded” if you are too judgementless to distinguish thus far …). Fay Freak (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I support changing the template to be equivalent to {{lb|zh|obsolete}}, but deleting a widely used template breaks old versions of pages. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Very confusing label. Hope that I'm not too late to discussion. The obvious way would be to spell them in {{lb}}, but I think when there are multiple senses repeating the same {{lb|zh|obsolete}}, it is better to list them as a subsense under a sense that just says {{lb|zh|obsolete}}, as demonstrated here Special:Diff/68565444. (Obviously it should be templatized if done in this way)

I should also note that these labels are sometimes used outside of definitions and not in templates, such as in the {{zh-forms}} at 屌. How should we deal with them? -- Wpi31 (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Delete. The dagger character can have other uses, such as an asterisk-like function, so it's better to write obsolete in a label. —Soap— 09:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Delete this template along with the similar ones listed below. Fancy symbols like these just make the dictionary harder to understand and edit. Glades12 (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Template:zh-o, Template:†

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

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

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

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

These are even obscurer and should the more be deleted. The verbal equivalent of Template:zh-historical-dict “is per the record found in one or more historical dictionaries. It does not necessarily have citations” is elsewhere “Lex.”, for Template:zh-no-solo and Template:zh-obsolete it is “obsolete except in compounds”. Fay Freak (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Delete for the reasons above. Frankly, we should be incorporating the functionality of all of the zh templates into the generic templates wherever there's an equivalent. Theknightwho (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• RFD failed. I'm not gonna be the sucker who replaces all the symbols though. P. Sovjunk (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't see any consensus on what it should be replaced with, though... many have pointed out that (obsolete) misses the nuance conveyed by {{zh-obsolete}}'s tooltip. This, that and the other (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

April 2020

Category:Languages of California

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

California at one time probably had about a hundred indigenous languages and represented the intersection of the Algic languages (which extend to the east coast), the Athabascan languages (which extend from Alaska to northern Mexico), the Uto-Aztecan languages, (which extend to Central America), a few still-to-be-proven language families like Hokan and Penutian, and a few probable isolates like the Chimariko language and the Karuk language, with a very high percentage endemic to the state. Right now the category contains only one language which was added by a clueless editor based on a bogus etymology, but we already have hundreds of entries in upwards of 5 dozen indigenous languages- about a fifth of Category:Languages of the United States. I should also mention that we have Category:Languages of Hawaii, among others. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Make that over a thousand lemmas. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I've now added 58 indigenous languages to the category, which I will, of course, remove if we decide to delete. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

What about nonindigenous languages? Besides English and Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Tagalog are all widely spoken in California. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and I've been to stores with signs in Arabic, Armenian, Hebrew, Hindi, Indonesian, Japanese, Persian, Russian and Thai, and I've met people from Greek, Malagasy, Samoan and Tongan communities as well. The Los Angeles County election websites can be viewed in Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Hindi, Khmer, Korean, Vietnamese and Thai, and American Sign Language interpreters are in considerable demand. I understand that we have lots of people speaking American Indian languages from the rest of the US and from other parts of the Americas. I've even heard of a radio station somewhere in the Central Valley broadcasting in Assyrian Aramaic. I should add that I know there are lots of people speaking other South Asian languages than Hindi and other Chinese languages than Mandarin, but I don't know which ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

So how do we decide what to include and what not to? And really, that question applies not only to this category but also to country-level categories like CAT:Languages of the United States. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, but I disagree with categorizing Category:American Sign Language into Languages of California. ASL is used in all 50 states. I don't think it needs to be in potentially 51 location categories when 1 covers that same information. Leave the demographic specifics to Wikipedia. Ultimateria (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

English and Spanish are spoken in all 50 states too. And they're spoken in other countries as well; does that mean they shouldn't be in CAT:Languages of the United States? —Mahāgaja · talk 05:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

That's what I'm arguing for, rather than put e.g. Spanish in 300 categories for all the states of the US and South American countries. Ultimateria (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete because it is ambiguous. If we talk about native languages we go also beyond the current state borders and might think about the California of the now United Mexican States. Fay Freak (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion for the reason given immediately above is completely inappropriate. The rationale would suggest renaming. "Early languages...", "Pre-Columbian languages..." might work for the instant case.

We use current governmental borders for categories such as this because of the administrative processes that govern almost all the research on such matters and because that is how most of our users would approach the subject matter. California may secede after the coming election so it would seem prudent to wait before any rash deletion or renaming. DCDuring (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

California might secede? Even then there is still a different California. I am not sure that we use governmental borders. Many who use these categories think that. Fay Freak (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

That's Baja California, not California. Don't conflate etymology with meaning. Theknightwho (talk) 09:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Keep per Chuck Entz as it's important to have the indigenous languages there. AG202 (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Keep: It is so well populated now that it is not overly precise. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 06:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
• Keep because it seems useful to have a category of indigenous languages. That said, I'm not sure about cases like Mandarin, Tagalog, Korean, and Vietnamese, all currently in the category. Worth noting that neither English or Spanish currently are in the category, and they undoubtedly have the most speakers. I can see a case for including these non-indigenous languages, but if we were to admit any language that has a community of speakers in California then the category would probably stop being useful, even though I suspect there may be more speakers of Icelandic in California than of Valley Yokuts. Not sure where the line should be. There might be a case for only including languages that are (semi-)unique to California, which would probably limit the category to indigenous languages. There might also be a case for having separate categories for indigenous and non-indigenous. Or we could just hope that having all indigenous languages + maybe the top ten non-indigenous is a sane heuristic and hope nobody decides to add Icelandic. (This issue is not by any means unique to California, and I'm not sure whether there's a general rule that's been agreed upon.) 70.172.194.25 06:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe the rule should be indigenous to California OR speakers per capita in California >> speakers per capita in US, which would exclude English but plausibly include those Asian languages. There may still be some disagreement about what ">>" means, however, as I assume Spanish is spoken at a greater rate per capita in California than in the US as a whole, but it seems weird to include Spanish but not English. I don't have a fully satisfactory answer. 70.172.194.25 07:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Rename to Cat:Indigenous languages of California etc and remove the non-indigenous (post-European colonisation) languages. That would make for a more meaningful category per the IP above. I see no value in categorising colonial and migrant languages by state, province, etc. This, that and the other (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually, this is a much better idea. Support the above. AG202 (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I also Support, I think this is a useful category, whereas including non-indigenous languages is unworkable.--Urszag (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Keep: states have a variety of languages and this saves space in the main category. The Australia category is big too, so I'm creating some for Australian states and territories (the NT will probably have the biggest category because of all the living Indigenous languages there). 2001:8004:2778:4E8D:40F:54A0:A43F:F695 08:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

However, except for subregional dialects, I think we should just stick to putting languages spoken mostly or exclusively in that state or territory (so in the instance for Hawaii, Category:Hawaiian English would absolutely fit in Category:Languages of Hawaii, but Category:English language or Category:American English would not. 2001:8004:2778:4E8D:40F:54A0:A43F:F695 08:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Kept TypeO889 (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Nah, people seemed to like my suggestion, so let's do that. I'm going to just assume WF didn't read the discussion very carefully. This, that and the other (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

August 2020

Template:sla-pro-root-h₁rewdʰ

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

• It's created to control duplicated information and there are similar templates. Alternative solution is {{rootsee}} but it doesn't show translations. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Boo. You can use {{root}}. --{{victar|talk}} 03:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The deletion notice shows up in the pages transcluding the template. This is very confusing. I think that the deletion template should be wrapped in a noinclude tag. 217.197.198.196 08:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

As it now is. DCDuring (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

October 2020

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

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

{{head|zh|verb}}<noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>

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

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

@Benwing2: I have no objection to orphaning and deleting. @Justinrleung, Suzukaze-c. -- User:Atitarev 06:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm down with deleting them. I personally don't like these functionally 'neutered' headword templates either. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

