Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others

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

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

This page is for the nomination (for deletion) of non-main namespace entries. General questions are also acceptable. Remember to start each section with only the wikified title of the page being nominated for deletion.

Archive

The following pages were deleted over a month ago: (Page 1), (Page 2) (— Beobach972 02:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

Ex RFD page

Template:vulgarslang

With the new {{italbrac}} system, such things can be deleted, right? —Vildricianus 20:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What does {{italbrac}} do anyway? --Dangherous 12:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it takes an argument and displays it in italics inside parenthesis. Note the the vulgarslang template also adds category:vulgarities. Template:slang uses italbrac in the template def, but also adds category:slang. JillianE 14:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd be very much in favor of keeping such templates -- their virtue is only partly in that they standardize appearance (which the new {italbrack} template helps with), but more importantly that they explicitly encode semantic content. Not every usage of {italbrack} is a variant or usage tag. —Scs 11:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete once the issues have been worked out how to include both "vulgar" and "slang", and more generally any list of areas, including categories etc. Davilla 16:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait, did you mean {{cattag}}? Davilla 18:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Instead of {{vulgarslang}}, this: {{cattag|vulgar|slang}}. Right? —Vildricianus 20:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't someone mention the ease of adding more specific categories by having a limited number of specific template like this? Although I am more likely to use {{cattag|vulgar|slang}}, I can see some conceivable use for sometimes using this instead.

As I stated elsewhere, I think having a separate page for non NS:0 deletion requests is very much appropriate in this case as well. In the past, there have been several templates deleted that were still referenced. The actual removal process for a template needs to be a bit more convoluted, than a simple NS:0 deletion request. For one thing, it should be reviewed, as a matter of course, one week and one month after deletion, checking for previously undetected uses. AFAIK, that Mediawiki bug has not been fixed. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There are better things than the MediaWiki whatlinkshere. —Vildricianus 11:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could get HT to add that to the sidebar, too? --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Do we need that globally? You can replace the MediaWiki WLH? with the Toolserver one in your own skin. I have both, sometimes the toolserver is quite slow. —Vildricianus 14:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I was going to edit the page to use cattag instead, but I noticed that the category names are not Vulgar or Slang. I'll try and if it's possible to edit {{cattag}} such that {{cattag|vulgarslang}} works, then I would vote to keep this one. Davilla 19:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Davilla 06:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

May I ask why the words are included as vulgarities but not in the category slang?

Anyways it doesn't work under the new system. I don't think it's worth complicating the code just to get it to work, so my vote is stronger. Davilla 18:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

They should. Slang is slang, whether it's vulgar or not. — Vildricianus 19:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm content with the way the "new" templates are working yet. At least one iteration did work with this sort of template, so I'm not sure what the objection is? The fight against templates calling templates?

This is a familiar named template now. I assume it will be a redirect, when all is said and done? Or is the plan to do something like replace all "{{vulgarslang" with "{{subst:cattag|vulgar|slang"? --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess so. Not subst'ed, that is, no, but with cattag indeed. — Vildricianus 12:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

In my view, "vulgar slang" is the wrong label, in any case, as it is too broad. I'll raise what I was going to write here in the Beer parlour. — Paul G 07:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This topic is closed without resolution. There have been many changes since it was opened, including a switch to {{context}} and the addition of similar templates for UK slang, etc. That makes this discussion outdated. If anyone disagrees just re-nominate. DAVilla 23:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Positive words

I just saw this entry, and I have to say, I like it. It does no harm, so please leave it. Thank you!! :-)

Category:Positive words and Category:Negative words

Who came up with these? What's their purpose? How can they ever be NPOV? —Vildricianus 21:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. The concepts are far too vague and open to interpretation to be good categories. Take a look at the contents and you'll get the idea. — Hippietrail 22:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment, these are rather mushy, but a narrowly drawn pair of categories for words indicating affirmation and negation might be useful. BD2412 T 22:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete - just too sad for words. SemperBlotto 22:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! Love it! But...delete Widsith 22:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Fix the description pages of the categories yourselves. There is certainly a linguistic need (in persuasive writing, speech writing, cult recruiting, propaganda, etc.) to specifically target "negative" words and replace them with "positive" words whenever possible. But they certainly are not synonyms. I think these are very reasonable categories for such purposes...as they wouldn't fit elsewhere, and the category scheme is a good way of collecting the various terms. --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Also: the concept of tagging used categories (i.e. categories populated with more than two or three entries) for deletion is not something I'd recommend. If the concept is unclear, or seems to have an "NPOV issue" the appropriate tag would be {{rfcc}}. Otherwise your talking about mendaciously changing a bunch of entries (by 'bot or by hand.) By merit of a reasonable collection forming, there is some notion that the terms do have a larger, specific lexical realtion to each other. Leaving any such category alone until better deliniated is reasonable: aborting the embryo is not. --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't see why. Requests for deletion that are agreed upon not to be deleted get fixed. Irrespective of such (dis)agreement, this is just a usual RFD: someone wants something to be deleted and asks for community opinion (what the hell is mendacious about that?). Whether that is an article, template or a category doesn't matter - the latter only takes more effort to remove. —Vildricianus 16:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I meant mendacious to the entries themselves, but you are right: my choice of words there was poor. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

