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.
Keep - not in itself a rational for deletion. also yourself: is the category useful? does it fit into a schema of categorisation? is it likely that we are goingto have things to vategorise into it, inm the future? if the answer to anty ofthese is "yes", then we should keep it, rather than have to repeat the work later. respectfully, Lx 121 (talk) 10:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Delete all - the first one is more dubious than the rest though, as Kangxi Radicals block is just a Unicode block category. If the contents are the same though, there's little point in keeping them separate. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 18:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
So the entries requiring manual review are those only in CJKV radicals. It appears to me, as a CJK outsider, that many of these are essentially alternative forms of radicals. Many of these have corresponding radical appendices, and many of them have the residual strokes parameter set to "00", which I assume is meant to do something magical.
@This, that and the other It's a really badly-named category. It's added by {{ja-kanji}} if grade=r is manually set, which is (a) not what that parameter is supposed to be for, and (b) clearly not something that should be controlled by a Japanese template. I suspect this is a holdover from the very early days of Wiktonary.
The entire kanji grade system is something that's already handled via the back-end anyway and shouldn't have any kind of manual override since it's all strictly defined.
The reason the residual strokes parameter is set to 0 is because residual strokes are defined by reference to a character's radical (e.g. it's radical X + 3 additional strokes). This is useful for sorting purposes, as the radical is used as the primary sorting weight, with the residual strokes being used for fine-tuning within that. Naturally, characters which are themselves radicals have 0 additional strokes. Theknightwho (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep them, it is of practical value. Maybe Chinese will use it, or not, will understand it, or not, doesn't matter. What is important in it the Koreans / Japanese respectively and the lerners of Korean / Japanese respectively will find the respective category valuable. NoychoH (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree to keep per NoychoH, I found this Japanese-coined CJKV characters used outside Japanese and was surprised to see anyone wants it deleted. It's just curious, for which reason it's valuable. I just see no reason to delete it. Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 19:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@NoychoH @Kiril kovachev @Auvon If its starts being used in Chinese, then it stops being a Japanese-only character. The big problem with the category is that it relies on other languages not using it, which is essentially impossible to keep track of. Theknightwho (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho Okay, good point. I could suggest removing a character from the category once we have a Chinese entry for it, but this would require more work on the part of Chinese editors. I don't necessarily oppose deleting the Japanese-only and Korean-only categories, but I don't know why Category:Japanese-coined CJKV characters used outside Japanese is being included in this RfD. That doesn't have the same problem in that it doesn't run the risk of misinformation, and is rather much more interesting for language learners. I say we should keep that one, delete the rest if that's what we want. Kiril kovachev (talk・contribs) 22:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
If this does exist, it needs to be done automatically, which would involve checking if there are entries for other entries on the page (excluding Translingual). I'm not a huge fan of that, but it could work, but I suspect it won't result in a very useful category since there will be many characters that see rare use in other languages. Theknightwho (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comment/Keep: I realize this discussion is old, but the deletion templates are still there, and I find these categories to be of novel educational interest and would hate to see them deleted. As expressed above, this might just be an issue of terminology. What's to stop us renaming Category:Korean-only CJKV Characters to Category:Korean-coined CJKV Characters and maintaining it along the same lines as the Japanese line, making no distinction as to whether it's used exclusively in Korean? 104.246.217.17103:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I presume that such templates are categorized by the target language, not the language in which they are written. Do we not care about the language in which the reference is written? What about a multilingual dictionary? (There are at least two such templates.) DCDuringTALK16:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
They're placed in whichever language they're relevant to as a reference. So the language it's written in is not taken into account, but they can be placed into more than one language category. —CodeCat16:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ In that case, delete according to the reason provided by the nominator. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
I've seen both categories, & they seem to serve different purposes. this one is general-purpose (any template related to references), & the other one Wiktionary: Reference templates seems to be narrowly-defined (a list of dictionary-reference templates). So either merge or differentiate them better? & 'Reference Templates' is still the obvious meta-category for ALL reference templates. Lx 121 (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
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:
@Tetromino OK. This isn't how things work in English but I'm completely ready to believe that Russian works differently. If others can confirm this, I'll do a bot run to fix things up. (The bot could handle the whole process of adding rhymes, potentially, if people think this is useful.) Benwing2 (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
It's actually a little bit more complicated: the consonant doesn't need to match exactly: ловлю́(lovljú)famously rhymes with наЮ(na Ju) because in this case a palatalized approximant [lʲ] in [lɐˈvlʲu] is "close enough" to the glide [j] in [nɐ‿ˈju]. But you need something consonant-ish there; -u by itself does not make a rhyme. Tetromino (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Tetromino, @Atitarev: OK. I can reorganize all rhymes into subcategories in order to arrange every ultimate syllable accordingly to their preceding consonant. Also I think it is a nice idea to combine rhymes like люблю and на Ю with similar preceding consonants in one entry. Additionally I have already combined entries for /æ/ and /a/ sounds in one, analogously /ɵ/ and /o/. If my work here still make sense, I'll continue adding more rhymes and entries. Wittiami (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Wittiami Even after you said you'd stop creating entries with rhymes like /a/, you are still doing it with туда́(tudá) and сюда́(sjudá). Note that in any case, adding rhymes is better suited to a bot than a human. Benwing2 (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
@Neitrāls vārds Similar logic appears here as for Template:sv-compound above. The usage is a bit less random as it's mostly used specifically for some suffix-like words used as the second component of a compound, but it's still used only on about 80 pages for about 7 components. The documentation gives the example of mīez, which is supposed to be equivalent to compounds with English -man, except that the latter *is* analyzed as a suffix, and I don't see why the same can't be done for these Livonian components. Benwing2 (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Judging by talk:-man there isn't exactly a consensus... And they have a point. By that logic who is to hold someone back from creating Bundes- and -republik and hundreds of other "prefixes", "suffixes".
Latviešu valodas gramatika says that "a sign of a tendency towards grammaticalization is weakening of the initial meaning and strengthening of generalized character(?)" (I guess what is meant is that the affixoid yields uniform results?) and apparently grammaticalization is a sign of an affixoid...
Or we can go by Nordisk leksikografisk ordbok referenced in affixoid and consider this case solved with -mō and -mīez being postfixoids.
I only want to know how I can get the derived terms at mō#Derived terms and mīez#Derived terms (this is assuming you would replace the template to be deleted with {{af}})? It's possible to tell {{suffixsee}} to show -mō and not take the page name which would be mō, right? (I have no interest in making entries for the "postfixoids" I think they're completely redundant on an entry level.) Neitrāls vārds (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
@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:
California at one time probably had about a hundred indigenous languages and represented the intersection of the Algic languages (which extend to the east coast), the Athabascan languages (which extend from Alaska to northern Mexico), the Uto-Aztecan languages, (which extend to Central America), a few still-to-be-proven language families like Hokan and Penutian, and a few probable isolates like the Chimariko language and the Karuk language, with a very high percentage endemic to the state. Right now the category contains only one language which was added by a clueless editor based on a bogus etymology, but we already have hundreds of entries in upwards of 5 dozen indigenous languages- about a fifth of Category:Languages of the United States. I should also mention that we have Category:Languages of Hawaii, among others. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
What about nonindigenous languages? Besides English and Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Tagalog are all widely spoken in California. —Mahāgaja · talk08:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes, and I've been to stores with signs in Arabic, Armenian, Hebrew, Hindi, Indonesian, Japanese, Persian, Russian and Thai, and I've met people from Greek, Malagasy, Samoan and Tongan communities as well. The Los Angeles County election websites can be viewed in Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Hindi, Khmer, Korean, Vietnamese and Thai, and American Sign Language interpreters are in considerable demand. I understand that we have lots of people speaking American Indian languages from the rest of the US and from other parts of the Americas. I've even heard of a radio station somewhere in the Central Valley broadcasting in Assyrian Aramaic. I should add that I know there are lots of people speaking other South Asian languages than Hindi and other Chinese languages than Mandarin, but I don't know which ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't know, but I disagree with categorizing Category:American Sign Language into Languages of California. ASL is used in all 50 states. I don't think it needs to be in potentially 51 location categories when 1 covers that same information. Leave the demographic specifics to Wikipedia. Ultimateria (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
That's what I'm arguing for, rather than put e.g. Spanish in 300 categories for all the states of the US and South American countries. Ultimateria (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Delete because it is ambiguous. If we talk about native languages we go also beyond the current state borders and might think about the California of the now United Mexican States. Fay Freak (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Deletion for the reason given immediately above is completely inappropriate. The rationale would suggest renaming. "Early languages...", "Pre-Columbian languages..." might work for the instant case.
We use current governmental borders for categories such as this because of the administrative processes that govern almost all the research on such matters and because that is how most of our users would approach the subject matter. California may secede after the coming election so it would seem prudent to wait before any rash deletion or renaming. DCDuring (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
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.) 70.172.194.2506:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Maybe the rule should be indigenous to California OR speakers per capita in California >> speakers per capita in US, which would exclude English but plausibly include those Asian languages. There may still be some disagreement about what ">>" means, however, as I assume Spanish is spoken at a greater rate per capita in California than in the US as a whole, but it seems weird to include Spanish but not English. I don't have a fully satisfactory answer. 70.172.194.2507:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep: states have a variety of languages and this saves space in the main category. The Australia category is big too, so I'm creating some for Australian states and territories (the NT will probably have the biggest category because of all the living Indigenous languages there). 2001:8004:2778:4E8D:40F:54A0:A43F:F69508:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
The deletion notice shows up in the pages transcluding the template. This is very confusing. I think that the deletion template should be wrapped in a noinclude tag. 217.197.198.19608:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
This proliferation of trivial templates doesn't accomplish anything, so I think they should all be orphaned and deleted/deprecated. From the history, they were all created by User:Atitarev, and at the time they seem to have done something useful using {{zh-pos}}. However, this is no longer the case, and {{zh-pos}} itself no longer exists. Note that {{zh-punctuation mark}} is defined in terms of {{meta-punctuation mark}}, but doesn't appear to do anything that couldn't be accomplished just as easily using {{head|zh|punctuation mark}}.
Specifically, using the "rule of 1000" that I normally follow, I propose to orphan and delete the templates with fewer than 1000 uses, and orphan and deprecate (using {{deprecated code}}) the ones with 1000 or more uses. Benwing2 (talk) 06:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@沈澄心: Apologies for forgetting you above. You do bring up a good point. I do wonder if it may be better for us to do it on a definition-by-definition basis, like we do with {{zh-mw}}, though. Is it possible for a verb to be more than one type? This reminds me that I forgot about @恨国党非蠢即坏, Thedarkknightli, Michael Ly. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }12:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Justinrleung: No. This is another Chinese grammar phenomenon. When a "verb-object" verb is followed by another object, it becomes unseparable. This rule applies to all transitive senses of all "verb-object" verbs, including 加速 mentioned below. There is no point to repeat stating a general rule in every definition. Also, this does not change the "verb-object" nature of the verb and it becomes separable again if the the object is omitted, regardless of the sense used. Thus I oppose the definition-by-definition format. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@沈澄心: 糊口 is in fact separable. The reason why we rarely see expressions like 糊了口 is a semantical one, not a grammatical one. 糊口 describes a habitual and ongoing action, thus there is usually no need to attach tense/aspect particle to it, which is the most frequent case of a modern Chinese verb to separate. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@恨国党非蠢即坏: Yeah, there seem to be some ghits for 糊著口, so it is separable. I guess there are grammatical restrictions that make verb-object constructions inseparable if it takes an object, but when that happens, I don't know if we should still treat it a verb-object construction. It's not like 出 is ditransitive in transitive 出櫃, nor is transitive 出櫃 functioning as verb + object anymore from how I see it. I'm not familiar with how people have dealt with these, but I think we probably need some scholarly sources to back up our decisions. I still think definition-by-definition is a safer way to go in case there are cases where a compound could be both separable and inseparable. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }16:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Justinrleung: It is very evident in the 把 structure and the passive voice that they are still verb-objects and separable.
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)Reply
@Justinrleung, 恨国党非蠢即坏 We also have {{tlb}} for adding a label after a headword to indicate that it applies to all definitions. That could potentially be used here, and has the advantage that {{lb}} could be used if there are cases where the compound verb has different structures per-definition. OTOH this doesn't allow for adding a dot or slash to indicate where the separation point is. Benwing2 (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: Yes, thanks for bringing that up. I thought of it but forgot to mention it. We could use the |head= to show where the separation point is, but it'd be nice to have a template so that the formatting could be more easily standardized. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }04:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I obsoleted/orphaned all except {{zh-noun}}, {{zh-verb}} and {{zh-hanzi}}. Maybe {{zh-hanzi}} should go as well; I figured it might be marginally easier to remember {{zh-hanzi}} than {{head|zh|Han character}}. I deleted all the ones with < 1000 uses, and deprecated the remainder (which includes only {{zh-adj}}, {{zh-adv}}, {{zh-idiom}} and {{zh-proper noun}}). Benwing2 (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
This template pushes headword-line information off the headword, which makes entries unnecessarily messy, and is a practice seen nowhere else in the dictionary (and certainly not in other Semitic languages, like Arabic). As an example, take a look at how the entry מודה changed from a messy version using {{he-wv}} to its current, neater state with the structure standardly found on Wiktionary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds03:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
In your example the template was in the definition line, however it is used in pronunciation sections: isn’t the usage in pronunciation sections as on מלך about the thing we need for Arabic entries presenting multiple vocalizations from the same root, to avoid structuring around pronunciation headers? Fay Freak (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Inqilābī I'm not quite sure about it, but it seems like these sorts of templates are categorized by languages, not language families. I've seen some templates that were belonged to a category named after a language family but later moved to a new category named after related proto language's name, so I did the same thing. --TongcyDai (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Indo-Aryan reference templates do not necessarily deal with Proto-Indo-Aryan. Indo-Aryan reference templates just pertain to the family as a whole while Proto-Indo-Aryan reference templates are specifically meant for the language. So I do not agree with the deed, but I will at first inform other editors about it. (@Bhagadatta, Kutchkutch, AryamanA) ·~dictátor·mundꟾ22:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Inqilābī: Since there are templates that would be in both categories and many Indo-Aryan templates are named as Template:R:inc:Name, that must have created the impression that they should be merged into a single category. However, there really should be a distinction so that templates that involve more than one Indo-Aryan language but not Proto-Indo-Aryan can be in Category:Indo-Aryan reference templates. For comparison,
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.