In addition, the parameters of {{zh-noun}} are actually deprecated, and the content should be moved to {{zh-mw}}, which is more flexible. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Making sure other Chinese editors are aware of this potential change (because I somehow didn't get @Atitarev's ping above until @Tooironic told me about it): @Mar vin kaiser, Geographyinitiative, RcAlex36, The dog2, Frigoris, Apisite. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I support deleting all templates in Category:Chinese headword-line templates except Template:zh-verb (see Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2020/July#Inner structure of a Chinese verb - not supported now, but may be supported in the future). --沈澄心✉ 10:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@沈澄心: Apologies for forgetting you above. You do bring up a good point. I do wonder if it may be better for us to do it on a definition-by-definition basis, like we do with {{zh-mw}}, though. Is it possible for a verb to be more than one type? This reminds me that I forgot about @恨国党非蠢即坏, Thedarkknightli, Michael Ly. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 12:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: 出櫃 seems to be both. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: Exactly what I'm looking for. The first sense is separable (verb-object specifically), but the second sense is not. I think this is a good case for having it in {{lb}} rather than {{zh-verb}}. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 12:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: No. This is another Chinese grammar phenomenon. When a "verb-object" verb is followed by another object, it becomes unseparable. This rule applies to all transitive senses of all "verb-object" verbs, including 加速 mentioned below. There is no point to repeat stating a general rule in every definition. Also, this does not change the "verb-object" nature of the verb and it becomes separable again if the the object is omitted, regardless of the sense used. Thus I oppose the definition-by-definition format. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

... although there is also the issue of using a dot or slashes to demarcate where we can separate the verb. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 12:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Another example is 加速 (per Xiandai Hanyu Cidian). Also, 糊口 is separable in Classical Chinese (Zuozhuan: “寡人有弟，不能和協，而使餬其口於四方。”, Shiji: “伍子胥橐載而出昭關，夜行晝伏，至於陵水，無以糊其口……”), but in Modern Standard Chinese, it's not. --沈澄心✉ 13:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@沈澄心: 糊口 is in fact separable. The reason why we rarely see expressions like 糊了口 is a semantical one, not a grammatical one. 糊口 describes a habitual and ongoing action, thus there is usually no need to attach tense/aspect particle to it, which is the most frequent case of a modern Chinese verb to separate. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@恨国党非蠢即坏: Yeah, there seem to be some ghits for 糊著口, so it is separable. I guess there are grammatical restrictions that make verb-object constructions inseparable if it takes an object, but when that happens, I don't know if we should still treat it a verb-object construction. It's not like 出 is ditransitive in transitive 出櫃, nor is transitive 出櫃 functioning as verb + object anymore from how I see it. I'm not familiar with how people have dealt with these, but I think we probably need some scholarly sources to back up our decisions. I still think definition-by-definition is a safer way to go in case there are cases where a compound could be both separable and inseparable. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: It is very evident in the 把 structure and the passive voice that they are still verb-objects and separable.

我曝光了他们干的事。

我把他们干的事曝了光。

他们干的事被我曝了光。

The only key point is whether they are directly followed by another object. Of course they are not ditransitives. They simply don't work that way. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@恨国党非蠢即坏: Okay, that makes sense. I can also find some ghits for google:"把*加了速". Then we should keep {{zh-verb}} and implement the verb compound categorization soon. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 03:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung, 恨国党非蠢即坏 We also have {{tlb}} for adding a label after a headword to indicate that it applies to all definitions. That could potentially be used here, and has the advantage that {{lb}} could be used if there are cases where the compound verb has different structures per-definition. OTOH this doesn't allow for adding a dot or slash to indicate where the separation point is. Benwing2 (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Yes, thanks for bringing that up. I thought of it but forgot to mention it. We could use the |head= to show where the separation point is, but it'd be nice to have a template so that the formatting could be more easily standardized. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 04:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: This is fine with me. Benwing2 (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the coding so I don't have any particular opinions now. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

@Benwing2 @Theknightwho it seems like this has been largely "resolved" by moving cat:Chinese Han characters to Cat:Chinese hanzi, but not all the entries have been moved across. Perhaps WingerBot could help give this a little push to the finish line? (No rush; I'll check back for a reply in two or three years' time) This, that and the other (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

December 2020

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

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

@Metaknowledge, Fay Freak, SemperBlotto, DTLHS: Can you take a look on this? -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Malayo-Polynesian family tree is more like a lawn. Aside from Oceanic, there are lots of smaller local groups and there's Malayo-Polynesian, but no real structure in between. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: There 's a Western Malayo-Polynesian family (and a Proto-Western-Malayo-Polynesian protolanguage) proposed by Blust that lumps all those currently grouped under Borneo-Philippines and Sunda-Sulawesi here into a single family, but it's mostly geographical and discredited. I agree with your point. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• If the scholarly consensus is that these nodes are invalid, then I agree we should delete them and associate their daughters directly with Malayo-Polynesian, but there will be widespread consequences, including deleting all of the Proto-Sunda-Sulawesi lemmas. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Most of those are only present due to their easy availability via Blust's Austronesian Comparative Dictionary. I use that a lot for data on languages, but I don't trust its reconstructions unless I can find confirmation elsewhere. Blust is notorious for using software designed for cladistics in biology on lexicostatic data.
  • As you know, it's possible to reconstruct a protolanguage for any assortment of languages that are related at all, and coincidental patterns of presence or absence of reflexes as well as borrowing can make these reconstructions different for different arbitrary groupings even though they share the same latest common ancestor. I'm sure Proto-English-Italian-Romanian and Proto-Engliah-French-Spanish would look different, even though the only common ancestor for both is Proto-Indo-European. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking over our PSuSw lemmas, most of them are just trivial rewritings of PMP lemmas anyway, and the sole exception is actually continued solely in Malayo-Chamic *bagus. I don't know what has motivated creating Sunda-Sulawesi and also intermediate Malayo-Sumbawan entries for this, did someone perhaps originally miss Blust's note that the reflex in Rembong (spoken on Flores) should be considered a loan from Malayic rather than inherited? --Tropylium (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz, Mahagaja, Tropylium I've been fixing Austronesian reconstructions to get rid of Borneo-Philippines and PSuSw, and some IP working on the same area reverted my change for *buʀuk. I think there should be already be a resolution here.

In addition to Borneo-Philippines and Sunda-Sulawesi, should we also delete these families as well?

• Malayo-Sumbawan (proposed by K. Adelaar. Includes Malayic and Chamic, Bali-Sasak-Sumbawa, Sundanese and Madurese)
  • Malayo-Chamic (rather two separate families directly grouped with MP)

--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. Both subgroups are spurious Wikipedia artifacts based on a misreading of Figure 2 (p. 431) in this paper. See also my arguments here: Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2021/March#Sunda-Sulawesi_Language_Group. –Austronesier (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Related discussion: Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Non-English#Proto-Sunda-Sulawesi. –Austronesier (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The recent RFV of the term Proto-Sunda-Sulawesi has reminded me of this. It looks like we only have a few lemmas left to remove? (And then perhaps etymologies to update... and so many categories to delete...) - -sche (discuss) 06:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

April 2021

Module:template utilities

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

Abstain. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep. It is used now. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The template parsing code there seems to be supplanted by Module:templateparser. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

• Theknightwho renamed templateparser: Module:template parser. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co) 20:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone starts using it. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 19:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• Keep: As Huhu points out, it is being used now, though I cannot tell by which templates. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 21:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete and merge with Module:templateparser. We should not have multiple modules doing the same thing. IMO User:Huhu9001 should not have expanded this module and started using it but instead should have added any missing functionality to Module:templateparser. Benwing2 (talk) 07:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Delete - I am working to deprecate this now. Theknightwho (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Still used in Module:Jpan-headword (assign_kana_to_kanji) and Module:epto (effectively unused). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

September 2021

Template:he-wv

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

In your example the template was in the definition line, however it is used in pronunciation sections: isn’t the usage in pronunciation sections as on מלך about the thing we need for Arabic entries presenting multiple vocalizations from the same root, to avoid structuring around pronunciation headers? Fay Freak (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: I'm actually fine with its use in pronunciation headers; it's the use everywhere else that I find to be a problem. Perhaps instead of deleting it, the solution is to change its usage? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Yea. Though it may be deleted if a template working for more languages is created. Fay Freak (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Reference templates categories by family