On another note, perhaps WT:RFD should be restricted to NS:0 (the main namespace) only? Deletion of items in other namespaces always has other concerns, that probably deserve to be on a separate page. --Connel MacKenzie T C 15:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Against. We're not Wikipedia, and such requests will only go unnoticed. Unless you have a good reason? —Vildricianus 16:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

1. WT:RFD size.
2. Concerns. Rules that apply to NS:0 generally are quite separate from rules that apply to all other namespace (each namespace seems to have its own set of technical restrictions.)
3. Focus. By limiting the core discussions to NS:0, less noise is introduced.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 17:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, solutions to problems are always fine, even though I don't really see a problem here. Be bold. —Vildricianus 12:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Is cold really a negative word? Is furniture really a positive one? Says who? Somehow old school is on both lists, I guess it depends how you use it. Come to think of it, the same could be said for every other word in the language. Who is supposed to make judgement calls on this stuff? Widsith 15:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Interested Wiktionary contributors. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Widsith, your technique is listed as dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid. Yes, the lists are imperfect, probably due to the poor description of the categories themselves. --Connel MacKenzie T C 16:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Whereas your technique is the tried-and-tested ‘quoting Latin fallacies’!  :) But you seem to be arguing that the Categories are merely broad generalisations, which may contain valid exceptions - like furniture. Well, I suppose that is one way to look at it, but to me it seems inherently very POV for a contributor to say this word is hereby deemed positive, this one negative. I picked examples because I thought they illustrated the absurdity of the concept, but I am just as happy arguing against the whole idea. Widsith 17:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I was suggesting that old school and furniture are in these categories erroneously. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep and alter on advise of cleanup process. The categories need clarification and strong restrictions. Suggest looking into political speech as a potential starting point. Davilla 16:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: My above comment intends to propose that these categories by renamed and cleaned up - I propose Category:Words indicating affirmation (e.g. yes, certainly, indeed, all, always, true) and Category:Words indicating negation (no, none, never, not, false); possibly a third Category:Words indicating indecision (maybe, sometimes, unsure, possibly); my test would be whether the word would be a reasonable and informative response to a question like "is it going to rain today" or "will you go to the movies with me". Obviously furniture or praise or anger will not be a normal response to such a question. BD2412 T 20:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete Ok I know that I'm not logged in, but as a wikipedia regular I understand this process so thought I'd add my vote even if it only gets used as a springboard for other members to vote. I came to the 'positive words' page from the fancy page (which is listed as a positive word? even though the page itself mentions the conotations of oversophistication, unnecessary embelishment and in the case of the fancy woman, sexual promiscuity. If the purpose of the positive word page is to give guidance to people making presentations etc. they could come seriously unstuck if they blindly used the words quoted to 'upspeak' a product or service.

ie. the companies Fancy woman has tripled output! fancy some yourself? 81.102.245.93

Comment: It is an interesting concept. I assumed the idea was not simple affirmation/denial, but rather, everything in a left-hand entry in Roget's versus everything on the right. But I'm not sure this rates a category. On the one hand, if Roget can do it, so can we! But on the other hand, the resulting categories would be (a) huge and unwieldy, (b) endlessly controversial (for example we'd get southpaws complaining if left, like sinister, got listed as "negative"), and (c) of limited practical use. –Scs 15:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete.  I took the time to read all the comments, and I still think these categories need to go (usu. I'm a big supporter of categories).  These are broad and poorly defined. — V-ball 04:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete Badly defined categories indeed. How is vacation positive, and does it mean that work is negative? Is obese a positive meaning word while slim negative? Filip 14:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep I was at a conference and they were even doing more fun stuff; they had two concepts and ask people if there is a relation between the two eg singing and happy. These people are likely to include it in Wordnet-plus.. GerardM 06:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that I already voted to Keep above: what about renaming them to Category:Words with positive connotations and Category:Words with negative connotations? That would meet the obvious original intent of the categories (before any subtle alterations.) These categories would need a note indicating that they had moved to the complete names. They could also be made more sensible if they were kept in an appendix, as word pairs...e.g. fancy is positive, while complicated is negative. --Connel MacKenzie 02:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: What makes furniture a "positive" word? --EncycloPetey 23:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Is above really a positive word? CloudNine 14:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep I love Category:Positive words, please spare it!!!  :-D It is badass to the max :) But you can do whatever you want with Category:Negative words.  ;-) — This unsigned comment was added by Language Lover (talk • contribs).