@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)Reply
Nearly empty, they don't appear to be useful anymore. "Letter" would probably be more appropriate than "syllable" for the two entries in the first category. Ultimateria (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago21 comments10 people in discussion
And its CSS subpage. This template, only used by its creator on 4 pages, attempts to indicate that a translation is questioned by blurring it out and thus making it impossible to read for someone like me with poor eyesight. It does not, however, give any explicit indication why the term is being blurred, and simply looks like a bizarre browser error. There may be a way to go about RFVing translations, but this template is not the right way to do it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds18:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
The amount of fuzzing is ridiculous. The idea of making something even a little bit harder to read when we are supposed to be giving it attention to try to verify is contrary to logic. DCDuring (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Since it is a departure from any standard way of indicating that something is being challenged, how would any user or contributor know what was going on? Hovering is not always the response one would make. We have often been encouraged to be sensitive to accessibility concerns. This seems like an occasion to apply that sensitivity. DCDuring (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
I did not mean that I think this template should be kept in its current state, I was simply pointing out that blurring isn't the only thing the template does. By the way, what about just putting a dotted line under the term, or something similar? Thadh (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
I would change the background colour to orange or the like (one sufficiently distinct from that of {{quoted term}} in any case). I found the blurring bizarre from the beginning (but ignored the template thinking that Useigor was still coding) and the reason boils down to that, as DCDuring said, the idea of making something even a little bit harder to read when we are supposed to be giving it attention to try to verify is contrary to logic. Fay Freak (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Cause it was not “for translations” in translation sections, I don’t know whence this equation by Metaknowledge comes from but now have to dispel this conception, but apparently for strange derived terms and descendants in Proto-Slavic entries. The design of {{t-check}} is of course for the background of translation tables while descendants and derived terms sections look different and hence seek different tinge. Fay Freak (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
We could use the same format of adding superscript "(please verify)". Although really, if the term is so likely to be fabricated and the likelihood of someone coming back to provide references is low, maybe just remove it or move it to the talk page or HTML-comment it out... - -sche(discuss)18:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
It is not supposed to be readable because term is likely fabricated (i do some search before adding the template) and it is unknown when its editor will provide reference for it. Marked term could be removed instead but there is slight possibility that it can be verified. If you want to read, you can hover (swipe) or click and then create page with reference. For me, colored background or excessive text are ugly and distracting when i'm reader and not editor. Any editor can make custom CSS in User:USER/common.css (e.g. #mw-content-text.temp-rfv-term+[lang]{filter:blur(0px);text-decoration:underlinedotted;background:orange;}). —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Now blur is changed to strike. I wanted to use 50%-opaque 2px-thick line (text-decoration:line-through2pxrgba(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-throughrgba(0,0,0,0.80);) —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
I stand by my earlier comment that using the same format as Template:t-check, a superscript note explicitly saying "(please verify)", or even a non-superscript note like Template:rfv-sense, would probably be the clearest thing, although if a term is really most likely fabricated and the likelihood of someone coming back to provide references is low, maybe just remove it or move it to the talk page or HTML-comment it out. IMO we should allow people to occasionally RFV terms that don't have entries yet: then we could just submit the terms this is for to RFV and remove them after a month... - -sche(discuss)03:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Delete, if this is not rendered more useful/user-friendly. Strikethrough is not a help. Text display of what action is to be taken and where seems essential, but has not been provided in the more than five months this RfD has been active. And deprecate now. DCDuring (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
We need to decide what this template is for if we're going to keep using it, and make sure the template code matches that as well as making sure the documentation is clear and matches that, too. Then we need to update the relevant modules so the categories are integrated into our category structure.
The cosmetic problems that led to the RFD have been fixed, but the combination of unclear documentation, clash between category naming and actual use, and inability to create the categories without fatal errors is an absolutely bizarre train wreck that traces back to the original creation of the template. That needs to change or this needs to be deleted. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Even the category name is not grammatically correct, it should be either multiracial people or multiracials.
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·mundꟾ21:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Issue #1 could be addressed very easily by adding it to the category tree. Issue #3 could be addressed by renaming the category. I don't find #4 a very convincing argument. We could just keep the ones that aren't SOP and delete the ones that are, which is the same rule we apply to any other kind of term. There are evidently plenty of such terms in English that are single words or idiomatic. Also, the RfD of Irish American closed as keep, and although that isn't a term related to mixed ancestry, it shows that hyphenated or spaced combinations of nationalities aren't necessarily regarded as SOP by the community.
Point #2 seems to be the most substantial, but as I wrote in my comment below I think there might be value in separating out these terms from other ethnonyms. And not all of these fall under Scientific racism or Eugenics. I don't think Blasian or Finndian are necessarily associated with racism or eugenics. Such terms seem to be used as identities by members of the groups themselves. That said, I don't particularly object to deletion either. 70.172.194.2502:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
I can see some potential value in keeping a separate category for things like mulatto, Blasian, Chindian, the last of which isn't even in the category currently. I think there is something different about those terms as compared to most ethnonyms, and Wikipedia seems to agree given that it has a "Multiracial affairs" category with similar terms as members.
While an argument could be made that almost all human populations have admixture from multiple groups and so almost everyone is in some sense multi-ethnic, I don't think most would e.g. include Desi in this category even if one could theoretically make an argument that the Indian subcontinent has a mix of Indo-Aryan and Dravidian genetics. It has to be a term for someone whose recent ancestors came from different groups, not way back in (pre)history. One doesn't have to be a racial essentialist to realize that people who fall under this umbrella are viewed differently in society (hence the existence of such terms).
That said, I don't particularly object to deletion, as the issue may be more trouble than it's worth, most commenters support deletion, and the category mixes relatively PC and highly offensive terms as though there is no distinction.
The inclusion of BIPOC in this category perplexes me. I thought "multiracial" in this context describes a person with mixed ancestry, not a coalition of different ethnic groups. 70.172.194.2501:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
It would be impossible to add these automatically without rendering the categories essentially meaningless. For example, d has several POSs which consist only of abbreviation senses (which evidently don't count as "words" in the eyes of this categorisation system), but the headword line template has no way of knowing that. This, that and the other (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Not to mention the fact that we don't want to increase Lua memory burden on Latin script letter pages, so a lot of headword templates on a few such entries (currently a, A, b, o, u) are using {{head-lite}} anyway. 70.172.194.2505:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Keep I agree the one and two letter categories are useful. As pointed out, a bot can't make proper categorization since it can't separate words from other character groups like abbreviations. Bots could assist maintenance, if all n-letter entries were flagged with either "include" or "exclude" templates or some such; the bots could report entries missing either flag into a maintenance category for manual attention. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
@Koavf: Please see the bottom of that category that contains reference templates pertaining to the Indo-Aryan language family as a whole, rather than specific languages or even chronolects. Since Wiktionary does not treat Indo-Aryan as a united macrolanguage like Sinitic/Chinese, it makes more sense to dedicate a separate category for the current reference templates that deal with Indo-Aryan linguistics. That said, we may remove the 56 individual language categories from the list. (Pinging @Kutchkutch, Bhagadatta, Svartava, AryamanA for more input.)
I’m not sure what to be done with other families, or if consistency is needful across all languages: in that case you could raise the matter in the BP. ·~dictátor·mundꟾ11:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Inqilābī: You are correct that some of these are about Indo-Aryan at large, but 1.) they can just be put into specific language categories as they are used on entries for those languages, 2.) what I'm suggesting is already done in practice for several of these categories (and was before I started editing them), and 3.) there are definitely other references that apply to more than one (e.g.) Romance language or Semitic language as well, so we're back to either sorting one reference template into several individual language categories (my preference) or building out the module and hierarchy to include language families. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯15:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Koavf I find the existence of these categories very convenient and do not support their deletion. There is a long history of comparative literature on these families and in that respect being able to easily find reference templates for related language varieties is useful. If these categories are outliers, then I would suggest that the creation of more like them would actually be a better idea. I could see such categories being particularly useful for Iranian languages, Dravidian languages, Austro-Asiatic, for example. عُثمان (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
No—the larger a category is, the more challenging I find it to navigate it. (Even the difference in the amount of time it takes to load the pages is non-trivial since I don't have a great internet connection.) عُثمان (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
If you make smaller subcategories, the containing category becomes larger. There also aren't any established genetic subgroupings of Indo-Aryan to make smaller categories with. (Most schemes which do so out of convenience on solely geographic criteria end up splitting mutually intelligible dialects between subgroups.) So it is not clear what sort of categories you are suggesting be made عُثمان (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago13 comments8 people in discussion
Ethnologue stuff (like here for English) is behind a paywall. At the link it reads: "This profile is available with an Essentials plan." And following that link, it's stated that it costs $199/month or $480/year. That's not useful, quite expensive, advertising/spam. --學者三 (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'm doing a general rework of how we treat ISO 639 codes at the moment - part of which involves splitting out the ethnologue parameter from {{ISO 639}} because it's a bit of a mish-mash at the moment, which makes it trickier to deprecate things in situations like this. I agree that it's less-than-ideal to link to sites which are hidden behind paywalls, though. Theknightwho (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago39 comments7 people in discussion
Rather than being presented as a floating box, this information should be incorporated into the headword line, like we do for other dual-script languages (Serbo-Croatian, Malay, etc). This, that and the other (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Not every contributor prefers to use multiple scripts in the headwords, apparently. E.g. Mongolian entries are gradually converted from that into a similar Mongolian template {{mn-variant}}, e.g. суулгах(suulgax) by @MonoParallax, LibCae, Crom daba.
We should also ask the opinion of primary Kazakh editor who heavily uses the template: @Vtgnoq7238rmqco. Note that the modern Roman spelling for Kazakh <> the Kazakh transliteration at Wiktionary and the conversion is not that straightforward. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)02:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev, Theknightwho, This, that and the other I think I agree that it would be better in the headword line. If there were inflected forms in the headword line, having multiple scripts as well would get crowded, but it appears this isn't the case. We do have {{ku-regional}} for Kurdish but this isn't really parallel because these represent different languages rather than different script variants of the same language. Arguably the same thing is going on with {{fa-regional}}. Benwing2 (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
I assume that the current layout of Azerbaijani lemmas could be a perfect example, as all three scripts (Arabic, Latin and Cyrillic) are represented independently on most occasions. However, it could be a huge work to give all Kazakh entries a similar overhaul. Vtgnoq7238rmqco (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Vtgnoq7238rmqco, Benwing2, This, that and the other, Theknightwho: Just wish to mention that a missing Latin parameter makes the current Kazakh entries with the template look ugly, e.g. жандармерия(jandarmeriä). Can they be safely made optional (or just the new one) or can we use named optional parameters instead? Re: bot. @Benwing2, @Vtgnoq7238rmqco: I don't think we have data to populate the new Roman spelling on all Kazakh terms and the conversion from Cyrillic is not 1:1 and can't be error-free, AFAIK. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)04:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Atitarev I can fix {{kk-regional}}. As for bot conversion: (1) can we simply convert whatever we have without needing out the Cyrillic -> Latin conversion? (2) what are the issues with Cyrillic -> Latin? Is it possible to automate it for some pages, while leaving others to be done manually? Benwing2 (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: The Cyrillic -> Latin correspondence issue was mentioned by User:Vtgnoq7238rmqco in the past when we talked about what should be the romanisation standard but I don't remember the discussion. The issue may not be current, though. Back then we had digraphs in the proposed romanisation. They have been abandoned since. If we are targeting just one romanisation version, the future one, then it's possibly one-to-one but it's not the one we use at Module:kk-translit
Copying the table from Wikipedia. This must be the latest proposed romanisation to be implemented:
@Atitarev Thanks. No digraphs any more in the proposed romanization and our own romanization only has digraphs for я ё ю which aren't anywhere in the table above (presumably they are used only for Russian loanwords?). I am all in favor of using a standard romanization instead of an ad-hoc one but I gather that the proposed romanization is a moving target. Benwing2 (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2, Vtgnoq7238rmqco: Yes, in the latest development, the digraphs (apart from Russian loanwords) are eliminated. Transliterations of я, ё, ю, ъ, ь, э, ц need clarifications. I support switching Module:kk-translit and WT:KK TR to the latest proposed transliterations and the Roman forms could simply be the automated transliteration of the Cyrillic spelling. I first proposed the switch in Module talk:kk-translit but it wasn't support. I'd like to ask @Vtgnoq7238rmqco to revisit. There may be a few corner cases but we can look up any of those.
@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, 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.