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

Undeletion of Category:Indo-Aryan reference templates

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

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

@Inqilābī I'm not quite sure about it, but it seems like these sorts of templates are categorized by languages, not language families. I've seen some templates that were belonged to a category named after a language family but later moved to a new category named after related proto language's name, so I did the same thing. --TongcyDai (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan reference templates do not necessarily deal with Proto-Indo-Aryan. Indo-Aryan reference templates just pertain to the family as a whole while Proto-Indo-Aryan reference templates are specifically meant for the language. So I do not agree with the deed, but I will at first inform other editors about it. (@Bhagadatta, Kutchkutch, AryamanA) ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 22:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: Since there are templates that would be in both categories and many Indo-Aryan templates are named as Template:R:inc:Name, that must have created the impression that they should be merged into a single category. However, there really should be a distinction so that templates that involve more than one Indo-Aryan language but not Proto-Indo-Aryan can be in Category:Indo-Aryan reference templates. For comparison,

Category:Sino-Tibetan reference templates

Category:Proto-Sino-Tibetan reference templates

are currently two separate categories. Kutchkutch (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch Category:Sino-Tibetan reference templates is currently a category of categories. Do we need this kind of category? In addition, I think it will be fine to add all main languages mentioned in a reference one by one, just like many templates do. --TongcyDai (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kutchkutch: You can now recreate the deleted cat. I have fixed those reference templates that deal with the family. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion moved from User_talk:TongcyDai#CAT:Indo-Aryan_reference_templates.

• Inqilābī RFD undeleted

  TongcyDai The issue with add all main languages mentioned in a reference one by one is that there may be too many languages to list individually and/or a reference may collectively refer to languages as a group rather than as discrete entities. If you still contest this undeletion, then continue here.

  Could you provide examples of I've seen some templates that were belonged to a category named after a language family but later moved to a new category named after related proto language's name Is one of them Category:Iranian reference templates? Kutchkutch (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Kutchkutch I don't really care about it, you can do whatever you want. But for now Indo-Aryan reference templates contains not only the templates which are hard to put into specific language categories, but also 55 subcategories you manually added. I'm wondering what's the purpose of it. If that is really necessary, I think you should consider integrating this feature into autocat. --TongcyDai (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Benwing, Benwing2, Erutuon, TongcyDai: Do you know how to integrate this feature into {{autocat}}? Kutchkutch (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Sino-Tibetan reference templates

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

January 2022

Category:Korean syllables

Category:Basic Korean syllabaries

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

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

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

Template:rfv-term

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

@Useigor Thadh (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The amount of fuzzing is ridiculous. The idea of making something even a little bit harder to read when we are supposed to be giving it attention to try to verify is contrary to logic. DCDuring (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge, DCDuring: Apparently, when you hover over the term, it explains the issue and unblurs it. Thadh (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

What about mobile? (Or me, who didn't think to hover over something I couldn't read?) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Since it is a departure from any standard way of indicating that something is being challenged, how would any user or contributor know what was going on? Hovering is not always the response one would make. We have often been encouraged to be sensitive to accessibility concerns. This seems like an occasion to apply that sensitivity. DCDuring (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I did not mean that I think this template should be kept in its current state, I was simply pointing out that blurring isn't the only thing the template does. By the way, what about just putting a dotted line under the term, or something similar? Thadh (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I would change the background colour to orange or the like (one sufficiently distinct from that of {{quoted term}} in any case). I found the blurring bizarre from the beginning (but ignored the template thinking that Useigor was still coding) and the reason boils down to that, as DCDuring said, the idea of making something even a little bit harder to read when we are supposed to be giving it attention to try to verify is contrary to logic. Fay Freak (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Why not just use the same format as Template:t-check? - -sche (discuss) 22:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Cause it was not “for translations” in translation sections, I don’t know whence this equation by Metaknowledge comes from but now have to dispel this conception, but apparently for strange derived terms and descendants in Proto-Slavic entries. The design of {{t-check}} is of course for the background of translation tables while descendants and derived terms sections look different and hence seek different tinge. Fay Freak (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

We could use the same format of adding superscript "(please verify)". Although really, if the term is so likely to be fabricated and the likelihood of someone coming back to provide references is low, maybe just remove it or move it to the talk page or HTML-comment it out... - -sche (discuss) 18:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not supposed to be readable because term is likely fabricated (i do some search before adding the template) and it is unknown when its editor will provide reference for it. Marked term could be removed instead but there is slight possibility that it can be verified. If you want to read, you can hover (swipe) or click and then create page with reference. For me, colored background or excessive text are ugly and distracting when i'm reader and not editor. Any editor can make custom CSS in User:USER/common.css (e.g. #mw-content-text .temp-rfv-term+[lang] {filter: blur(0px); text-decoration: underline dotted; background: orange;}). —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I have a computer that has no mouse input at the moment. It is very cumbersome to interact with words that have this text decoration. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Now blur is changed to strike. I wanted to use 50%-opaque 2px-thick line (text-decoration: line-through 2px rgba(0,0,0,0.50);) but for some reason wiki editor does not let use thickness so i had to use 80%-opaque 1px-thick line (text-decoration: line-through rgba(0,0,0,0.80);) —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I stand by my earlier comment that using the same format as Template:t-check, a superscript note explicitly saying "(please verify)", or even a non-superscript note like Template:rfv-sense, would probably be the clearest thing, although if a term is really most likely fabricated and the likelihood of someone coming back to provide references is low, maybe just remove it or move it to the talk page or HTML-comment it out. IMO we should allow people to occasionally RFV terms that don't have entries yet: then we could just submit the terms this is for to RFV and remove them after a month... - -sche (discuss) 03:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Delete, if this is not rendered more useful/user-friendly. Strikethrough is not a help. Text display of what action is to be taken and where seems essential, but has not been provided in the more than five months this RfD has been active. And deprecate now. DCDuring (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• I've added "(please verify)" in superscript (per -sche's suggestion), removed the strikethrough, and given it the same pale background colour as {{t-check}}. I also changed it to take the linked term as a parameter rather than using CSS to apply styles to the element that came after {{rfv-term}}. As a consequence of my implementation the subpage Template:rfv-term/styles.css is no longer used and can be deleted. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 21:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep now that its appearance has been improved. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 21:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• There are other problems that will need to be remedied if this is kept: to start with, the documentation says that the language code should be for "The language code of the term", which could mean either the term the template is added to, or the term that's being challenged. The template adds "Category:Requests for references for terms in [] entries", which suggests the former, but in actual use, it's the latter. There are two entries that use this template: Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/orǫdьje where the language code is goh, not sla-pro, and Reconstruction:Proto-Balto-Slavic/tewas, where the language code used is svx, not ine-bsl-pro. Since this is used in entries other than the one challenged, it is not found in entries for the same language as the language code, so the category name is incorrect. Secondly, our category infrastructure doesn't know about these categories, so Category:Requests for references for terms in Old High German entries is in Category:Categories with invalid label because {{auto cat}} doesn't recognize it. Category:Requests for references for terms in Old Church Slavonic entries doesn't use {{auto cat}} and thus has no problems, but it's empty and will probably be deleted soon. Reconstruction:Proto-Balto-Slavic/tewas has a redlink to Category:Requests for references for terms in Skalvian entries, but it's been 2 1/2 months since the last edit to either the entry or the template and no one has created it. Clicking the redlink and previewing the new page with {{auto cat}} shows that it would be in Category:Categories with invalid label if were created.

We need to decide what this template is for if we're going to keep using it, and make sure the template code matches that as well as making sure the documentation is clear and matches that, too. Then we need to update the relevant modules so the categories are integrated into our category structure.

The cosmetic problems that led to the RFD have been fixed, but the combination of unclear documentation, clash between category naming and actual use, and inability to create the categories without fatal errors is an absolutely bizarre train wreck that traces back to the original creation of the template. That needs to change or this needs to be deleted. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

At least there are no passengers on the train any more. DCDuring (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: The mismatch could be handled by a list at WT:Todo/Lists. --RichardW57m (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Appendix:Terms derived from toponyms

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

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

Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Delete for the sake of deduplication. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 19:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

Category:en:Multiracial

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

@Inqilābī: I think you'll need to explain why it's not "proper". — SGconlaw (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

1. It is not in proper category format; we do not have Category:Multiracial. (It was created unilaterally without consensus.)
2. This category is a hotchpotch of random entries. All ethnonyms, including mixed races (such as mestizo, mulatto, Eurasian), belong in CAT:Ethnonyms; ethnic slurs have their own separate category; CAT:Scientific racism and CAT:Eugenics could be separate categories, if useful.
3. Even the category name is not grammatically correct, it should be either multiracial people or multiracials.
4. A lot of mixed-race group names are not dictionary material, being SoPs. Therefore, I do not think we need any category dedicated to multiracial people (the name as used in that category, which itself links to Wikipedia). ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 21:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

   I think a lot of third culture kids would disagree with that last point... Theknightwho (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

   William Jones (philologist) was an Anglo-Welsh person. This racial term should remain as a redlink; tho’ it could have a different idiomatic sense. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 14:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

   Issue #1 could be addressed very easily by adding it to the category tree. Issue #3 could be addressed by renaming the category. I don't find #4 a very convincing argument. We could just keep the ones that aren't SOP and delete the ones that are, which is the same rule we apply to any other kind of term. There are evidently plenty of such terms in English that are single words or idiomatic. Also, the RfD of Irish American closed as keep, and although that isn't a term related to mixed ancestry, it shows that hyphenated or spaced combinations of nationalities aren't necessarily regarded as SOP by the community.

   Point #2 seems to be the most substantial, but as I wrote in my comment below I think there might be value in separating out these terms from other ethnonyms. And not all of these fall under Scientific racism or Eugenics. I don't think Blasian or Finndian are necessarily associated with racism or eugenics. Such terms seem to be used as identities by members of the groups themselves. That said, I don't particularly object to deletion either. 70.172.194.25 02:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Delete per nom. —Svārtava (t/u) • 09:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 06:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
• I can see some potential value in keeping a separate category for things like mulatto, Blasian, Chindian, the last of which isn't even in the category currently. I think there is something different about those terms as compared to most ethnonyms, and Wikipedia seems to agree given that it has a "Multiracial affairs" category with similar terms as members.

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

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

  The inclusion of BIPOC in this category perplexes me. I thought "multiracial" in this context describes a person with mixed ancestry, not a coalition of different ethnic groups. 70.172.194.25 01:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Delete. Category:Ethnicity is enough, this looks like a race fetish based on the social construct of race that is particular to the English language having this word race and discourses about it. America moment. Fay Freak (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

March 2022

Category:2-letter words by language

Category:1-letter words by language

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

Sure, but why are you proposing them for deletion? This sounds like a bot request. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually I wanted to know whether the community wishes to keep these categories… ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 11:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm good with keeping them, but it should be automated. Theknightwho (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

It would be impossible to add these automatically without rendering the categories essentially meaningless. For example, d has several POSs which consist only of abbreviation senses (which evidently don't count as "words" in the eyes of this categorisation system), but the headword line template has no way of knowing that. This, that and the other (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that we don't want to increase Lua memory burden on Latin script letter pages, so a lot of headword templates on a few such entries (currently a, A, b, o, u) are using {{head-lite}} anyway. 70.172.194.25 05:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Keep - useful for word games and other things. John Cross (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Inqilābī Keep three-letter words. I asked (under my old account) about using a bot to populate (specifically the English subcategories of) these categories last June and @Suzukaze-c said that they could be trivially populated using {{head}} or its subtemplates. Several months later I sought consensus to populate them (and someone with template editing privileges) and received no responses. But I do not have a solution to the problem pointed out by @This, that and the other above, so for now I will abstain on one-letter words. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 23:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Keep I agree the one and two letter categories are useful. As pointed out, a bot can't make proper categorization since it can't separate words from other character groups like abbreviations. Bots could assist maintenance, if all n-letter entries were flagged with either "include" or "exclude" templates or some such; the bots could report entries missing either flag into a maintenance category for manual attention. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

It can do it via parts of speech and checking for templates like {{initialism of}}. It's certainly doable, I think. Theknightwho (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Racist. Everything in Semitic languages is three letters, the most important words shorter than that. Not to speak of CJK. Databases usable for word games should be designed by external applications, this is basically special-casing Standard Average European languages. Also disproportionate maintenance burden. Fay Freak (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete all with prejudice. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Templates and reference templates by language family rather than by language

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

Cf. https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?oldid=64486872#Undeletion_of_CAT:Indo-Aryan_reference_templates —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Koavf: Please see the bottom of that category that contains reference templates pertaining to the Indo-Aryan language family as a whole, rather than specific languages or even chronolects. Since Wiktionary does not treat Indo-Aryan as a united macrolanguage like Sinitic/Chinese, it makes more sense to dedicate a separate category for the current reference templates that deal with Indo-Aryan linguistics. That said, we may remove the 56 individual language categories from the list. (Pinging @Kutchkutch, Bhagadatta, Svartava, AryamanA for more input.)

I’m not sure what to be done with other families, or if consistency is needful across all languages: in that case you could raise the matter in the BP. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 11:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: You are correct that some of these are about Indo-Aryan at large, but 1.) they can just be put into specific language categories as they are used on entries for those languages, 2.) what I'm suggesting is already done in practice for several of these categories (and was before I started editing them), and 3.) there are definitely other references that apply to more than one (e.g.) Romance language or Semitic language as well, so we're back to either sorting one reference template into several individual language categories (my preference) or building out the module and hierarchy to include language families. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Koavf I find the existence of these categories very convenient and do not support their deletion. There is a long history of comparative literature on these families and in that respect being able to easily find reference templates for related language varieties is useful. If these categories are outliers, then I would suggest that the creation of more like them would actually be a better idea. I could see such categories being particularly useful for Iranian languages, Dravidian languages, Austro-Asiatic, for example. عُثمان (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. You've been able to use this category scheme before? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes—for example on an entry like urial, it was helpful for locating the relevant reference templates for reconstructing the etymology عُثمان (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Were they recategorized the way I suggested, would you not have been able to use it as effectively? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

No—the larger a category is, the more challenging I find it to navigate it. (Even the difference in the amount of time it takes to load the pages is non-trivial since I don't have a great internet connection.) عُثمان (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

And my proposal is to make smaller categories, so you made my argument for me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

If you make smaller subcategories, the containing category becomes larger. There also aren't any established genetic subgroupings of Indo-Aryan to make smaller categories with. (Most schemes which do so out of convenience on solely geographic criteria end up splitting mutually intelligible dialects between subgroups.) So it is not clear what sort of categories you are suggesting be made عُثمان (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:ethnologue

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

Quite a lot of money, yes! We could tag the template with Template:crippling paywall (or whatever...), I suppose. If not, delete Notusbutthem (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Replace with {{ISO 639}} This, that and the other (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm doing a general rework of how we treat ISO 639 codes at the moment - part of which involves splitting out the ethnologue parameter from {{ISO 639}} because it's a bit of a mish-mash at the moment, which makes it trickier to deprecate things in situations like this. I agree that it's less-than-ideal to link to sites which are hidden behind paywalls, though. Theknightwho (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Delete. This is literal advertising. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 23:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

We should replace it with a Glottolog link, as that's free. Theknightwho (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Why not add a link to https://glottolog.org/glottolog?iso=aaa into {{ISO 639}}? This, that and the other (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Theknightwho ^^ if we do this we can surely delete the ethnologue template, unless there is some issue with divergent codes. This, that and the other (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@This, that and the other They do have divergent codes (Glottolog use a different system that is also much more comprehensive on the dialectal level), but that’s bottable. Theknightwho (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Delete, though I'll leave it to the more knowledgeable to decide if a replacement is appropriate. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 06:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
• We could change the links to point to the 15th or 16th editions which are openly available to borrow on the Internet Archive. You don't even need an account to view a link to a specific page, which is presumably all we'd need for the reference anyway. Glottolog and Ethnologue aren't remotely equivalent. Compare Glottolog on Estonian, Ethnologue on Estonian. 70.172.194.25 06:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  The 16th edition is from 2009; that info is starting to get a bit long in the tooth... This, that and the other (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

June 2022

Template:kk-regional

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

It's also out of date, as Kazakhstan has been transitioning to the Latin alphabet since 2017 as well. Theknightwho (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep, and update to having three scripts. Thadh (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Why not put it in the headword line still? Having it all the way over on the right is nonstandard (except for Persian I guess) and easy to miss. This, that and the other (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree - merge into the headword template. Theknightwho (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC) I've changed my mind, as I actually really prefer this formatting. Keep. Theknightwho (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Not every contributor prefers to use multiple scripts in the headwords, apparently. E.g. Mongolian entries are gradually converted from that into a similar Mongolian template {{mn-variant}}, e.g. суулгах (suulgax) by @MonoParallax, LibCae, Crom daba.