(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-scriptsandkk-regional (those were previously separate templates because kk-regional did not have a field for the pre-reform Arabic spelling); andkk-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-scriptsandkk-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)Reply
I'm not sure how I feel about this. The Cyrillic and Latin spellings are already in the headword line; it seems weird to repeat them in this box. The only unique info here is the Arabic spelling. If it is possible to find a nice way to fit it into the headword line, wouldn't that be better? Alternatively (heh), they could go under an "Alternative forms" or "Alternative spellings" header. This, that and the other (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I definitely think we should remove them from the headword line, if they are given there as well. But if you're referring to the transliteration, is not the same as the Latin script: cf. анархия. Thadh (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Thadh I think that is a mistake (re the difference between Latin script and translit). The problem is that the current approved Latin script version is very much a moving target and we haven't yet worked out to what extent we will try to track this. BTW I agree with User:This, that and the other that we should put these in the headword line. This is consistent with the handling of other multi-script languages such as Serbo-Croatian, Malay, Hindi/Urdu, etc. Mongolian is an exception but things are weird there due to the vertical script. Benwing2 (talk) 11:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: What about Azerbaijani, Uzbek, Uyghur, Tatar...? You can't just name a couple of languages that do this option and say it's now some kind of status quo. Thadh (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
OK fine (for the record I named 4 languages not 2) but I still think it belongs in the headword. It will get generated automatically if placed in the headword (to the extent this is possible), but it needs a separate template call if placed in a float-right box, which is extra editor work (for this reason many of the Uzbek entries I checked were missing the box). Benwing2 (talk) 12:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@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)Reply
I definitely think we should aim to include these in the long run, so might as well start now. Unlike with scripts like IPA or shorthands, there is a good chance of people finding these in running text and wanting to look up what these words mean. Thadh (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
yes I think so too, the only issue I can think of is that since the yañalif alphabet was abandoned decades before the internet, it'll probably be difficult to attest. Nearly all Yañalif spellings will be red links unless someone sorts through newspapers from the 1920s and 1930s سَمِیر | Sameer (مشارکتها • کتی من گپ بزن) 22:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Sameerhameedy I suppose if we are showing that many different scripts it makes some sense to put them in a box, but I'm not sure we need the older spellings esp. Yañalif, since it was used only for a few years. The alternative is to put some of them (the less common ones) in an ==Alternative forms== section. Benwing2 (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'd much prefer to put these spellings in "Alternative forms". We currently have a divergence of practice where Indic languages (e.g. आसन(āsana)) are using "Alternative forms" while Central Asian languages use this floating box. Floating boxes force the reader away from the top-to-bottom "flow" of the entry and should only be used for things that are truly peripheral to the lexical content, like sister project links. This, that and the other (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago13 comments6 people in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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☽ru05:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago7 comments5 people in discussion
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)Reply
@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. 70.172.194.2501:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments5 people in discussion
The site shutdown more than 2 years ago and it's no longer accessible. So should we delete this? This includes removing all references to this template and putting a new one (if there isn't any). Chuterix (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Chuterix: when Lexico was shut down we redirected {{R:Lexico}} to the Internet Archive. Not all entries were archived there, unfortunately, so I have been removing the template manually in those cases when I come across them. We could do the same for the Shuri-Naha Dialect Dictionary. — Sgconlaw (talk) 08:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
I am now undergoing the process of deleting this template from all Okinawan entries. Some time I will delete all remaining template usage involving RGODB (Ryukyu-go onsei database) in other dialects. Chuterix (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
If Sgconlaw's suggestion, to point Internet Archive in the manner used for Lexico, is possible, I like the idea. If there are technical difficulties, or more false-positives than actually archived entries, though, it may not be worthwhile. Cnilep (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments5 people in discussion
The category seems to be a very small set of characters that may or may not actually be derived from a process of "breaking". I also don't know if the title of the category is appropriate. — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }02:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
What do you mean? I'm not sure how much you know about Chinese glyph origins, but is it not obvious that 彳亍 is a broken up version of 行? It's pretty much accepted that 行 came first and then the other characters were derived from breaking it into two halves. And thus with all other characters in the category. WiktionariThrowaway (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Justinrleung any response here? Even as a non-CJK speaker I kind of understand what this category is doing, even though the name feels wrong (it seems like it should be "Han characters derived by breaking" or something). This, that and the other (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
@WiktionariThrowaway, This, that and the other, Sgconlaw: Sorry for not checking again. I kind of understand what the category is for now, but I do agree that the name of the category looks wrong since the characters in the category are not breakable AFAICT. While 彳亍 is from "breaking up" 行, other uses of 彳 (mostly as a radical) are simplifications of 行 rather than "breaking up" the character. I'm not sure if there's an established name for this phenomenon. @RcAlex36, Wpi31, do you know of any names for this? — justin(r)leung{ (t...) | c=› }15:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Justinrleung: ah. Well, it's clear that the category name is wrong, because the category contains characters that are the result of "breaking" other characters, so the first-mentioned characters are not themselves "breakable". My question is whether there is any particular value in having a category of characters that are derived from other characters in this way. For example, if such "breaking" (for want of a better term) is not a common way of forming new characters, then it doesn't sound very useful. The fact that such characters are formed from other characters is already explained in the relevant etymology sections. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
I doubt there is a proper academic name for this, not even in Chinese. It seems that all these characters come in (vaguely) mirrored pairs, each constituting half of a common character, so maybe "Han characters with etymologically-related mirror characters" or "Han characters derived from halving a character"? – Wpi31 (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Wpi31: yes, but is there even any point in categorizing characters in this way? The category currently has just 14 entries. Are there likely to be more? — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
According to the Wikipedia article of Eastern Bengali, "Eastern Bengali or Vaṅga is a nonstandard dialect cluster of Bengali spoken in most of Bangladesh and Tripura". The list of Bengali calendar months in Vanga is produced possibly with an assumption that Vanga is a standardised written variant of Bengali. However, it is not the case and (as far as I know) Vanga speakers use Standard Bengali (based in Nadia, WB, India) in writing. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Is this variety never written, or just uncommonly? If these terms are attested then the template should be kept. Worth noting that we even have Vaṅga entries for many of these months, like জেঠ(jeṭh), আঢ়(aṛh), হাওন(haōn), etc., and Category:Vanga Bengali has 250 entries total covering a much broader range of topics, so it seems like specifically targeting the calendar template is the wrong way to go about this if you're challenging whether this dialect cluster is written at all. (Compare Westrobothnian above.) The user who created this template and most if not all of these entries, User:Sylotoid, may be able to comment.
I should state that I know next to nothing about Eastern Bengali, except for what can be gathered by reading the first two sections of the Wikipedia article. 70.172.194.2503:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 months ago9 comments7 people in discussion
An untranscluded, undocumented alternative to {{blockquote}}, created by Ruakh in 2010. It looks like this:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
From reading the template code, it seems to open two <div> tags with the expectation that the template user would invoke the template, follow it with the quote, and then manually close the <div>s (e.g. {{blockquote-top}}Lorem ipsum</div></div>). Its only parameter sets the colour of the border. The default colour is generated using the current hour, minute, and second, effectively meaning it changes each time the page is reloaded. IMO it provides no advantages over just using {{blockquote}}.
The reason it's untranscluded is that it's intended for use via subst:-ing. (So it's not true that the color "changes each time the page is reloaded"; rather, the color is fixed at time of use.) But I haven't used it in quite a while, and I don't think I've seen anyone else use it in quite a while, either. So if no one jumps in to say that they still use it, please feel free to delete it. (In that case I may end up re-creating it in my userspace.) —RuakhTALK06:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Even after substitution, the code in brackets remains, so the colors still continue to change. I cant tell what the change depends on, though ... from the code, it looks like it should be changing every second, so effectively it would be every time the page is reloaded ... but it seems not to be. But it definitely still changes .... and it also appears differently for me on different devices, possibly because their clocks are slightly out-of-sync. I really like this template, and in particular how it is possible to center it whereas with {{blockquote}} it is either not possible or I couldnt figure out how ... but the color-changing behavior stands out a lot and might be seen as a distraction from an otherwise down-to-earth conversation, so perhaps it would be best if it were kept in userspace where people could use it but not as an official replacement for the main template. —Soap—10:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
The color depends on when the page was last rendered, which can occur when a page is edited, when its cache is purged, when changes need to be propagated due to edits in templates, etc. I do not understand the point of having the colors change at all honestly, but I do not especially mind it either. It might appear differently on mobile and desktop devices (or rather skins?) because I think the WMF maintains separate caches for them. 70.172.194.2505:15, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Weak keep. This kind of thing is useful when moving a discussion from one WT:RF... venue to another, for example (you can set the moved discussion apart from any new discussion); I didn't realize there was a template, but I noticed the subst:ed code one some page and have copied and used it sometimes, e.g. at Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/English#dussack. - -sche(discuss)18:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
You can just use <blockquote> tags, which look like
This is precisely what templates are intended for, ease of entry for the editor and a standard output layout. Meaning that a global change to the layout can be easily achieved. I think it's useful. It doesn't need to be specific for Greek. Make it universal!
@Saltmarsh It has literally nothing to do with Greek, and it's an extremely clunky way of conveying information. color / colour is much more elegant, and can be done with the normal link templates just fine: {{l|en|color//colour}}. Theknightwho (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm not particularly opposed to this template; our traditional reluctance to present both of the major spelling variants as glosses for foreign terms is one of many things that makes Wiktionary less friendly for those not already familiar with a language (English in this case). However, it obviously needs renaming if kept. Why it was ever created with an el- prefix baffles me. {{l-UK-US}} perhaps? This, that and the other (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'd oppose this as well, because doing it that way becomes really awkward when someone wants to use it outside of {{l}}: we'd end up with even more horrible wikitext like {{cog|en|-}} {{l-uk-us|color|colour}} in entries. Much better to have something like {{cog|en|color//colour}}, which has the added flexibility of allowing other spelling variations, too, as spelling variations are sometimes more complex than that. These kinds of limitations are why templates like {{zh-l}} are being phased out. Theknightwho (talk) 04:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Such formatting would also be useful for dual-script languages such as Mongolian and Serbo-Croatian, solving two issues with one format. Vininn126 (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Precisely why I chose it, yes! It may be possible to automate it for English, though that’s likely to run into attestation issues with very rare terms.Theknightwho (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Usages such as {{cog|en|color//colour}} should be expunged as depending on undocumented behaviour - or the behaviour should be documented. --RichardW57m (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete, we shouldn't be giving both spellings in glosses in the first place (it's ridiculous and redundant) and even if we do, we shouldn't be doing it like this. —Mahāgaja · talk16:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Those unfamiliar with a term (familiarise/ize) need both spellings, good bilingual dictionaries will give both, and this is the best way of doing it. If the el- prefix is a problem — make it universal. — Saltmarsh🢃04:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. It is standard for bilingual dictionaries to offer both spellings, with some sort of label indicating where the spelling is used (just like this template does). Note that with a modification of the template, we could still have both spellings link to whichever entry host the definitions. I would support making this template more general and using it more widely. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
The prefix in the name probably comes from it being part of the Greek subsystem of Wiktionary! The template is only used in the translation of Greek words. Note that that is an explanation of the name, not a justification of the name. --RichardW57m (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
FWIW I think it's a good idea to include both UK and US variants in definitions; when I encounter UK-only usages it sometimes trips me up (esp. when it's a word like swot that I've never heard of, but even the -ize/-ise and -o(u)r differences stand out to me and slow down my reading). As a result I tend to fix such usages to include both variants. IMO it potentially looks nice to have the {{a|UK}} and {{a|US}} tags explicit, but I only think this is really needed when the terms are totally different rather than just spelling variations; e.g. for wrench vs. spanner or (railroad) switch vs. points it's good to have the variant tags, but for color/colour or nationalize/nationalise it's enough to just list both spellings, and the reader can use the one that is familiar and ignore the other. In practice that means we can use User:Theknightwho's suggestion of {{l|en|color//colour}} in most cases, and manually add the tags for the more complex cases. Benwing2 (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete per Ultimateria. I also tend to agree with Mahagaja that it's not useful to give both spellings (OTOH I think giving both a UK word and a US one is fine). But even if we do, I don't think the definition of a foreign term is the place to talk about Pondian differences; at first I found it highly confusing, as I thought the UK / US labels somehow pertained to the word being defined (the definiendum) rather than the words used in the definition (the definiens). If one wants more information about the latter, one just has to click on the links. PUC – 15:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Note that things like {{feminine singular past participle of}} really mean "feminine singular of the past participle of LEMMA". IMO non-lemma forms of participles should refer to the base form of the participle rather than to the underlying verb lemma, which is what I'm proposing here. Benwing2 (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: As far as I can tell as a native Hungarian-speaker "construed with" is strictly equivalent to the label "(with X)" and doesn't mean anything special beyond that. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Al-Muqanna Thanks. For non-Hungarian terms it seems replaceable with {{+preo}} or {{+obj}}. In the Hungarian terms it seems to be a catch-all for words often found along with the lemma in question. Maybe these are better handled by a usage note? Just saying "construed with" in such a general sense seems unhelpful. Benwing2 (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho, Benwing2 If you want, it might be converted into a label like "(used) with" to indicate that it strictly co-occurs with the given term in the given sense. Just like "few" has a different meaning when used as "a few". Or does it warrant a separate entry? Let me know if you have a better idea to convey this. Honestly, I think it's good to be able to look up terms used as part of a phrase or collocation in a given sense (I could even imagine a category for them, cf. Hungarian verbs normally used with a prefix), and without a dedicated template this option would be lost. Adam78 (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Adam78 Can you give some examples of Hungarian terms that strictly co-occur with other terms? In English and other language entries this is normally conveyed by {{only used in}}, where the larger collocation has an entry and contains the majority of the info. As for Category:Hungarian verbs normally used with a prefix, there are two situations: (1) the base verb exists but is archaic or obsolete, (2) the base verb doesn't exist on its own. In Russian we handle the analogous cases as follows: For (1) we list the verb as normal but mark it as archaic or obsolete as appropriate, while for (2) we consider the verb a combining form and precede it with a hyphen (see Category:Russian verbal combining forms for examples). In both cases there's a table of prefixed variants of the verbs; see -речь(-rečʹ) for a typical example. Benwing2 (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: Examples where "only used in" could be applied: utol is obsolete on its own and (el)képed is unattested without the prefix. However, the above cases where "construed with" is applied doesn't mean that the given term is only used in a particular phrase but that it only has the given sense if/when it is used in the given way (with the given suffix, article, compound element, etc., whether in the same word form, same expression, or the same sentence but in a different clause). So it is like a restricting condition for the applicability of the given sense (even though the term may well have any number of other senses where this morphological or syntactic condition doesn't apply). Sometimes this template has a qualifier or clarification, as in kicsit or ledönt, and sometimes it has more than one value, as in készen, megenged, or jöhető.