We should also ask the opinion of primary Kazakh editor who heavily uses the template: @Vtgnoq7238rmqco. Note that the modern Roman spelling for Kazakh <> the Kazakh transliteration at Wiktionary and the conversion is not that straightforward. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

In fairness, that layout does make more sense for Mongolian given it's written vertically. Theknightwho (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I stuffed up my edits (put the answer into a wrong section), so repeating the ping to @MonoParallax, LibCae, Crom daba, Vtgnoq7238rmqco. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Atitarev, Theknightwho, This, that and the other I think I agree that it would be better in the headword line. If there were inflected forms in the headword line, having multiple scripts as well would get crowded, but it appears this isn't the case. We do have {{ku-regional}} for Kurdish but this isn't really parallel because these represent different languages rather than different script variants of the same language. Arguably the same thing is going on with {{fa-regional}}. Benwing2 (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I assume that the current layout of Azerbaijani lemmas could be a perfect example, as all three scripts (Arabic, Latin and Cyrillic) are represented independently on most occasions. However, it could be a huge work to give all Kazakh entries a similar overhaul. Vtgnoq7238rmqco (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Vtgnoq7238rmqco This should be easy by bot, no? Benwing2 (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Vtgnoq7238rmqco, Benwing2, This, that and the other, Theknightwho: Just wish to mention that a missing Latin parameter makes the current Kazakh entries with the template look ugly, e.g. жандармерия (jandarmeriä). Can they be safely made optional (or just the new one) or can we use named optional parameters instead? Re: bot. @Benwing2, @Vtgnoq7238rmqco: I don't think we have data to populate the new Roman spelling on all Kazakh terms and the conversion from Cyrillic is not 1:1 and can't be error-free, AFAIK. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Atitarev I can fix {{kk-regional}}. As for bot conversion: (1) can we simply convert whatever we have without needing out the Cyrillic -> Latin conversion? (2) what are the issues with Cyrillic -> Latin? Is it possible to automate it for some pages, while leaving others to be done manually? Benwing2 (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2: The Cyrillic -> Latin correspondence issue was mentioned by User:Vtgnoq7238rmqco in the past when we talked about what should be the romanisation standard but I don't remember the discussion. The issue may not be current, though. Back then we had digraphs in the proposed romanisation. They have been abandoned since. If we are targeting just one romanisation version, the future one, then it's possibly one-to-one but it's not the one we use at Module:kk-translit

Copying the table from Wikipedia. This must be the latest proposed romanisation to be implemented:

A a (А а)	Ä ä (Ә ә)	B b (Б б)	D d (Д д)	E e (Е е)	F f (Ф ф)	G g (Г г)	Ğ ğ (Ғ ғ)
H h (Х х, Һ һ)	I ı (І і)	İ i (Й й, И и)	J j (Ж ж)	K k (К к)	L l (Л л)	M m (М м)	N n (Н н)
Ñ ñ (Ң ң)	O o (О о)	Ö ö (Ө ө)	P p (П п)	Q q (Қ қ)	R r (Р р)	S s (С с)	Ş ş (Ш ш)
T t (Т т)	U u (У у)	Ū ū (Ұ ұ)	Ü ü (Ү ү)	V v (В в)	Y y (Ы ы)	Z z (З з)

The proposed romanisation may be updated yet again, LOL. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Atitarev Thanks. No digraphs any more in the proposed romanization and our own romanization only has digraphs for я ё ю which aren't anywhere in the table above (presumably they are used only for Russian loanwords?). I am all in favor of using a standard romanization instead of an ad-hoc one but I gather that the proposed romanization is a moving target. Benwing2 (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2, Vtgnoq7238rmqco: Yes, in the latest development, the digraphs (apart from Russian loanwords) are eliminated. Transliterations of я, ё, ю, ъ, ь, э, ц need clarifications. I support switching Module:kk-translit and WT:KK TR to the latest proposed transliterations and the Roman forms could simply be the automated transliteration of the Cyrillic spelling. I first proposed the switch in Module talk:kk-translit but it wasn't support. I'd like to ask @Vtgnoq7238rmqco to revisit. There may be a few corner cases but we can look up any of those.

BTW, https://sozdik.kz/ also has a romanised Kazakh. It looks up-to-date but I am not 100% sure. I have an account there. The site will require it when you have too many searches. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Atitarev: I tried to compare the transliteration of several Kazakh loanwords from Russian on the website you mentioned, and the results are as followed. I feel doubtful about these transliterations because I have not found any official documents to regulate them. Besides, я and ю are rather common in Kazakh text apart from Russian loanwords (e.g саясат is borrowed from Persian, and ю usually appears in some infinitives).

Я is transliterated into Ä (same as Ә. e.g ядро/ädro).

Both Ё and Э are transliterated into E (same as Е. e.g щётка/şetka).

Both Щ and Ч are transliterated into Ş (same as Ш. e.g чемпионат/şempionat).

Ю is transliterated into Ü (same as Ү. e.g юрисдикция/ürisdiksia).

Ц is transliterated into S (same as С. e.g циклон/siklon).

НГ is transliterated into Ñ (same as Ң. e.g акваланг/akvalañ).

ъ and ь are omitted as default (e.g гуашь/guaş), but there are irregularities. For instance, король is transliterated into ‘koröl’, but ‘korolı’ and ‘korol’ also appear in the sample sentences.

Perhaps further regulations would clarify those changes I mentioned. Personally, I doubt if Kazakhstan government will update the current transliteration once more.

Vtgnoq7238rmqco (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Vtgnoq7238rmqco, Benwing2: Sorry, I missed the response without the ping. It's interesting. I think we can start the bot could add the Latin spelling for words where these letters are not used and leave the rest to be filled manually or wait when the conversion is clarified. We can perhaps agree on what to use.

Some or most of Vtgnoq7238rmqco's findings make sense. Apparently "щётка" is not pronounced as in Russian, "ё" is ignored and read as a dotless "е" and it makes sense "щ" has become a "ш". Ц has become a single "s", rather than "ts" in the romanised Uzbek, Turkmen and Azerbaijani, although there are inconsistencies and variants with "ts". Tajik (even if it's still Cyrillic and not a Turkic language) has abandoned letter "ц" entirely in favour of "тс", which is also often just a "с".

I have asked a question on w:Talk:Kazakh alphabets regarding the policies on these selected letters - я, ё, ю, ъ, ь, э, ц, ч and щ.

Should part of the discussion be moved to Module talk:kk-translit or Wiktionary talk:Kazakh transliteration instead? This is not all about the template. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Combine and Deprecate Template:kk-regional and Template:kk-scripts into Template:kk-alt

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

notifying @Atitarev, @Theknightwho, @Benwing2, @Thadh, @Vtgnoq7238rmqco, who were involved in the discussion in RFD. I would've started this conversation in requests for deletion but there was already a conversation started there (for a different reason), unless one of you thinks this should be added to that conversation??? سَمِیر | Sameer (^{مشارکت‌ها} • ^{کتی من گپ بزن}) 04:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sameerhameedy I think this should go into that same conversation in WT:RFDO; you can make a new L3 header for it in the same conversation. Benwing2 (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Moved, re-notifying @Atitarev, @Theknightwho, @Benwing2, @Thadh, @Vtgnoq7238rmqco. (as the old pings are no longer valid). سَمِیر | Sameer (^{مشارکت‌ها} • ^{کتی من گپ بزن}) 05:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sameerhameedy This is fine with me but we should decide whether this info is better placed in the headword. (If so, it should be easy to adapt the code in {{kk-alt}} into Module:kk-headword.) Benwing2 (talk) 05:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with the new template, but I would prefer it as a box rather than in the headword for aesthetic reasons. Thadh (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about this. The Cyrillic and Latin spellings are already in the headword line; it seems weird to repeat them in this box. The only unique info here is the Arabic spelling. If it is possible to find a nice way to fit it into the headword line, wouldn't that be better? Alternatively (heh), they could go under an "Alternative forms" or "Alternative spellings" header. This, that and the other (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I definitely think we should remove them from the headword line, if they are given there as well. But if you're referring to the transliteration, is not the same as the Latin script: cf. анархия. Thadh (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Thadh I think that is a mistake (re the difference between Latin script and translit). The problem is that the current approved Latin script version is very much a moving target and we haven't yet worked out to what extent we will try to track this. BTW I agree with User:This, that and the other that we should put these in the headword line. This is consistent with the handling of other multi-script languages such as Serbo-Croatian, Malay, Hindi/Urdu, etc. Mongolian is an exception but things are weird there due to the vertical script. Benwing2 (talk) 11:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2: What about Azerbaijani, Uzbek, Uyghur, Tatar...? You can't just name a couple of languages that do this option and say it's now some kind of status quo. Thadh (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