I even created templates for verb senses used with a particular case-suffixed form of the reflexive pronoun: {{hu-maga1}} (where this argument precedes the verb in neutral word order), {{hu-maga2}} (where this argument follows the verb, since the verb works as a focus), and {{hu-refl}}, where the reflexive pronoun takes the role of the object. In these cases, the overall meaning of the phrase can only occur if the given argument is present. (Using reflexive as a label, as opposed to transitive/intransitive, would have been misleading as the verb itself doesn't have a reflexive sense on its own.)
For the category of Hungarian verbs normally used with a prefix, I think most if not all might have an obscure and/or obsolete sense without the given prefix, or maybe in some very special (unlikely, uncommon) syntactic situation it might be possible to use them without the prefix, so I think your option (1) applies. Adam78 (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Adam78 I thought about this and if a term is "only used in" a particular phrase in a particular sense, but has a meaning of its own, you should define that phrase as its own lemma entry. Compare put up vs. put up with. What we don't do is define put up with under put up and say "construed with with", which is the analogy of what you're doing. Instead we define put up with as its own lemma, and put it as a derived term from put up. I would recommend doing the same for every case where you're currently using {{construed with}} for this purpose. In general all languages in Wiktionary should follow the same practices as much as possible and it seems that Hungarian is doing things differently for no clearly good reason. I would caution against creating Hungarian-specific templates like {{hu-maga1}} and {{hu-maga2}}; if you continue in this vein it will amount to a mess that others will eventually have to clean up (compare the similar situation with Chinese and Japanese, for example). Benwing2 (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I followed the practice used in {{R:Nagyszotar}}, see e.g. érez ("to feel"), which also defines érzi magát. However, I find the way you suggest equally good, and I understand that it's more in line with the current practice in Wiktionary ("mess" might not be the best word for another editorial decision), so all right, I will convert the entries in the way you suggested. (@Panda10, just to inform you.) Adam78 (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Adam78 Apologies, "mess" is a loaded term and I understand you have been trying to follow a definite practice, if not the practice of most languages. (I'm biased by the end state I see in the Chinese and Japanese entries, where I've done quite a lot of cleaning up to bring them more in line with normal Wiktionary practice and there is still a lot more to be done.) Benwing2 (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
These are just wrappers for {{l}} which include the qualifiers (Bokmål) or (Nynorsk) after the term, seemingly for linking to the equivalent term between the two Norwegian L2s. They can easily be replaced by simply using {{l}} and {{q}}, which has two further advantages: it's more intuitive, and (more importantly) it means that most of the auxliary parameters aren't disabled, which is a common problem with wrappers like these. Theknightwho (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho I am thinking of creating a template {{lq}} or {{l+q}} (or similar) that is just a link template but auto-adds the language name after the link as a qualifier. This is conceptually similar to what {{m+}} does for mentions, but with a different display format (i.e. the language name is added afterwards instead of before, in qualifier format), and would avoid the redundancy and typing hassle of having to write out the name manually. Provided we allow the language name displayed to be customized on a per-language basis, this could also replace {{l/sl-tonal}}, and probably has uses in Chinese entries as well. The corresponding version of {{desc}} could replace {{desc/sl-tonal}}. The new template(s) would be implemented in Lua, similarly to how {{m+}} is implemented, and would support all the parameters that {{l}} and {{desc}} support. What do you think? Benwing2 (talk) 06:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
None of these are widely used: Cities in the Roman Empire has 3 entries, all English; most subcats for Places have 1 entry, with the most populated being (not Latin, but) Portuguese with 23. Compare Category:la:Places in Italy with 258 entries at the top level.
Per Module:place/shared-data, "former states such as Persia, East Germany, the Soviet Union and the Roman Empire should have their cities, towns, rivers and such listed under the current entities occupying the same area". Creating categories for former countries creates obvious consistency and maintainability issues, as well as not being particularly helpful for readers (saying that, say, the Daradax is an otherwise unknown river in modern Syria is far more useful than it just being a river in the Roman Empire). —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@0DF I think this is an extreme example; most of the Roman provinces were more similar to Syria in corresponding to one or two modern entities. However, even in this case, the problem is that the set of provinces in the Roman Empire (and Roman Republic, etc.) changed over time, and they changed their shape. In order for this categorization to work, Module:place/shared-data needs effectively to have a list of all provinces that existed at any point in the Roman Empire, and presumably another one for the Roman Republic (and similarly for all other historical entities we want to categorize: practically speaking, an impossible task). And then you have the issue of what happens when a province changes its area over time? Does the city have to be categorized in all provinces that it existed in at any point in time? Who is going to do the research to make this happen? Benwing2 (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Not quite sure what these pages are. They were transwiki'd from Wikibooks in 2009; the pages' original creator, Swift, is still occasionally active on other wikis. Most of the pages have broken templates. I found one of them in the Thesaurus: namespace where it had incorrectly been stored for the past 9 years.
If I recall correctly we moved this here during some cleanup of Japanese language learning related Wikibooks. They had accumulated a lot of bits and pieces over the years and many didn't really add to a coherent structure. I suspect that moving these phrases to Wiktionary came after some discussion that this was a more appropriate project for that type of content. If the Wiktionary admins decide that's not the case, I won't oppse deleting this content. --2A00:C88:4000:A003:EC1A:2EE7:DB94:F62F14:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Can't really remember what the story was but these were moved around in an attempt to consolidate a number of unfinished (and, frankly, hardly started) books teaching Japanese on Wikibooks. I'm not the original author of these and have no special opinion on what should happen to these. Language learning has evolved massively in the past decade and a half and these resources are probably mostly worth while as an incentive by someone to clean them up and consolidate into a properly useful resource. --Swift (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Since the BP discussion as grown stale I'm going to vote delete all (with the understanding that the key changes will be to the modules, not the categories themselves). — excarnateSojourner (ta·co)20:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
A fringe source promoting Altaic and only used to source fringe cross-family comparisons. We're not a catalog of every single crackpot's favorite theory. — SURJECTION/ T / C / L /15:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments4 people in discussion
@Victar I don't see the point of Category:Rest. It groups Category:Sitting and Category:Sleep, which don't form a natural category. I also think we don't need a Category:Sitting. This category exists in only one language (Proto-West-Germanic), in which it has only two morphologically-related terms, a verb for "sit" and a verb for "sit on, occupy, etc.". It is better to use affix or root categories to group morphologically-related terms, and it is enough to create Category:Body positions (a set category) to enumerate verbs related to body positions, like sit, stand, lie, crouch, loom, etc. Benwing2 (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
"Sitting" is not necessarily rest, and it seems too specific to be a category of its own. We don't need categories for every single semantic concept; that would be far too ramified. IMO we need to be parsimonious (which Chrome underlines in red, for no obvious reason) with our categories so we don't end up overwhelming the end user or creating categories that are largely unfilled. I really think you should think about creating larger-scale categories and only create the finer-scale ones when there's a genuine need. (BTW non-humans have bodies too, so Category:Body positions should be fine for animals, and "sitting" in reference to inanimate objects is not the same concept.) Benwing2 (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I hate to vote to delete something that another contributor to this project clearly thought/thinks was a good idea, but I have to agree with Benwing that nothing about grouping "sleep" and "sitting" together as "rest" seems logical or necessary to me; I would delete the "Rest" category, at least as it is presently constituted. "Sitting" is a more plausible category, I would like to see how many terms it could contain: sit (and trivial variations like sit up and sit down), terms like Indian style and criss-cross applesauce, and what else? If it's only a handful of terms, I'm not sure it's useful, but if it's a lot of terms, then sure... - -sche(discuss)00:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, if we can flesh it out (categorize more entries into it, or list entries that would go in it), I could get a better sense of how useful a Category:Rest would be; maybe it's useful after all. I see Category:Sitting has been populated with a variety of entries. When I add a new category, I try to populate it with entries right away to demonstrate that it could contain a significant number of entries, to head off RFDs (or at least let them proceed based on evaluation of what a decently fleshed out category looks like). - -sche(discuss)14:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I also have a request for you: please let's have a moratorium on further Victar-created categories until we've made sure the dozens you've recently created are needed. Many of them appear to be unneeded or ill-thought-out, and I need to have time to review them individually while you're not adding even more. Benwing2 (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Again, Category:Work is a port of Wikipedia Category:Work. There is work that isn't employment, which is why Category:Employment is a separate category on Wikipedia. I can tell you, none of the categories I've created are "ill-thought-out", and I've put a lot of consideration into them. But please feel free to audit me on any of my addtions. -- Sokkjō21:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Absolutely, we have no imperative to follow Wikipedia, but seeing as their categories are far more extensive and already vetted, it's not a bad starting point. Category:Work contains both Category:Employment and Category:Slavery, which are both clearly distinct, yet still fall under "work". I think there's plenty of "rhyme or reason". -- Sokkjō08:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Sokkjo From looking at Wikipedia's categories, they are a sorry mess, much like a lot of the Wikipedia modules that people wrongly think are a good idea to "port over". They are too ramified and highly duplicative. I would not use Wikipedia as a starting point. You have a point that slavery is a type of forced labor, which is a type of labor, and employment is also a type of labor; so maybe we should rename Work -> Labor, which makes it clearer. (Wikipedia again, in their messiness, distinguishes Work from Labor, but I disagree.) I also see you created 'Slaves' as a topic cat separate from Slavery; this makes no sense at all, so i'm RFD'ing Category:Slaves. Once again I ask you to stop creating new categories until we have a chance to work through the dozens you've already created. Benwing2 (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree that we're going to have a hard time making users keep "Work" and "Employment" distinct (and if we rename "Work" to "Labor", then we also have a hard time distinguishing it from Pregnancy / labor). I also appreciate the point that not all work is employment. What if we solve this in the other direction: keep CAT:Work and delete CAT:Employment, which currently contains no entries in any language and no subcategories besides CAT:Occupations? CAT:Employment seems like it does nothing but make users put in an extra click when navigating between CAT:Occupations and CAT:Business (or whatever higher-level category we might decide to put Occupations in). If we make Occupations a subcategory of Work instead, then any work-that's-not-employment could go in Work, as can any employment-that's-not-an-occupation (while still putting anything that does belong in a more specific category like Occupations, or e.g. CAT:Hobbies, in those categories). - -sche(discuss)14:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
OK, I have recategorized "occupations" from "employment" to "work" (in the module). Because "occupations" categories were the only contents of the "employment" categories for all but three languages, the "employment" categories are now empty. There were only six entries categorized as "employment"; everything else was already in a more relevant category like "occupations". AFAICT, "employment" can now be removed from the module and all the empty "employment" categories which were so useless and unused for so long can be deleted. - -sche(discuss)17:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
English. Anyone know anything about bridge? This page uses a range of nonexistent templates to try to show various aspects of the game, including suits (the templates probably exist on Wikipedia - for instance w:Template:BridgeSuit and w:Template:Ds). Also the initial case of each defined term (or in some cases, each individual word in a multi-word term) needs to be checked; all our other glossaries use lowercase initial letters. This, that and the other (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
It is. Back in 2007, Connel MacKenzie's bot transwikied it from Wikipedia here, on the presumption that a glossary of terms was more appropriate for a dictionary than an encyclopedia. Since then, it's barely been touched here. —Mahāgaja · talk14:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Arguably they were right, but in practice Wiktionary appendices are basically invisible to readers and potential editors whereas Wikipedia articles of general interest within a particular niche like this one tend to be well-maintained. I think there's a good case to RFD this one. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
On my to-do list/bucket list is to try and bring some order to the chaos that is the Appendix namespace, perhaps through a "breadcrumb trail" like what {{auto cat}} generates at the top of category pages, and in the long term, possibly even proposing to rearrange the appendix by language: Appendix:French/Verbs, Appendix:English/Star Wars vocabulary, etc. Then we can feel proud of the appendix and add a link to it (as well as the thesaurus, rhymes section, ...) from the sidebar, making it much more visible! This, that and the other (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I used to play bridge so I am familiar with many of these terms but I'd argue that information presented in this form (glossaries of specific subjects) is more encyclopedic than dictionary-like, so I have no problem with deleting it. Benwing2 (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ill-named for the reason mentioned by IP, but does not create maintenance work, given it is automatically added via the inflection table. Its only use could be as a kind of tracking category, so one might opine it should be hidden, also deleted as for tracking one can use source code search. This category is remarkably added if one provides both |pos=proper noun|state=ind-def; I have never provided both and used state=ind-def only ever for proper nouns, I think; I see having both changes the text to “declension of proper noun”. This conversely means all entries in Category:Arabic definite nouns, currently 1,507 against 15 in Category:Arabic definite proper nouns, are wrong, according to @Benwing2’s original logic as module creator, and the former would rather go into the latter, but again there is no use in either category bar tracking. I see the idea of them arises in contradistinction to all other inflection types of nouns and proper nouns. I recognize that IP is in a cognitive conflict but it is also useless work to take out this category. Fay Freak (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Sokkjo You are reading hostility where there is none. I simply stated my reasons why I think this category should be deleted. BTW I don't think "could be filled" is a valid reason for keeping a category, nor is "exists in Wikipedia". Benwing2 (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