OK fine (for the record I named 4 languages not 2) but I still think it belongs in the headword. It will get generated automatically if placed in the headword (to the extent this is possible), but it needs a separate template call if placed in a float-right box, which is extra editor work (for this reason many of the Uzbek entries I checked were missing the box). Benwing2 (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

No the current transliteration Module for Kazakh doesn't match the current Kazakh Latin alphabet, so the kk-alt uses its own conversion. سَمِیر | Sameer (^{مشارکت‌ها} • ^{کتی من گپ بزن}) 17:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sameerhameedy Just FYI there are errors caused by kk-alt on Ь and ь; it seems the Yañalif code can't handle them. Benwing2 (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@This, that and the other, @Benwing2 it only automatically generates the modern Arabic, Cyrillic, and Latin spellings (sometimes it generates the yañalif spelling) but there's also the pre-reform Arabic spelling used by Kazakh prior to 1924 and the Latin script (Yañalif) used by Kazakh for some 7 ~10yrs before switching to Cyrillic (see құдай, which includes all of them). I suppose we could remove all Kazakh alphabets that are no longer used... But I think the information is helpful, even if it can only be included occasionally. I kinda agree with @Thadh that the Latin script should be moved from the headword to the box (assuming we don't move the Arabic spelling), It would be similar to what Pali does.

But if we end up deciding that the old Arabic and Latin spellings are not worth including.. or you guys have some other plan for showing them.. then whatever. I suppose it wouldn't matter where the Latin and Arabic spellings go. سَمِیر | Sameer (^{مشارکت‌ها} • ^{کتی من گپ بزن}) 17:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I definitely think we should aim to include these in the long run, so might as well start now. Unlike with scripts like IPA or shorthands, there is a good chance of people finding these in running text and wanting to look up what these words mean. Thadh (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

yes I think so too, the only issue I can think of is that since the yañalif alphabet was abandoned decades before the internet, it'll probably be difficult to attest. Nearly all Yañalif spellings will be red links unless someone sorts through newspapers from the 1920s and 1930s سَمِیر | Sameer (^{مشارکت‌ها} • ^{کتی من گپ بزن}) 22:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sameerhameedy I suppose if we are showing that many different scripts it makes some sense to put them in a box, but I'm not sure we need the older spellings esp. Yañalif, since it was used only for a few years. The alternative is to put some of them (the less common ones) in an ==Alternative forms== section. Benwing2 (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sameerhameedy Also if we do include the obsolete script forms we should have some clear indication that they are obsolete, like including the years used. Benwing2 (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd much prefer to put these spellings in "Alternative forms". We currently have a divergence of practice where Indic languages (e.g. आसन (āsana)) are using "Alternative forms" while Central Asian languages use this floating box. Floating boxes force the reader away from the top-to-bottom "flow" of the entry and should only be used for things that are truly peripheral to the lexical content, like sister project links. This, that and the other (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@This, that and the other, @Benwing2, @Thadh I could update the floating box to look more like the "alternative scripts" header used by Sanskrit and Pali if that's the main issue. (something like this?) Though this conversation has shifted away from whether to delete Template:kk-regional and Template:kk-scripts in place of Template:kk-alt; to the general layout of Kazakh entries. Since Kazakh Layout is more of a policy issue shouldn't that discussion be in beer parlor? سَمِیر | Sameer (^{مشارکت‌ها} • ^{کتی من گپ بزن}) 03:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sameerhameedy Yes, that looks fine to me and seems a reasonable compromise, and yeah it might be reasonable to bring this up in the Beer Parlour. Benwing2 (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

August 2022

Template:table:colors/zh

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

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

Support move to colors/cmn per nomination. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Template:table:Chinese tones/zh

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

Why not move these to [foo]/cmn? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

also nominating Chinese tones, which imo only the first table is relevant material. –Wpi31 (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

also the various templates in Category:Chinese list templates – Wpi31 (talk) 07:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Resolved. Seems like the only responses are in favour of moving these from /zh to /cmn. I will be doing the moves gradually over the next few weeks. This will need some manual intervention to determine which terms are Mandarin and which are not Mandarin but incorrectly added to these templates. – Wpi31 (talk) 08:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Wpi31 Did you ever get around to doing this? If not, do you need some help? Also, maybe some of these should be just moved into set categories rather than separate lists. Benwing2 (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Sorry I've just sort of forgot about them. I'll do them soon. There are sometimes non-Mandarin terms in the mix so it needs to be checked one by one. – wpi (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I've moved most of the table ones to /cmn, as well as splitting Template:table:poker hands/zh and Template:table:suits/zh into /cmn and /yue; except for Template:Table:Chinese Zodiac/zh where the template naming/formatting itself is problematic and Template:table:colors/zh where I'm not terribly familiar with the color names.

It would be helpful if there was a bot that (re)populates these templates and delete the unused /zh templates. And yes, some of the list templates would probably be better suited for categories. – wpi (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Wpi Thanks! Can you clarify what the issue is with Template:Table:Chinese Zodiac/zh and what you mean by a bot that "(re)populates these templates"? I can delete the now unused /zh templates. Benwing2 (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Template:Table:Chinese Zodiac does not conform to the naming scheme, and should be Template:table:Chinese zodiac or Template:table:Chinese zodiacs instead, and it wraps <span lang="und"></span> around the term which breaks some of the css formatting; there's also |language= which doesn't make much sense when we have {{langname}} - it seems the person who made the template hasn't put much thought into it.

By repopulating I mean replacing the existing uses of /zh with the /cmn equivalents, or perhaps even adding the template to pages which lack them. – wpi (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Some categories for historical countries

CAT:Czechoslovakia, CAT:West Germany, CAT:Yugoslavia. All of these mostly contain either of the following three types of entries:

1. Terms denoting the country (Кралство Југославија, Republika Federalna Niemiec) or its inhabitants (Westdeutsche)

2. Terms denoting a currency or something similar that is in no way specific to this period in time (halerz, korona)

3. Terms denoting a place name of a town or city that still exists (Prague, ベオグラード)

The category for Yugoslavia does include a handful of entries that do not fall into these types, but are still pretty basic and do not imho need a category (these are terms like Yugoslav People's Army).

I feel like these categories denote historical periods of countries that are not culturally significant enough to warrant a separate category, but rather should be distributed among the country's descendant's/s' categories. I don't see - judging by the entries now present in the category - how Yugoslavia is more culturally and/or historically significant than, say, the Batavian Republic, the Kingdom of Italy or the French Third Republic. I do not think these three categories are at all comparable with CAT:Soviet Union or even CAT:East Germany (again, judging by the current entries that are added to the respective categories). Thadh (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

It seems that at least for Category:West Germany, the category just isn't populated in the same way that Category:East Germany is, at least for English. I've created the category Category:en:West Germany, and populated with a few entries. I also added terms like Wessi and Besserwessi to the respective category for German. With that, I think that the categories just need to have entries actually marked with them before really talking about deletion. AG202 (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I still think marking terms like fall of the wall with "historical"+"Germany" would suffice, without creating these niche categories. Thadh (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

My point was more that if Category:en:East Germany exists then Category:en:West Germany should as well, looking at the entries in both. I'm aware that Category:DDR_German exists as well for East German German, but that can exist easily without Category:de:East Germany. Either they should both go or they should both stay. Same with the Yugoslavia category. The only one I'd maybe support deleting is the Czechslovakia category, but I have a strong feeling that it just hasn't been populated and there may be Czech or Slovak terms that would have a special place in it. AG202 (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Appendix:Old Prussian Swadesh list

not Old Prussian but (re-)constructed Old Prussian AKA Neo-Prussian, and the page doesn't even clarify that it's a (re-)construction and by whom it was made. --11:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by 93.221.61.136 (talk).