You keep asserting that I shouldn't refer to Wikipedia, but as I said before, the categories on Wikipedia are far more built out then those on this project, and to say they have nothing worth taking as guidance is absolute hubris. So yes, I will be continuing to make comparisons and citing their project. -- Sokkjō06:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Sokkjo Why does CAT:Nautical not suffice? Once you remove the set entries from consideration, the non-set entries are small and can go into CAT:Nautical or nowhere. You seem not to understand that synonyms do not really belong in topic categories; they go in the Thesaurus. If we are to have a related-to "Ports and harbors" category, we need a DIFFERENT set category for ports and harbors. They should not be mixed. BTW under what circumstances will you be willing to admit that one of your created categories doesn't belong? It seems like never. Benwing2 (talk) 06:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Comment: since the category boilerplate and contents are for a topic (not set) category, Ioaxxere's "keep" !vote is functionally a vote to delete the currently-existing category and make a new one with partly different contents that happens to have the same name (repurposing and repopulating it). I'm not sure there are enough types of ports to make for much of a category, though. I almost think the topic category has a stronger claim to having enough entries to merit existing (since terms denoting types of ports are also terms pertaining to the topic of ports, so could go in a "topic:ports" category alongside the various terms like harbormaster and stevedore/longshoreman that pertain to ports but are not types of ports, making for a decent number of entries). I'm on the fence for now. - -sche(discuss)17:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago9 comments7 people in discussion
Created by User:Koavf, who then added a bunch of tangentially-related terms to this category, whose only connection is containing the word "brick" in them:
There might be use for a category that could house terms semantically related to bricks and brickwork that do not contain the morpheme brick-or it could all go into Category:en:Masonry, which looks underpopulated. DCDuring (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Having such a subcategory of Masonry seems reasonable, although I prefer the name Brickwork, which suggests a related-to category (as opposed to Bricks). Einstein2 (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Created by User:Sokkjo/User:Victar. We already have Category:Deception. Contains only Proto-West-Germanic terms: four verbs meaning "to cheat" or "to deceive", and two tangentially related terms meaning "unloyal" and "adultery". There is no reasonable way to make this into a set category, and the items here should either be listed as synonyms of a basic verb "to deceive", moved to Category:Deception or removed. Benwing2 (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete Make sure context is appropriately placed in entries. Some of this would belong in a well-designed Thesaurus, if we had one. All of this seems to be the result of our having this ponderous, readily abusable topic category structure without explicit, comprehensive, understandable criteria for their formation and population. Seems to fall under it seemed like a good idea at the time and grow like Topsy. DCDuring (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@DCDuring I agree. I have done some work recently to clarify the types of topic categories ("related-to", "set", "type" or "name") and include verbiage stating what belongs in the categories, but I completely agree we need some clear criteria for what topics are appropriate. Benwing2 (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
The combination of the {{topics}} and {{autocat}} templates seems highly prone to abuse. At least one or the other needs oversight. I haven't paid much attention because I have no use for such categories. I wonder who does. This will be a matter for BP. DCDuring (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago9 comments5 people in discussion
Created by User:Sokkjo/User:Victar. This is populated only with a single subcategory Category:War, except for Proto-West-Germanic, where it has a smattering of terms meaning "to quarrel", "quarrel" or "conflict", and a couple other vaguely related terms. These belong as synonyms of a basic term "to quarrel"; terms related to war can be moved to Category:War. This should be deleted and Category:War moved up one level. Benwing2 (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Sokkjo Why did you need a category for such words? I really think you misunderstand what the topic category system is for. Topics should not be used for vague collections of synonyms; that's what the Thesaurus and Synonyms sections and inline synonyms are for. Benwing2 (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think this line you're drawing of what's too "vague" is arbitrary and gatekeeping. Higher categories by their very concept are more generalized. Again, war and conflicts are not synonyms. The terms brawl, spat, feud, dispute, rivalry, etc. simply do not belong under CAT:War. -- Sokkjō06:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Terms like battle and conflict can go in the "war" topic category. I am not sure terms like quarrel need a category; I am not sure there are enough closely-topically-related terms that relating to quarreling but not war to make a sensible non-war conflict category. So, delete. - -sche(discuss)18:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Strong Keep. It's not an exact duplication, including parameters like "type" that aren't included in {{cite-book}} ("genre" is not the same). Additionally, theses aren't books nor journals, and I've felt very weird using those templates for works that don't fall under them. AG202 (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Theses may or may not be books, though I contend they are bound like books, however I don’t see a need for different formatting. Fay Freak (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Posting it here with a {{rfd}} tag since it already had the {{d}} tag added. However I oppose deletion. There was some contention about whether umlauts should be allowed in template names, which would apply to all templates ending in Köbler. I would personally prefer keeping the umlaut variant as the main page and using redirects from Koebler for those who cannot input ö. In either case, the form with oe should be kept. Helrasincke (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
For now, I've made the "oe" spelling the main one, since "oe" is the standard way of rendering "ö" where "ö" is unavailable (or in this case, undesired by someone). (The move to "o" was by one user without consensus AFAICT so I have no qualms about reversing it.) I'm not opposed to just making the "ö" spelling the main one and having redirects from "oe" (and even "o" if Victar really wants to type just "o") per nom, though, since either "lemmatizing" "ö" with a redirect from "oe" or vice versa is equivalent from a user's perspective. - -sche(discuss)16:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
No ping? You can find a relevant conversation here: User talk:Victar#Template:R:non:Köbler. If this 4k edits user really wants the templates to a website I reference every day at Koebler, sobeit, it's not that deep. So long as it's not at Köbler, like they were initially pushing for, as no templates should ever have special characters in their name. -- Sokkjō20:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps I should add some background on this deletion request for those not familiar with the history. Back in the day, Wiktionary imported a vast number of entries from {{R:Webster 1913}}. This dictionary includes quotations attributed to the author only. No further bibliographic details are given. A template {{rfdatek}} was created to flag these insufficiently attributed quotes. It categorised each quote into a subcategory based on author (e.g. Cat:Requests for date/Chaucer, Cat:Requests for date/Shakespeare and so on). Over a number of years, many editors (with the lion's share of the work done by WF, I think) chipped away at this backlog to the point where none of the original Webster {{rfdatek}}s still exists. Any uses of {{rfdatek}} are later additions by other editors. In this situation, unlike the original Webster imports where large numbers of quotes were drawn from a small selection of authors, there is no trend in the application of {{rfdatek}}, meaning that the author-by-author subcategories now only have one or two entries each - making them rather pointless. The language-by-language categorisation at Cat:Requests for date by language is now more than sufficient, and also captures those entries which are tagged with {{rfdate}} rather than {{rfdatek}}.
(Webster 1913 also sometimes indicates that a certain sense of a word was used by such-and-such author without giving a quote. These are tagged with {{rfquotek}}. WF has also been working on this backlog, which has likewise been broken up into author subcategories under Cat:Requests for quotations by source. But I'm not proposing to delete that category tree just yet.) This, that and the other (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments2 people in discussion
@Anazarenko, Surjection We already have a word list, it contains cited words; This "version" is just full of neologisms instead of the more commonly accepted borrowings and Latin-script Mordvinic, which is neither supported nor used by the overwhelming majority of speakers. Thadh (talk) 12:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Translations from NorthEuraLex are (unfortunately) largely incorrect or imprecise. That's why I posted the edited list, although some Russophiles may not like the fact that I actually omitted most of the new (borrowed in the second half of the 20th century) Russian loanwords. Anazarenko (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Anazarenko: Please refrain from implying anyone here is a "Russophile". And you do not get to ignore sources just because of your political opinions. Also, what are your sources for the source being "largely incorrect or imprecise"? Are you the Mordvinic speech communities? Are you a native speaker of either language at all? Did you speak to natives about this, ask them what words they used, and published these interviews? Because there is absolutely no reason for anyone to believe your word against a published resource unless you give any evidence of you being any kind of authority at all. Thadh (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I am not a native user (although I specialize in Uralistic), but each of the words I added comes from dictionaries created with the help of native speakers. Nothing was invented by me. I'll post a list of all the sources used below the list soon. Anazarenko (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete fancruft. The claim of "eliminating everything good from the 2000's" is silly. I want to keep dictionary words from the 2000s since this is a dictionary. I do not want to keep encyclopaedic topics, cookie recipes, or kitten photos here, since those are not for dictionaries — 2000s or otherwise. Equinox◑10:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete There are already Mass Effect wikis + Wikipedia which document this sort of stuff so it won't get lost. Maybe it could be of linguistic interest to conlangers, but does Mass Effect even have proper conlang(s)? Jberkel11:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep: As far as I ccan see, this page doesn't violate policy. I don't like appealing to the existence of third-party wikis, which often supply an inferior user experience with stuff like ads, to justify deletionism. Lists of words and names are not comparable to cookie recipes or kitten photos. --Urszag (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
That's because we don't have a policy on what should go in the Appendix. I feel like we could really do with a set of overarching guiding criteria that define the scope of the namespace, which could evolve into a more formal policy after several years of trial and error. Without any guidance, it's very difficult to know whether to keep or delete this page. I could probably make a bona fide argument for either case. This, that and the other (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I guess keep, per CFI. However, I would recommend Geographyinitiative to find some cites that do not other reference Mass Effect for some of the words. CitationsFreak (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Keep per WT:CFI and WT:FICTION. In my opinion, there's not much sense in deleting this appendix specifically while keeping others like Appendix:Dungeons & Dragons and Appendix:Magic: The Gathering. If some people don't think any of those appendices should be here, I suppose we can talk / discuss / vote about the possible idea of changing the current policies. But in my opinion, the policy is OK as it is and I think we should instead create more fiction appendices and expand our coverage of fictional terms. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Shouldn’t have words applicable but to a limited set of videogame titles or motion picture series. I am not sure what WT:FICTION is trying to tell us here, it seems like it should be updated; the situation of wikis specific to fan franchises (which are also generally meticulously attestation-based) is different to what it was around 2010, and so is our editor and user base, and their actual opinions. Fay Freak (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Wiktionary today is a flawed gem, but it is an incredible achievement nonetheless. I believe Wiktionary has the potential to be the ultimate dictionary of all terms from all times in all languages. And so, what Wiktionary has been or is today is nothing compared to what it can be, or what it certainly will be. It would naturally include all terms- everything- in its ultimate form. Hence I vote to keep because I just want to go ahead and get there. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The way we define Greek and Ancient Greek pretty much excludes any borrowing from the former into Coptic while it was a living language. In fact, after going through the entries in the main category starting with the first letter in the Coptic alphabet I was unable to find any that had modern Greek in their etymologies. These are all due to misuse of the {{given name}} template's "from" parameter: i.e., |from=Greek instead of |from=Ancient Greek. The clincher is that this main category has no borrowing subcategory, while the Ancient Greek equivalent does.
There are still 82 entries left where "Greek" needs to be changed to "Ancient Greek" in the templates, or I might have speedied these myself. It does give us an opportunity, though, to consider what might be done to spot blatant mismatches such as these between the etymology templates and the name templates- maybe not in real time, but as a periodic bot or AWB task fed from the dumps. This is unusual in being categorically 100% wrong, but you can be sure that there are similar errors scattered through other derived terms categories Chuck Entz (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Chuck Entz This is an issue that comes up with any language that has a name frequently used to refer to its ancestors: cf. Mongolian, French etc. The real issue is that we need to overhaul our name templates, since they use their own bespoke system that simply categorises entries based on whatever you put in the from= parameter. This is useful when used with things that aren't languages, but with languages it simply causes a headache. Pinging @Benwing2 who may have ideas on how to fix this. Theknightwho (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, let's fix the entries so their etymologies refer to the right language. I agree there are many pairs of languages where we could flag the existence of categories like this as likely in error and something to fix. The reverse case, where a living language is said to have "borrowed" a word from a dead language, is also something to monitor: it's not always an error, because things like ghrelin do exist, but for many dead languages (e.g. Old High German, as opposed to Latin) it's usually an error in my experience. One idea (perhaps there are better ones!) is to have a TODO/monitoring page containing links to every 'suspect' category we can think of, e.g. every instance of a modern language "borrowing" from a dead language (excluding any cases where such borrowing is actually common, like from Latin or Greek) and vice versa (like here, Coptic borrowing from Greek or German or whatnot); if possible, it'd be great to auto-generate the list; even better would be to only generate bluelinks i.e. cases where the category exists; but if it's not possible to auto-generate the list, we can just make a massive page of manually-added links. Users could scroll down the page and check any links that are blue (say, if Category:Russian terms borrowed from Old English turns blue, you know that's something you want to look into because probably someone used "bor" where they should've used "der"). - -sche(discuss)18:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
The dates wouldn't need to be super accurate, but it would make it easy for me to generate a todo list WT:Todo/Lists/Anachronistic etymologies which would contain entries that derive from a language spoken later. There would be a section to list known good entries that should be skipped over.
(2) We start a page like WT:Todo/Lists/Anachronistic etymologies/List which contains pairs of languages where one cannot derive from the other. For example (in reality I would format it as a table)
Keep: As set categories, cat:Hit and cat:Rub should contain terms for kinds of hits and rubs, and they do seem to. (I don't know any of these languages, but I saw terms defined as "slap" and "kick" as hits and "polish" and "scrub" as rubs.) We could convert them to thesaurus pages, but I think we could convert any set category to thesaurus pages. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co)00:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Several issues:
Not specific to any one simplification system, so it's a random mix of Chinese and Japanese characters without any language-specific indication.
Is it supposed to refer to characters which were unchanged by simplification? Presumably not (since that would include almost all of them), but a strict reading of the name would include them.
What about situations like 再, 𠕅 and 𠕂 where simplified Chinese simplifies all three to the first one?
None of this is explained, and the entries seem to be pretty random. At the very least if we keep this, we should subcategorise by simplification system.