• I'm in the process of verifying the table. The New Prussian lemmas will be replaced with the corresponding PRG attestations that I manage to find in the three Catechisms. I'll also try to supplement the entries that the table links to. Though it will take a while before the table is fully verified. JimiY☽ru 05:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:R:Etymological Dictionary of Arabic Comment Suggestion

This template is transcluded into two entries, but does not accomplish what it purports to do, eg, link to entry in the reference. It categorizes in English reference templates, not Arabic ones, though the reference work is written in Arabic about Arabic terms. It uses the deprecated template {{R:Reference-meta}}. Revision might eliminate any reason for deletion. The documentation says that it was derived from an English reference template. DCDuring (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

BTW, there are 101 other templates that use deprecated {{R:Reference-meta}}, though I don't think they all are as error-laden as this one. DCDuring (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, the categorisation was trivial to fix. --RichardW57 (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Have migrated it to {{cite-web}} and fixed the URLs at the two entries, so keep. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
  • @Al-Muqanna: The links on tuna and Algeria don't seem to work for me. Do they work for you? Btw, do you think it would be better to make the ID a parameter instead of the full URL? Maybe it wouldn't be a good idea if the IDs aren't stable or if the URL has to be very complicated, but if those issues don't apply then it seems preferable. Anyway, I certainly support keeping this in theory, but it would be good to make the links work if at all possible. 70.172.194.25 01:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

    They certainly worked a few months ago when I wrote it, but the links seem to have changed (which beats the whole idea of a permalink), along with the IDs. If they're not going to preserve stable URLs then it might be problematic to maintain the template. I've updated Algeria and will look for the other one in a bit. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 08:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• The links don't work anymore TypeO889 (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

November 2022

Category:Ancient Greek compounds with ποιέω/with ποιός

These are the only two categories of this type for ancient greek, and they each have one entry. I dont even think that there are any other entries fitting this description that have been missed. I propose just removing the category template from these pages, and they would be removed from the category page automatically right? Anatol Rath (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

It's certainly productive in Byzantine Greek where there's theological stuff like θεοποιῶ (theopoiô), ἁγιοποιῶ (hagiopoiô) (though we don't have entries for them). But it would probably make sense to just analyse this as a suffix instead? There's already an entry for modern Greek -ποιώ (-poió) which cites ancient -ποιῶ (-poiô) as etymon. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• Delete. No need for term-specific compound categories. Ultimateria (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

December 2022

remove lesser-used column templates

I propose to remove the following column templates, after orphaning them by bot:

• Template:des-top, Template:des-bottom
• Template:desc-top, Template:desc-bottom
• Template:hyp-top, Template:hyp-top3, Template:hyp-bottom
• Template:derived terms
• Template:co-bottom
• Template:User:Donnanz/der3-u
• Template:hcol, Template:hcol2, Template:hcol3, Template:hcol4, Template:topx, Template:topx+, Template:exp-topx, (Template:hrow is used too much to deprecate right now, maybe later)

@Saltmarsh, Useigor, Surjection, Donnanz, Theknightwho We have far too many column templates with overlapping functionality, each with their own bugs and limitations. People keep "helpfully" creating more of them, for unclear reasons but seemingly to try to "fix" the "bugs" in the existing templates. IMO we only really need two sets: (1) {{col}} and related templates, which take the items inside the template, (2) templates where the items go outside, such as in {{top2}}, {{rel-top}}, {{der-top}}, etc. etc. I have pinged some of the creators of the existing templates that I propose to delete. Several other creators are no longer active. Benwing2 (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2 Mea culpa — looking back I see that I was guilty of "helpfulness". Why did I create the first-named above, I don't remember (it was 2008). It must have seemed like a good idea at the time — was it ever used? Trim away! — Saltmarsh^🢃 06:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Fully supportive of this endeavour! It will be very exciting to get rid of unnecessary templates and minimise the terrible confusion that currently exists in this space. I would suggest to leave {{nav-bottom}} out of this list though, as it is currently being used as a collapsible box template, rather than a column template. (Why don't we have something like Category:Collapsible box templates, incidentally?) This, that and the other (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

For some context, I created {{nav-top}} and {{nav-bottom}} less as a column template and more as a collapse box template that also has column functionality (although I don't think any transclusion currently uses that feature). If it is removed, there should be some kind of alternative that it is replaced with. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Template:User:Donnanz/der3-u was created to deal with false automatic alphabetical sorting of Scandinavian characters, the sorting was manual. I haven't used it for some years. DonnanZ (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Surjection, This, that and the other I see, it looks like there are actually four potential sets of templates: items inside vs. items outside and collapsing vs. non-collapsing, and {{nav-top}} and {{nav-bottom}} are actually generalizations of the items-outside collapsing variants. I would maybe suggest giving them different or shorter names, maybe {{col-top}} or {{ctop}} where 'col' or 'c' = collapsing; at least for me, the nav- prefix isn't self-explanatory of what it does. (Update: there already is a {{col-top}}. Blah.) BTW for reference I've attached a table of all the templates currently in CAT:Column templates, along with their aliases and their usage count. Note that the canonical names are boldfaced, and their usage count includes the usage count of their aliases.