Theknightwho (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is definitely a flawed category, but I am very interested in having a category where the characters that are used in both Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese, i.e. the characters that WEREN'T simplified, are identified. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
This is just {{desc}}, but adds the label "tonal orthography" after it. I'm not even sure whether it follows the same format as {{desc}} anymore, since @Benwing2 changed how it worked. Either way, it's a wikicode mess, and a pointless maintenance headache that will inevitably get forgotten about. Theknightwho (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho There is also {{l/sl-tonal}} and maybe some others. The reason for these is that there are two different diacritic systems for Slovene, one that marks tones as well as vowel length and the other which just marks vowel length, and references to Slovene terms are (or maybe were) a mess, with some using one system and some the other. In general you can convert from tonal -> non-tonal but not the other way around, and we were trying to move everything to tonal. Unfortunately, however, the two systems use the same (or at least overlapping) diacritics but for different purposes, so it's not possible to simply autodetect all uses of the non-tonal orthography and flag them automatically. So I created the special tonal templates to indicate that a given term uses the tonal orthography. Note that this was done a long time ago before I was very conversant with Wiktionary conventions. Someone will need to survey the current Wiktionary state to see whether the non-tonal orthography is still used; if so it might make more sense to distinguish the two orthographies with etym-lang codes. Benwing2 (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Rework into something else, perhaps an added parameter or template to {{desc}} (I think of {{ru-PRO}}, though this is used near {{alter}}), and then delete if it is made believable that we have no loss. I have always been annoyed by it, but one can’t help but special-case if there are language-specific problems. The concern that this falls out of date or sync is very valid either way. Fay Freak (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Essentially these categories are categorizing compound terms made up of specific words, e.g. pǟva(“day”), vālda(“white”) and mer(“sea”). In general, we don't categorize in this fashion; certainly not in English, for example. The set of words out of which such categories are made seems to be chosen essentially arbitrarily and if we did this consistently, it would lead to endless category bloat. @Neitrāls vārds who created the categories and Template:liv-compoundcat. Benwing2 (talk) 06:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete. I've added the pages in these categories to the Derived terms sections where they belong, except the three compounds with vālda because the page doesn't exist. Ultimateria (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@TheknightwhoSupport although they link to language-specific pages describing what "colloquial" and "literary" mean in this context; I would maintain those links using language-specific label entries. Benwing2 (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep. Having this appendix isn't redundant. At worst, it is a list of names to be added in future. At best, it is a nice compact list of names, with English equivalents. Father of minus 2 (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion
This template is unnecessary and even if it were deemed necessary for some reason, it would be exceedingly complex to correctly implement, according to the nuances of Tibetan language. Let me explain:
Tibetan nouns are technically uninflected. As Nicolas Tournadre and Sangda Dorje put it in Manual of Standard Tibetan: Language and Civilization (Snow Lion, 2003):
The system of cases in Tibetan is quite distinct from that of European languages such as
Latin, Greek, German and Russian, for a number of reasons. First of all, contrary to the case of these languages, the form of the noun itself remains invariable. Instead, it makes use of particles or suffixes that vary in form.
Now, even if we agreed that a declension table employing these separate case-marking particles could be included, the cases, as well as the case-marking particles themselves, vary wildly between different forms of the Tibetan language, especially between the two "standard" forms of Tibetan, "Literary" or "Classical Tibetan", aka ཡིག་སྐད(yig skad) and "Colloquial" "Lhasa Tibetan", aka ཕལ་སྐད(phal skad)/ལྷ་སའི་སྐད(lha sa'i skad). The cases and particles included in this template mostly belong only to the literary language, and not the colloquial spoken language, the latter of which is the focus of the Tibetan entries on this website and is used in the pronunciation module, etc. And even then, as it stands now, the way this template is set up, it lacks all of the sundry permutations of each case-marking particle that depend on the final letter of the noun that precedes it, and in many cases, the choice of the user. For example, the "dative-locative case" of Tibetan, aka ལ་དོན(la don) (which this template wrongly partitions into two separate "dative” and "locative" cases), uses 7 different case-marking particles: ཏུ, དུ, ར, རུ, སུ, ན, and ལ. The colloquial language mostly only uses ལ, and in fact the name of the case ལ་དོན(la don) means "has the same meaning as ལ". The literary language uses the other particles depending on a combination of the final letter of the preceding noun and user preference. For examples of what is meant by "user preference", either གང་དུ or གང་ལ ("where, whither") are grammatical, and either འོག་ན or འོག་ལ ("under") are grammatical. So, in order to make a declension table out of this system, one would have to first divide the usage according to the literary and colloquial languages, and for the literary language, multiple variations (as many as 6!) would need to be included. And this doesn't even take into account the peculiarities represented by dozens of regional variations of the Tibetan language, some of which are quite widely used, such as Khampa ཁམས་སྐད(khams skad) or Amdowa མདོ་སྐད(mdo skad).
Additionally, as it appears now, this template has several mistakes—it lists certain cases such as "associative", but this is not even an actual case according to traditional Tibetan grammars. It is only considered as a case by some Western grammars of Tibetan for learning, as well as by some Western linguists. Tibetans consider this merely a conjunctive particle. In Amdo and Central Tibetan, the particle ལ is used instead of དང. In Ladakh, the particle དང is used for the "associative" usage, but also instrumental usage. The "terminative" case (which isn't a case in Tibetan at all) is shown as employing the particle སུ, but this is one of the "dative-locative" case-marking particles. The final/terminative particles in Tibetan, aka རྫོགས་ཚིག(rdzogs tshig, “completion word”), use reduplication of the final letter of the sentence, combined with the Tibetan vowel ན་རོ(na ro) (ཨོ) and number eleven in total: གོ་ངོ་དོ་ནོ་བོ་མོོ་འོ་རོ་ལོ་སོཏོ. There is no "elative" or "comparative" case in Tibetan. Both literary and colloquial Tibetan have four cases plus the absolutive (six, if counting the "associative"): genitive, agentive-instrumental, dative-locative, and ablative. The ablative case is used for comparisons in colloquial Tibetan. The ablative case in this template is also missing the second ablative-marking particle ལས (which is the one used for comparison in colloquial Tibetan). Tibetans use ནས when using ablative in terms of spatial contexts, e.g. "he came out of the cave", and they use ལས when using the ablative in terms of "consubstantial provenance", as Tournadre and Dorje put it, e.g. "it was made out of gold". The genitive and agentive particles each number five (of which this template only lists one each), and, as well as the dative-locative case-marking particles, have a variety of uses in addition to their case-marking usage. For example, the "genitive" case-marking particles are used to connect postpositions, and they are also used to create constructs similar to Hebrew's סמיכות(smikhút) constructions, where one noun modifies another, such as in སེར་གྱི་འཁོར་ལོ(ser gyi 'khor lo, “golden wheel, wheel of dharma”). The dative-locative and agentive have even more complex usage, usually with verbs, being used also to connect clauses in a sentence.
Another major complication is, in both the written and colloquial languages, as an agglutination language, the case-marking particles are placed after other particles denoting number, and the particles denoting number are different in literary and colloquial Tibetan, and there are multiple possibilities in literary Tibetan—to say nothing of regional variations of Tibetan.
In summary, besides being the objectively wrong way to consider the Tibetan language (again, nouns are not inflected/declined—case-marking particles are used instead), the complexity and subjectivity of the system of case-marking particles (see attached images below), combined with the different registers, dialects, etc and all of their variations, makes even the possibility of such a template as this a hopeless pursuit, besides being a fundamentally misguided pursuit.
Some tables from Manual of Standard Tibetan to help put just a portion of the problem into perspective:
@Mellohi! I saw you commenting on Tibetan-related lects at LTR and wondered if you might be able to offer some input here. I suspect HTG is right, but I don't feel confident enough in the matter to vote delete. This, that and the other (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I did not actually study Tibetan itself yet, so I cannot offer judgement at the moment. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
For Kurtöp, which has a very similar system, I have also opted to analyse these as enclitic particles, not inflectional endings: e.g. གི. Now, as I understand it, Tibetan doesn't even have stress, unlike Kurtöp, so there it's even more clear that these are better seen as separate words. Thadh (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Not rhymes; w can only occur in the onset of a Toki Pona syllable. The rhyme page just lists two words that end in the same three segments (trivia at best), despite the stress falling on the earlier syllables (a-, ki-) as a rule. AgentMuffin4 (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete the upper row (those that are directly implemented with {{head}}). Keep the lower row pending further investigation, since often the generic headword handler provides extra functionality; e.g. {{fr-phrase}} has special French-specific headword splitting; {{hi-phrase}} provides parameters for Urdu equivalents (and {{ur-phrase}} likewise for Hindi equivalents); etc. Benwing2 (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm confused. My understanding of a Wanderwort is that it is a word that has been borrowed into many languages over a dispersed geographic area and a long period of time. Such a word may or may not ultimately be derived from a substrate language. These seem to me to be two entirely different things. This, that and the other (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Many Wanderworts have substrate origins, like silver on this appendix, but then copper there is just a Latin borrowing and hardly a Wanderwort. But even if it could be argued that the very fuzzy term Wanderwort should be used, it should be category, not a manual list. -- Sokkjō03:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sometimes appendices are the way to go. As an example, we used to have categories like Category:Italian terms inherited from Latin nominatives, added by User:Nicodene, which always bothered me because a lot of the terms there had questionable and/or disputed etymologies, only some of which proposed inheritance from the nominative. I proposed renaming to something like 'Foo terms potentially inherited from Latin nominatives' but we eventually settled on an appendix, Appendix:Survivals of the Latin nominative in Romance, which I think is a much better solution for this because it gives room to enumerate which ones are clearly accepted, which ones generally accepted, which ones doubtful, etc. and for what reasons (previously the reasons were hidden in HTML comments). (Note, maybe we should rename Appendix:Survivals of the Latin nominative in Romance to something beginning with 'Latin' or 'Romance' to make it easier to find.) In this case, an appendix Appendix:Wanderwörter might make the most sense. Benwing2 (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The problem with covering Wanderworts via categories is that these are inherently hard to pin down. We often don't know what language they originated from or what the original form was. We only know for sure the results of their interactions with known languages or proto-languages. Because of that, the ones without an attested original source are more often than not impossible to cover as reconstructions. What's more, a substrate form becomes a loanword when another language picks it up, so a given Wanderwort doesn't get covered well by any one category. How do we know which language-specific categories a given Wanderwort belongs to?
That said, I think that covering these by language- even in an appendix- just perpetuates the fragmentation. Not only that, a given Wanderwort would be guaranteed to appear in multiple languages, so the more language-specific appendixes there are, the more duplication there would be. We would be better off having an appendix consisting of a master list of suspected Wanderworts, with subpages for each one. Each subpage would list the known forms, analyze the history and distribution patterns, discuss what we know about the phonological shape, etc. The main challenge would be naming the subpages. I suppose we could have intermediate subpages for regional and other groupings: no need to link to a page for the names for Datura in southwestern North America on the main page. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
This page feels similar to our Hall of Fame section for long etymological chains, and I would be for some way of being able to document such "interesting cases" at a single location, though if i'm understanding right that part of the issue is the page's use of Wanderwörter and it having a particular meaning that is beyond the scope of what is actually being documented? A couple solutions could be had, simple put: either moving the content to a page titled more aptly to it's goal/content, or deriving a category based on the number of derivement from different languages(plus possibly other matters of categorization) via {{etymon}} (well, future implementation of such via @Ioaxxere). Akaibu (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago18 comments12 people in discussion
There is no such thing as "Gen Z slang". Any list claiming to describe "Gen Z slang" inevitably ends up including a hodgepodge of terms that have practically no reason to be listed together. Gen Z is not a monolith, and this appendix has negative lexicographical value.
The appendix breaks its own rules, since skibidi isn't a term which is "unique to or which originated with Gen Z". Almost all of the terms in the Wikipedia article don't meet these criteria either, proving the incoherence of the concept of "Gen Z slang".
I have no strong feelings on keep/deleteKeep, but it is clearly true that there is a slang associated with (American and Internet-connected) Gen Z kids. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯05:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep If anything the enwiki article demonstrates that it is possible to maintain such a list, and tentatively there will be more dictionary-suited information to add here ("rizz" has already been documented as such by various dictionary sources). AAVE and LGBTQ slang are not mutually exclusive, and that Wikipedia list actually does a pretty good job of identifying which subcultures the individual items originated in. عُثمان (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is trenchant. In addition to the fact that AAVE and Gen Z slang are not mutually exclusive, not all AAVE or even AAVE slang is part of Gen Z slang. Keep. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯00:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep. This is exactly the kind of content that normal users would be interested in and that we can do better at than other online dictionaries. Why get rid of it? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Appendices are useful for terms that won't have broad attestation (e.g. many terms can be cited with one source all at once and some of the individual ones may meet general CFI as independent terms/senses) and they are also useful for framing or contextualization. A page that has some introductory text can help make things more manageable or navigable than an indiscriminate alphabetical listing in a category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯17:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Belatedly following up on Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2022/March#mega_and_other_'conversions'. This template is only used on a handful of pages (and impressively, despite the uses being so few, many are wrong, e.g. achteln does not meet the definition laid out for a conversion). Even though there are things which do meet the definition, we appear by longstanding practice/consensus to forgo marking (templatizing/categorizing) them like this, and I don't (at this time) view it as something useful to start marking, so my opinion is delete. - -sche(discuss)00:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The claims about the pronunciation of the sequence, enriching that time’s glosses, moreover are largely disinfo preying on the sketchy awareness about the production of speech and its transcription. Contrary to the category description, it is not pronounced /mf/, like at all, but [ɱf]—or just [nf]. Fay Freak (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
For better or worse, we do comparably (currently) have Category:English words ending in "-gry" (although see RFM). I have no strong feelings on the matter. I am not opposed to deleting the category; the five words in this set could be mentioned in a usage note at fünf, which is surely the most common of the lot. (Edited to add: I'm fine with keeping it, too. Ideally we should be consistent in deciding whether to have this andthe English -gry and -yre categories, or consistently delete them all.) - -sche(discuss)01:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
These are redundant to {{timestamp}} (which has more functionality), and they have barely any transclusions. I realize they are meant to be substed, but the lack of transclusions still means they would be easier to remove than {{timestamp}}. — excarnateSojourner (ta·co)21:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
In general, I think editors like making tons of idiosyncratic appearence tweaks are better off relying on their common.css pages rather than enabling a host of tiny gadgets. Ioaxxere (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I deleted the latter two as very trivial and am leaving the first two here in case anyone wants to discuss. I haven't archived in case anyone wants to dispute deleting these one-line CSS gadgets that are unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯01:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for reminding me that it exists. Let me use it as is, where is, for a while (days). I'm not sure how useful it is. It is a bit inconvenient to have to edit my CSS each time I want to switch between seeing translations and not seeing them. DCDuring (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@User:This, that and the other I was looking for a gadget that saved screen space, which this gadget does not. It would be useful if the show/hide bars did not appear at all. I doubt that the Translations header could be readily suppressed, though that would be nice for the purpose of screen-space-saving. There are times when I would want to suppress the appearance of lots of headers and content in sections irrelevant to my current editing task so that I could easily use information from one section to edit another. BTW, this would be useful for keeping the {{trans-top}} display aligned with the current set of definitions. That can be done with a wide display and two windows, but not with middling eyesight on a laptop screen or comparably narrow monitor. DCDuring (talk) 12:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@TheknightwhoComment: These could all be easily converted to use Module:en-headword, which make them no longer trivial wrappers around {{head}} as Module:en-headword supports a bunch of English-specific linking and suffix features. I think that might be a better approach until we get a version of {{head}} that can have language-specific customization in it. Benwing2 (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps moving this to userspace would be a solution? Simply being in use on user pages can't protect something in the Template: namespace from deletion or else we'd have a lot of other userboxes that e.g. Wikipedia has, and indeed I don't see the value in this one (e.g. User RogueScholar's page contains only an ORCID link: wouldn't it be easier to just paste the link, rather than going through a template?); OTOH, clearly at least one longtime Wikimedian does see value in it, and I don't see harm in it, so abstain. - -sche(discuss)16:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Abstain. Neither complication of this template nor maintenance burden has been substantiated, and looking at the source code it does not look like it can be. Though it is interesting that the Wikipedia version has been Lua-ized and developed away from it. Looks like we can have a slim port of it for user pages, but on the other hand all users using it link to their Wikipedia pages, alternatively MetaWiki or Wikispecies or another project for which it makes more sense to maintain it, anyway. Fay Freak (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Only used in two entries, lui and ei, where every form displayed is the same as the headword. Moreover, it superficially appears to contradict the headword lines, which specify a masculine/feminine form and plural. (I think I understand what is going on - lor is semantically plural but lui and el can be used in agreement with plural nouns - but this is not at all obvious from the way the information is currently presented in the entries.) The purpose may be better served by a usage note. I was about to convert this template to match the style of {{ro-decl-adj}} but I'm not sure it's needed at all. This, that and the other (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@This, that and the other: Yes, the headword line describes the different words used for different possessors, whereas the inflection table describes the grammatical agreement with the possessee for a fixed possessor.
It may look a bit silly to have it all display the same form but I think this makes it more consistent and less surprising in relation to the possessive determiners that do inflect for the possessee (meu etc.). This way, it doesn't look like there's something missing.
If we keep the tables (which is the position I'm currently tending towards), I'd be in favor of documenting both 'axes' in the declension section (instead of having the possessor in the headword and the possessee in the declension section). See e.g. German sein#Determiner. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see this as a general issue on whether invariable terms should have declension tables, Latin sometimes does it and I find it pretty funny-looking. My vote here would be to delete, I agree with TTO this would be better handled with a note, though I'm not sure where we could best keep it. An entire header such as "Declension" or "Usage notes" just to say "invariable" feels cumbersome (our headers in general do), but less cluttering than a table with the same form repeated eight times, indeed consistent but far from efficient. In any case, I'll stand by Romanian editors' discretion, and I second Fytcha's idea on having a table for the other axis. Catonif (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is a relic that seems to predate even the old system of catboiler templates- it has no templates, just hard-coded category markup. That has allowed this to be overlooked while categories such as CAT:Cuneiform script have been created using our regular category infrastructure and employed in all of the more recently added cuneiform entries. Judging by the rfcs archived on the talk page, the entries that were still in this category (now removed) were mostly there because they've been neglected. Also, two of the subcategories are only used in a single entry: 𒌋Chuck Entz (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Okay, someone depopulated the category, so that all that remains are three subcats:
@This, that and the other: I'd keep the Cuneiform Syllabary category as a subcategory of Cuneiform script. Those are the cuneiform sings used to spell out words phonetically. I don't think the "Cuneiform Luwian" is a category of its own, but the Hittite syllabary could make sense. I don't do Hittite, though, so I can't really tell for sure. — Sartma【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】15:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This template just causes clutter in the verb conjugation templates. This type of conjugation, where a verb of the 1st gategory gets an '-êy-' in certain times definitely needs a template, but this template was made short-sightedly, as not all of the verbs in this category end on '-ner' in the infinitive, for example: boerler, dji boerlêye; xhilter, dji xhiltêye. I think it would be better to get rid of this one and make a more general template in it's place. Poly Kraken (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, Delete. DDSA is merely a hosting platform with the text from the dictionaries integrated to varying degrees into a database. It includes lots and lots of very useful references and has handy search features, but only the individual works should be cited. At most a parameter or two in the cite or quote template should indicate the location on DDSA. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Delete In the vast majority cases, DDSA is not the original publisher of its dictionaries.
Many of the dictionaries hosted there also exist outside DDSA. There are printed versions of them, and there are also electronic versions of them online.
Since the individual dictionaries can satisfactorily be differentiated, it is inappropriate for Wiktionary to attribute multiple dictionaries of a language as a single reference.
Merging the dictionaries of a single language as a single reference incorrectly attributes certain authors to dictionaries that they did not compile.
Old Marathi and Marathi are different L2 headers on Wiktionary, but DDSA has included the Old Marathi dictionary into the combined Marathi search.
The drawbacks of the combined search templates outweigh the convenience that they provide.
As Chuck Entz mentioned, DDSA should just be mentioned in passing with the intended meaning of “accessed via DDSA”.
The only appropriate usage of the combined search templates would be if they are used in addition to and not as a substitute for the individual reference templates themselves.
The misuse of these combined reference templates has caused a dilemma on a massive scale that needs to be addressed before it grows even further out of hand.
It would be much easier to get rid of them altogether rather than dealing with users who misuse them and refuse to engage in discussion. Kutchkutch (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I believe {{CJKV}} is unnecessary because it duplicates what {{desc}} already does, but with less functionality. Keeping multiple templates for the same purpose can create confusion and make things harder to manage. Since {{desc}} is more versatile and already covers what Template:CJKV offers (and more), I think it makes sense to simplify things by deleting/deprecating {{CJKV}}. — Fenakhay(حيطي · مساهماتي)19:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think what would be better is to instead improve the functionality of {{CJKV}}. For instance, so be able to display descendant trees like the {{desc}}. CJKV is used for a very specific type of loan word from Chinese in Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese, not for all loan words. The dog2 (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
1) Japanese (and Okinawan) ruby works better with {{CJKV}} than trying to combine {{desc}} and {{ja-r}}. 2) Variant forms where C ≠ JKV (see the example of 掛礙 / 挂碍(guà'ài), where the standard form in Sinoxenic JKV are all descendants of the variant form in Chinese, 罣礙 / 罣碍(guà'ài), but are generally listed best under the standard traditional C form). 3) Shading the "standard" CJKV readings is best (see the example of 白菜(báicài), where there are non-Sinoxenic borrowings as well), given that these are primarily orthographic borrowings. However, I concede that the use of labels with {{desc}} can provide this; we just need to expand those. Michael Ly (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Fenakhay, @Benwing2: I vote keep as well, at least with the current generic template functionalities. Currently language-specific templates do a better job for transliterations and furigana and per @The dog2 and @Michael Ly's arguments.
The Japanese transliteration is not even in the main name space.
Keep per what's already been stated. Sino-Xenic descendants are notably different from traditional borrowings, and more importantly, the way we currently handle Chinese makes it more necessary to separate out Sino-Xenic borrowings as a single group. If we separated out Old Chinese, Middle Chinese, etc., then I'd lean towards supporting the deprecation of {{CJKV}} but until then, no. The mess that is 白菜(báicài) illustrates that for me, like what is "others"??? AG202 (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep for now, for reasons that others have mentioned (and rename for clarity); however {{CJKV}} should at least be Lua-fied in the near future, and eventually be integrated into standard templates like {{desc}} (e.g. highlighting, better handling of |qq=).
I should also point out that (a) many other languages in the Sinosphere also have Sino-Xenic readings, and not just the threefour five that are currently supported, and (b) {{CJKV}} currently does not have the functionality for distinguishing different layers of Sino-Xenic readings (e.g. go-on, kan-on, and tōsō-on in Japanese). In any case, we should rethink the existing approach.
Regarding AG202's comment on separating out OC/MC, I agree that it is basically a mess. I think we could perhaps list the various stages of the language with indented lists of {{desc}}, similar to those in Reconstruction space. This could also solve the two problems mentioned in the previous paragraph, but anyways this is probably best discussed on BP. – wpi (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Wpi @AG202 @The dog2 How about we rename this to {{desc-Sino}} or similar? {{CJKV}} is a terrible name as it says nothing about the actual purpose of the template, not to mention that there appear to be languages other than the CJKV languages themselves that have Sino-Xenic borrowings in them. Benwing2 (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
The only other language with Sinoxenic borrowings in Okinawan. Other languages like say, Thai, Malay or Khmer just have regular borrowings from Chinese. The dog2 (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Chuck Entz Personally, I would take "Sino" or "sino" in a descendants template to mean "Sino-Xenic"; {{zh-desc-sino}} is even clearer, because descendants of a given language are never in that same language. If you don't like that, then the issue with {{zh-desc-non-zh}} is it's rather long; probably {{zh-desc}} is enough as the descendants are necessarily non-zh. Benwing2 (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm fine with re-naming it to {{zh-desc}}. That is indeed clearer than {{CJKV}}. Speaking of which, perhaps we should also have a similar template for descendants of Sanskrit words in Indian and Southeast Asian languages. The dog2 (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
It's worth noting that the template {{Sinoxenic}} also exists. That template (undocumented 😢) appears to be used on Proto-Sino-Tibetan reconstruction pages, and has completely different parameters from {{CJKV}} (😢😢). Perhaps {{Sinoxenic}} could simultaneously be renamed to {{sit-desc-sino}}, or whatever {{CJKV}} gets renamed to with sit in place of zh. This, that and the other (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think it might be a better idea to simply merge these two templates. They serve similar purposes in descendant lists. – wpi (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments3 people in discussion
A general form-of template used only for a very specific quirk of Okinawan. This is not an effective use of such templates; we have {{form of}} (or better, {{infl of}} with an Okinawan-specific inflection tag) for such cases. Benwing2 (talk) 06:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Kutchkutch: Will the same apply to {{hiatus-filler form of}}? Since this is probably only supposed to be used when both with-hiatus and without-hiatus forms exist. Or is the occurrence of pairs of forms with and without hiatus strong enough in Apabhramsa? Svārtava (tɕ) 11:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Svartava: The occurrence of pairs of forms with and without a hiatus is strong in Classical Prakrit because with respect to y, it just pertains to the spelling convention being used.
In this regard, hiatus and hiatus-filler forms are comparable to nuqta and nuqtaless forms in Hindi and Gurmukhi Punjabi.
The difference is that
hiatus-filler forms contain an additional intervocalic letter at hiatuses, which are extremely common in Classical Prakrit.
nuqtaless forms lack the nuqta diacritic, which is an optional indicator of clarity for certain letters.
{{hiatus-filler form of}} is not being transcluded as much as {{nuqtaless form of}} because Hindi and Punjabi are modern languages with significantly more attention.
Although the applicability of hiatus-fillers in Apabhramsa still needs to be addressed, there is a wide applicability of {{hiatus-filler form of}} to Prakrit.
Topic markers, on the other hand, pertain more to theta roles.
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
These derived terms subpages no longer serve any purpose as the Lua memory limit is now less of a concern and there is no need to split these pages. – wpi (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Courtesy ping @Victar. I know this was created back in 2023 but just a reminder to please not create vague related-to categories like this without clear BP consensus (or in fact any topic categories; you will notice that before creating a couple of IMO obviously missing set categories, I made a BP posting). This category has exactly one subcategory in it (Category:Units of measure) and no terms in the vast majority of languages it exists in. The only language with more than 1 or 2 terms is Proto-West Germanic, where it has a grab-bag of 6 terms meaning "few", "fewness", "many", "multitude", "fewer" and "reduce". IMO delete the category and move the one subcategory up. Benwing2 (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
In general we need to rethink the use of related-to categories as random dumping grounds for thesaurus-type stuff. There should be a Category:Sizes instead and the remaining things that aren't sizes should probably be removed IMO. Benwing2 (talk) 06:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I get what Victar is trying to do here, and I actually wouldn't mind if we had more of these Roget-style categories. The goal of having every entry in a "topic cat"-type category makes sense to me.