Aliased template	Canonical template	#Uses	Disposition
Template:bl	Template:bl	344	Replace with a blank line; I don't see the point of a template. [some discussion of this below]
Template:bottom	Template:bottom	19656	Keep.
Template:co-top	Template:co-top	357	Replace with {{ctop2|Collocations}} and delete.
Template:co-bottom	Template:co-bottom	356	Replace with {{cbottom}} and delete.
Template:col	Template:col	177	Move |1= to |n= so it can be omitted in the future to get auto-width behavior.
Template:col-auto	Template:col-auto	1714	This template is questionable, see discussion in Wiktionary:Grease pit/2022/December#col-auto.
Template:collapse	Template:collapse	487	Replace with {{ctop}}, add {{cbottom}} and delete.
Template:collapse-bottom	Template:collapse-bottom	30	Delete in favor of {{nav-bottom}}/{{box-bottom}}/{{cbottom}} (whatever name is chosen).
Template:collapse-top	Template:collapse-top	30	Delete in favor of {{nav-top}}/{{box-top}}/{{ctop}} (whatever name is chosen).
Template:col-bottom	Template:col-bottom	1807	Keep for now?
Template:col-top	Template:col-top	1848	Keep for now?
Template:col-u	Template:col-u	34	Replace with {{col|sort=0}} and delete.
Template:col1	Template:col1	259	Keep.
Template:col1-u	Template:col1-u	25	Replace with {{col1|sort=0}} and delete.
Template:col2	Template:col2	16251	Keep.
Template:rel2	Template:col2	3244	Keep.
Template:der2	Template:col2	9124	Keep.
Template:col2-u	Template:col2-u	279	Replace with {{col2|sort=0}} and delete.
Template:col3	Template:col3	64916	Keep.
Template:rel3	Template:col3	6669	Keep.
Template:der3	Template:col3	21969	Keep.
Template:col3-u	Template:col3-u	458	Replace with {{col3|sort=0}} and delete.
Template:col4	Template:col4	27323	Keep.
Template:rel4	Template:col4	4491	Keep.
Template:der4	Template:col4	10766	Keep.
Template:col4-u	Template:col4-u	258	Replace with {{col4|sort=0}} and delete.
Template:col5	Template:col5	452	Keep.
Template:col5-u	Template:col5-u	44	Replace with {{col5|sort=0}} and delete.
Template:der-bottom	Template:der-bottom	7247	Keep.
Template:der-top	Template:der-top	5960	Rename to {{der-top2}} for consistency with {{top2}}, unless the header is overridden, in which case replace with {{ctop2}}.
Template:der-top3	Template:der-top3	1457	Keep unless the header is overridden, in which case replace with {{ctop3}}.
Template:der-top4	Template:der-top4	277	Keep unless the header is overridden, in which case replace with {{ctop4}}.
Template:der-top5	Template:der-top5	25	Keep unless the header is overridden, in which case replace with {{ctop5}}.
Template:derived terms	Template:derived terms	169	Replace with {{col-auto|title=Derived terms}} or with {{col|n=N|title=Derived terms}} where N is the value that the algorithm for this template auto-selects; then delete.
Template:des-bottom	Template:des-bottom	293	Replace with {{cbottom}} and delete.
Template:des-top	Template:des-top	295	Replace with {{ctop2|Descendants}} and delete.
Template:desc-bottom	Template:desc-bottom	400	Replace with {{cbottom}} and delete.
Template:desc-top	Template:desc-top	400	Replace with {{ctop2|Descendants}} and delete.
Template:exp-topx	Template:exp-topx	11	Replace with something and delete.
Template:hcol	Template:hcol	239	Replace with {{top2}}, add {{bottom}} at the bottom and delete.
Template:hcol2	Template:hcol2	10	Replace with {{top2}}, add {{bottom}} at the bottom and delete.
Template:hcol3	Template:hcol3	13	Replace with {{top3}}, add {{bottom}} at the bottom and delete.
Template:hcol4	Template:hcol4	8	Replace with {{top4}}, add {{bottom}} at the bottom and delete.
Template:acol4	Template:hcol4	5	Done Replace with {{top4}}, add {{bottom}} at the bottom and delete.
Template:hrow	Template:hrow	2961	This is almost exclusively used for Proto-Slavic descendants. We could make a special-purpose template for this use, replace and delete.
Template:hyp-bottom	Template:hyp-bottom	44	Replace with {{cbottom}} and delete.
Template:hyp-top	Template:hyp-top	25	Replace with {{ctop2|Hypernyms and hyponyms}} and delete.
Template:hyp-top3	Template:hyp-top3	24	Replace with {{ctop3|Hypernyms and hyponyms}} and delete.
Template:nav-bottom	Template:nav-bottom	6	Rename to {{cbottom}}.
Template:nav-top	Template:nav-top	6	Rename to {{ctop}} and rename |columns= to |n=.
Template:rel-bottom	Template:rel-bottom	4654	Keep.
Template:rel-top	Template:rel-top	3463	Rename to {{rel-top2}} for consistency with {{top2}}, unless the header is overridden, in which case replace with {{ctop2}}.
Template:rel-top3	Template:rel-top3	937	Keep unless the header is overridden, in which case replace with {{ctop3}}.
Template:rel-top4	Template:rel-top4	394	Keep unless the header is overridden, in which case replace with {{ctop4}}.
Template:rel-top5	Template:rel-top5	29	Keep unless the header is overridden, in which case replace with {{ctop5}}.
Template:rhyme list begin	Template:rhyme list begin	6641	Keep.
Template:rhyme list end	Template:rhyme list end	6639	Keep.
Template:Show-head	Template:Show-head	16	Replace with {{ctop}} and delete.
Template:Show-tail	Template:Show-tail	15	Replace with {{cbottom}} and delete.
Template:templatetable	Template:templatetable	12	Inline code and delete.
Template:th-alt	Template:th-alt	696	Replace with {{col3}} and delete.
Template:top2	Template:top2	10596	Keep.
Template:top3	Template:top3	6277	Keep.
Template:top4	Template:top4	3265	Keep.
Template:top5	Template:top5	279	Keep.
Template:topx	Template:topx	31	Replace with something and delete.
Template:trans-bottom	Template:trans-bottom	123345	Keep.
Template:trans-mid	Template:trans-mid	121580	Orphan and delete after pushing new version to production.
Template:trans-top	Template:trans-top	122641	Keep.
Template:trans-top-also	Template:trans-top-also	1770	Keep.
Template:trans-top-see	Template:trans-top-also	380	Replace with {{trans-top-also}} and delete.
Template:User:Donnanz/der3-u	Template:User:Donnanz/der3-u	399	Replace with {{der3}} and delete.
Template:vi-der	Template:vi-der	2230	Why do we need this? Figure out how to obsolete it.
Template:zh-der	Template:zh-der	38175	Keep. Replace with {{col3}} and deprecate.
Template:zh-der/fast	Template:zh-der/fast	34	A failed experiment; replace with {{zh-der}}{{col3}} and delete.
Template:zh-syn-list	Template:zh-der	1938	Done Replace with {{zh-der}}{{col3}} and deprecate.
Template:zh-ant-list	Template:zh-der	48	Done Replace with {{zh-der}}{{col3}} and delete.

Benwing2 (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Update: I added a column labeled "Disposition" containing what I think should be done with the template. I think there should only be three sets of templates: (1) auto-collapsing with items inside the template: {{col}}, {{col2}}, etc.; (2) auto-collapsing with items outside the template: {{ctop}}, {{ctop2}}, etc.; (3) non-collapsing with items outside the template: {{top2}}, etc.. Thoughts? Benwing2 (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Very comprehensive, and very sensible. I endorse the entire list.

To me {{col-top}} says "column", not "collapsible". Perhaps {{box-top}}? This, that and the other (talk) 11:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Seems sensible. Thanks! — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@This, that and the other {{box-top}} makes sense to me. Benwing2 (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I support consolidating a lot of these. I do want to note that I have long seen {{rel-top}} used (and have subsequently myself used it, e.g. in blunket and Iroquois) purely to collapse prose, e.g. details and less-important info in a long etymology, without necessarily needing the contents to be divided into columns, though it seems like at some points in its history the template has divided info into columns (I can recall when the ety info in Iroquois used to show up in two columns, although it did not originally, and presently does not again). That is a situation we still need a template for, to collapse info into an expandable box without dividing it into columns, but I'm by no means wedded to {{rel-top}} being that template: it's just what I saw people use for that purpose, but it's not an intuitive name for that use-case. The superficially more intuitively named col-top (collapsible-box-top? no) is apparently short for column- instead. We have T:collapse-top, which should work, although it's currently presented as if it's intended to be used to list translations (which are displayed in columns). (Update, I changed that.) Anyway, as long as there is still a template for "collapsing, with items outside the template, not divided into columns", I support consolidating the proliferation of column templates. I wonder if there's a way to find cases where people have used "column templates" purely for their collapsing functionality, to convert to T:collapse-top: perhaps we look for cases where they're used in the ===Etymology===, ===References=== or ===Further reading=== section, and/or where the contents includes a line of characters longer than some number N, to catch things like

This is a long string of prose someone felt should be collapsed, able to be expanded by interested parties but otherwise out of the way.

as opposed to

• item in a list
• another list-item

- -sche (discuss) 01:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@-sche Thanks for your comments. Yes, I am also suggesting using 'col' or 'c' to stand for 'collapse' but it seems confusable with 'column' as you note. I didn't know about {{collapse-top}}; it seems there are ever more column templates I'm finding. The current {{nav-top}}, which I'm proposing to rename to {{ctop}} or {{box-top}}, should work as well as {{collapse-top}}, and the two should be merged. As for uses of {{rel-top}} for collapsing functionality, this appears to work because the items are raw paragraphs rather than list items, and we should be able to check for this by looking for * or # at the beginning of the lines. Benwing2 (talk) 03:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Box-top sounds fine, or frankly we could just keep the very plainly named T:collapse-top (at least as a redirect). Maybe we should avoid using col- or c- for either columns or collapsing, given the ambiguity. - -sche (discuss) 20:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Having thought about this some more, I am not sure if it is a good idea to delete {{bl}}. In certain cases, chiefly complex nested lists of descendants, it can be valuable to have the ability to break the CSS columns manually. It feels neater to me to do that with a template than with a pure blank line in the wikitext, which is more fragile. This, that and the other (talk) 10:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, a blank line seems liable to be removed as an error / stray whitespace, whereas {{bl}} is at least clearly intentional. If there are cases where we need to insert blank lines, I suppose it's reasonable to have a template for it. - -sche (discuss) 20:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

(No objection to deleting the redirect from T:topspan, though, which seems little-used and unintuitively-named.) - -sche (discuss) 04:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding hrow, it also seems to be used in Irish pronunciation sections, and could of course be deployed to other proto-languages besides Slavic, but ... is it better than just using the templates like desc-top and top2 that we use to list descendants (etc)