However, I do agree with Benwing that some kind of community discussion at BP is needed, in order to test for consensus and work out the operational aspects of such a significant expansion of Wiktionary's category tree. This, that and the other (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
What I would like to do here is to have two separate templates. One template is simply a declension table for an individual pronoun, showing the cases of that pronoun (and no other pronouns). The other template shows all the personal pronouns, but only the absolutive forms. Users who wish to view the declined forms of a personal pronoun can click the link to that pronoun's entry and look at its declension table. This, that and the other (talk) 11:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Having separate "see also" and declension templates sounds good to me. At some point I should clean up the Basque pronoun and determiner tables, a lot of them could be handled by the existing noun declension module (with some adjustments). Santi2222 (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Santi2222 I have written a somewhat crude module, Module:eu-pronoun, that can generate inflection tables for the personal pronouns of Basque. The output matches what is currently in {{eu-personal pronouns/table}}, with two exceptions:
the locatives of zu and gu seemed to be swapped, so I switched them over;
the causatives of zeu and geu did not include the -e-, which I added in.
I hope my changes are correct.
I've also written a new template {{eu-personal pronouns}} which simply lists the pronouns in a very compact box. This would go in the entries' "See also" section.
I haven’t looked at the module in detail (I’ll be busy until next week), but it looks good. Before deploying, I would change it so that the declension of emphatic pronouns is shown separately (that is, having a table for ni and another for neu, and so on). Emphatic pronouns are seen more as a different set of pronouns rather than as inflected forms of the plain ones. Also, besides the forms in -eu, there are other variants like nihaur and nerau (not yet added to Wiktionary) that have their own declined forms, so it's probably clearer to have a table for each one. I've added the emphatic forms to {{eu-personal pronouns}}, I think it still looks compact enough. Santi2222 (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments4 people in discussion
What exactly is this category supposed to be useful for? It has more than 3000 entries in just about every language imaginable. I think it just adds clutter to the category list at the bottom of entries. This, that and the other (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I can see two possible uses: to let people who don't add explanations know that everyone will have a way to find out about it, or to allow someone to go through the body of explanationless requests for attention and look for problems with the usage of the template. In the first case, that's pretty much canceled out by the fact that most people don't know the category exists. The second runs into the problem of the lack of context- no tagging for who did it or in which types of entries. To understand what's going on, you have to visit the entries.
I suppose it might let one spot bad usage: e.g. that a particular editor is simultaneously creating lots of stubs in a language they don't know and tagging all of them to shift the responsibility for fixing them to others- but one actually would have to take the time to patrol the newer additions to the category. There are so many other ways to look for problems that I've never bothered to even look at this category. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Keep. This is potentially useful to draw attention to entries that have content problems of a kind likely only readily noticed by a human and not easily otherwise searchable. A review of such entries that led to correction of the problem, better categorization of the problem, or removal of a spurious template would be a better-than-average contribution to Wiktionary IMHO. DCDuring (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I don't really see the point of this. It's a random list of surnames created several years ago and not well maintained. There are HTML comments approximately indicating the origin of the surnames but they're not surfaced and likely wrong or out of date in many places. If we are to have lists like this at all, they should be auto-generated from the actual surname categories. Benwing2 (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There are only masculine/feminine and singular/plural forms, just like other Western Romance languages. The information is all in the headword line. No declension boxes are needed. This, that and the other (talk) 04:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
My understanding of the rationale is basically that these seven classes date back to Proto-Germanic or PIE and the verbs have undergone such heavy evolution since that period that the classes are essentially meaningless in English.
Looking from a modern English perspective, I don't see any particular commonalities between verbs of the same "class". Sure, most of the so-called "class 4" verbs have a past tense in -o-, but so does much of "class 1", and there are exceptions. Some of the included verbs (seethe, starve) don't even seem to show any "strong" characteristics in Modern English.
Delete. If someone wants to propose etymology categories, like "English verbs derived from Proto-Germanic class 4 verbs", we can discuss that, but these categories as they presently exist don't seem ... coherent? useful? - -sche(discuss)20:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
The title of this request says "Category:English strong verbs and its subcategories", but the body of the request only gives reasons to delete the subcategories. Is the deletion of Category:English strong verbs also being proposed? I don't think the overarching category is meaningless in modern English. Strong verbs as a whole still generally show the characteristic features of vowel change between present versus past or past participle; no dental suffix in the past tense and participle; and (often) addition of the suffix -en or -n in the past participle. As for "seethe" and "starve", the question is whether strong forms of these verbs such as "starven" are attested since 1500, our cutoff date for Modern English: if so, there isn't anything erroneous in principle about including them in a category of Modern English strong verbs, even if the strong forms are not used in present-day English.--Urszag (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Urszag Even w.r.t. "strong" and "weak" verbs, this distinction is very muddled in English. Etymologically, meet/met is a weak verb whereas bite/bit and hold/held are strong verbs, but there is little to indicate this in modern English; the only remnant of the -en past participle is alternative past participle bitten and the semi-archaic adjective beholden. As for light/lit, I have no idea whether it's etymologically strong or weak, and there's no obvious indication of either in the modern language. Meanwhile you have dive/dove, shine/shone, sneak/snuck and others that are etymologically weak verbs but have gotten a strong-like past tense by analogy to other verbs. Overall I think it makes more sense to simply distinguish "regular" and "irregular" verbs, as most grammatical books on English do. Benwing2 (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete only subcategories but keep the main category of strong verbs as a subcategory of Category:English irregular verbs. I'll admit that English vowel shifts and inconsistent stem generalization were not kind to the original strong subclasses. However, I still firmly believe that strong verbs with their characteristic ablaut and -en participles are still a synchronically distinguished subclass of irregular verb. The fact that secondary transfers to strong verbs like snuck an dove even occur in the first place indicate that yes, English speakers still distinguish strong verb ablaut as a distinctive subkind of irregularity. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hmm are we sure there is a clear line between strong and other irregular verbs? Example: tell/told (etymologically weak) vs. hold/held (etymologically strong). I would say that examples like snuck and dove (and more recent ones like dranken and tooken, both of which I've heard in the wild) just show that English speakers are willing to generalize from common irregular patterns (much as how German speakers extracted the umlaut+-er plural formation for neuters from a handful of Old High German examples). In particular, catch/caught was originally an analogical formation based on inherited teach/taught, which is irregular but etymologically weak. Benwing2 (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Told is obviously not strong given the weak -d suffix there vs. the present stem. And to me I see that there are separate strong and weak irregular patterns to even generalize in the first place (strong snuck + dove + dranken + tooken with a vowel change and/or -en suffix, no damage to the coda of the root, and no extra coronal stop tacked on the end), and irregularity like catch and teach (where the entire rhyme of the root is torn off with the root-final consonant never to be seen again, unlike strong verbs that keep the root's coda or lack of one around). I still see English strong verbs having a distinctive manifestation of irregularity compared to other irregulars with different behaviour. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
OK how about meet/met? This is etymologically weak but has no clear indication of this anymore and has apparent vowel ablaut, and you'd have to be pretty well-versed in English historical linguistics to know why this is weak and not strong. Benwing2 (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
meet, feed, bleed, breed are characterized by /i/ to past /ɛ/ to participle /ɛ/ "ablaut". Certainly they stand out from the actual old-style strong verbs? I can't think of any historically strong verbs that ended up with this ablaut. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
What I'm saying is that they "stand out" only because you know the phonological history of English. Someone who doesn't know the difference between ablaut and umlaut, for example, won't have any idea why the vowel change of meet -> met is classified differently from the vowel change of bite -> bit. You might say "well the latter has past participle bitten" but in many people's speech, the past participle of bite is bit not bitten. How about light -> lit? Is this weak or strong (and why do we even care)? My point is that from a synchronic perspective things are too mixed up to make a cogent strong/weak distinction. Benwing2 (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Meet/met actually still does not require etymological information; /i/-/ɛ/-/ɛ/ alternation characterizes verbs like sweep. From sweep and meet one can see a class of iC - ɛCt - ɛCt verbs where the -t is suppressed after an alveolar stop. And on "Is this weak or strong (and why do we even care)?" I am not intending to classify English irregular verbs in a dichotomy of strong or weak; I do not believe there is a unified "irregular weak verb" class. But I do still believe that there are subcategories of the irregular verbs with distinct formation patterns that we can sort verbs in, even without saying "weak verb". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:51, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I still believe that a strong verb is redefinable synchronically: as a verb that simply, without any additional endings, forms its past tense by exclusively vowel ablaut (forget about the -en), except for the iT-ɛT-ɛT ablauting group (since its vowel alternation resembles the iC-ɛCt-ɛCt e.g. sweep group so closely that iT-/ɛT-/ɛT can be seen as a variant of iC-ɛCt-ɛCt with conditionally suppressed -t). And re: light, I believe you are assuming that I would not classify it as strong because of its earlier history. However, if the diachronic definition of "strong verb" is replaced with a synchronic definition, I would classify both light and bite as strong verbs; as we allowed earlier, it would not be the first or last English verb to secondarily acquire strong conjugation. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Wikiversity
"Wikiversity has more information", says this template. In fact, it doesn't. Despite being billed as a hub for free "learning resources", Wikiversity seems to mainly consist of opinion essays and stubby encyclopedia-style articles.
A random sample of the 16 entries on which this is used:
religiosity links to wikiversity:Religiosity, a one-sentence encyclopedia-style article that has sat unchanged and unexpanded since 2008
ñoñear links to wikiversity:Spanish/Verbs/ñoñear, which looks like it is supposed to contain the conjugation of this verb (which would duplicate Wiktionary's own content), but actually doesn't contain any relevant information at all
We shouldn't be using such a prominent box to link to a site of such little value to our readers. In fact, I'm not convinced we should be linking to Wikiversity at all - but that's another matter ({{R:wversity}} still exists). This, that and the other (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion
All the other templates in this category are redundant to {{gem-decl-noun}}, which is the usual template to generate Proto-Germanic inflection tables. Thank you @Mårtensås for bringing into attention the fact that these redundant templates still exist. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Most of these templates are still in use:
{{gem-decl-noun}}: 2,487 uses (not proposed for deletion)
Every single one except {{gem-decl-noun-irreg}} (whose irregular cases have to be migrated to Module:gem-decl-noun/data/irreg) is already properly handled by {{gem-decl-noun}} and can be migrated there with no problem (in fact, almost all the redundant templates call the exact same module as gem-decl-noun; the module auto-detects the stem class). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I was going to fix a broken Wikipedia link, but then I noticed that this is nothing but an unwikilinked list of consonants and vowels (both single letters and digraphs).
It's true that there are no letter or symbol entries for Oromo, but this is no substitute- no information on pronunciation beyond consonant vs. vowel, and no links to or from anything on Wiktionary (though it's in Category:Pronunciation by language).
It was obviously intended as the beginnings of an appendix, but it hasn't been edited in the 4+ years since the day it was created. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Simply delete this page and have a hard link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/Dutch, which at least tries to indicate some pronunciation differences between the Netherlands and Belgium. The IPA at the appendix doesn't even agree with current practice for e.g. /eː/ (instead of /e/), and yet this is what is linked to as IPA key. Exarchus (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
This template is a usability disaster. Quite aside from the fact that the tooltip is inaccessible on mobile (a flaw shared by {{abbr}}, {{comment}} etc), the template fails to even give a visual indication that a tooltip is present, unlike abbr or comment.
Uses of the template are almost entirely restricted to verb conjugation tables. I propose to replace uses of the template with either {{abbr}} (for abbreviations) and {{comment}} (for everything else), then delete it. (The usability issues of these templates on mobile are a separate issue best dealt with other than at RFDO.) This, that and the other (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
The places category formerly contained Annandale, Oak Knoll and Linda Vista, all neighborhoods within the city, but they were removed from the category inexplicably by the editor who wanted to delete the categories. The Pasadena category, in addition to containing places, also contained the entry Rose City; again, this was inexplicably removed by another editor. Having a category for places or neighborhoods within a city is standard; there are many of them and there was no reason for deletion. "Empty cat" is not a reason either because there clearly exist entries to populate the cat. Would also note being malformed isn't a reason for deletion either; malformed categories should be FIXED, not deleted. And I'm flummoxed as why creation-protection was invoked on an entry that had only been created once. Purplebackpack8912:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Purplebackpack89 The immediate reason for the deletions was no doubt the module error resulting from its absence from the modules. The relevant modules have been substantially reworked, so that may not have been true until recently. As for why there's no data for your categories in the modules: I notice that we have Category:Long Beach, not Category:Long Beach, California, even though Wikipedia has Long Beach, California and Long Beach, New York. There might be some time in the future when we'll have to figure out how to deal with homographic city categories, but that's something that can be discussed. I also notice that there are categories for only the top 50 cities in the US by population. I can only guess as to whether either of those points to the actual reason to not allow your categories, but I didn't see you asking what might be wrong with the categories. I've created a lot of categories over the past decade and a half, and some have been deleted, renamed, or substantially changed. I would never even consider undoing any of those actions without a discussion. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Are there things wrong with the categories? Possibly, maybe even probably. Was deletion the remedy? I would say "no", because we would be better served by fixing them or renaming them rather than deleting them. At very least, discussion first, deletion afterward, creation-protection WAY afterward.
As for "we only have categories for the top 50 cities", shouldn't we allow creation of a category for any city that has enough entries to fill it? Purplebackpack8920:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
We don't normally have categories for cities under 1,000,000 people or so and Pasadena has < 200,000. On top of that, the categories were created manually so they don't fit into the {{auto cat}} system. Pasadena is only the 45th biggest in California per Wikipedia; we can't reasonably create categories for every random city in the US. Benwing2 (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
We CAN and SHOULD create categories for every city that has three or more entries related to it. There's zero problem with doing that, like, AT ALL. Purplebackpack8922:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Three is a poor baseline number for a category. It will lead to excessive proliferation of categories and an unmanageable and unnavigable category structure. I would think around 20 CFI-compliant place names would be a bare minimum for a set category of this kind. WT:Categorization could and should offer some guidance here, but it currently doesn't. This, that and the other (talk) 06:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Support Sgconlaw's idea. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 02:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