Comment I was thinking of these categories last night - this could become a quite useful experiment, if I remember to get back to it. I don't see a clear consensus to delete. Perhaps it should/could be moved to the Appendix: namespace, and given a two-column layout to emphasize the relation (with "Negative words" being words better restated using "Positive words" in public or touchy contexts.) As two categories, I don't see these as harmful (i.e. feeding search engines) but they do seem to have much potential. --Connel MacKenzie 16:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I would delete them both, out of "POV". They're completely subjective, and I don't think people will stop at adding things like "good" (obviously positive) and "bad" (obviously negative, though in some contexts positive). I noticed "cold" is categorized under negative words, but the sense "unfriendly" isn't what comes into most people's heads when they see the word without context. I happen to like some low-temperature weather, why should cold be a negative word? :-( That sort of thing. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 01:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:USstate

This makes the definitions uneditable. Wrong approach IMO. -Davilla 59.112.52.124 17:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I would phase it out before requesting it's deletion. - TheDaveRoss 17:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

And in what way does it make the entries uneditable? Many of the entries that use it customize beyond the base template. Text that is reused in multiple entries is exactly what templates are for! Even if only a little typing is saved, the entries become consistent (which is the primary motivation for using templates!) --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

At first I only wanted to change the period to a comma, in Washington I think. But I do tend to stare at definitions for a while, and play with them a bit, to see how they can be improved. So there's a good chance I would have done something else as well. Maybe a regional indication.

Anyways are you going to hold the same line against a new contributor who doesn't understand the syntax? It took me a while to figure out what the template namespace was. The faster approach would be to copy from the outputted page, as long as you can reinsert the link. Still, I think most people would look at this and go, "Huh?"

And anyways how important is it to be consistent here? Does the United States of America have to be spelled out in full and linked every time the template is used, even if it might already be included elsewhere on the page?

And anyways, how much typing did this really save? If a robot didn't add all of these, it's still the same Ctrl-V. I just think this introduces, or potentially introduces, more problems than it solves. Davilla 18:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

At the time it was created, templates themselves had much less capability than they do now. This use of a template was the typical use a template would get - better than most, perhaps. When I went through the entries, I used CTRL-V, yes. But all that aside, What improvement do you suggest? Certainly you were able to just add another sentence to the definition, right? And what, pray tell, is wrong with the entries being consistent? --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's minor style issue.

0. A state in the United States of America. Location: West Coast. Capital: Olympia.

A {{USstate}} Location: West Coast. Capital: Olympia.

1. A state in the Western United States whose capital city is Olympia.

2. A state on the West Coast of the United States, whose capital is Olympia.

But I'm really arguing the priciple. Davilla 17:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That seems very...Wikipediaish...to me. Meh. --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding this particular RFD, (and not the entry that indirectly prompted the nomination,) no template that is in use should be nominated. Discuss depricating it first, elsewhere, then migrate whatever needs to change, then when no longer in use, nominate. If this isn't an existing policy, it probably needs to be. Doing so allows for the maintenance scripts to catch up (presumably) so that lingering references can be caught. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  We were going to start a new page for non-main namespace RFDs, right? We'll hammer out a policy for that page then, but as far as I can see, this is much like a standard RFD - literally. Come to think of it - will the new page have to be something like Requests for template deprecation or something like that? Furthermore, the maintenance scripts don't need to be run for Special:Whatlinkshere; it is live. If it isn't, then Interiot's tool is, albeit with replication lag. —Vildricianus 15:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  My apologies. I meant to ask that the text of the template be replaced in each instance, and then deleted. Or if that has to be done manually, then yes, depreciation would be more appropriate, although I can't imagine where else this would additionally be used. Davilla 17:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

On topic: I think it's a bad precedent to use templates this way, even if they were once designed for it - that is, in a dictionary. I'm not particularly happy with for instance the {{plural of}}, but it seems we need it to achieve concensus - so be it. I wouldn't insist on subst'ing and deleting this one, but if we can avoid it, I would very much prefer that. —Vildricianus 19:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm missing some major concept here...why is consistency a Bad Thing all of a sudden? --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not consistency, it's the difficulty of adding to or changing a definition that consists of a template. There's no point I'm trying to make (let alone a "major concept"), but I think that was why Davilla RFD'd this. — Vildricianus 11:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I support the use of {plural of} and similar templates, but in those cases there is no need to adjust the text. Or there probably shouldn't be, though there are times when the plural commonly means a pair (e.g. headlights and loudspeakers, with body parts more obviously), not to mention common versus deliberate misspellings and such. Davilla 06:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

One thing that has bothered me about {{plural of}} is that it is quite the opposite of what WikiMedia templates were intended for. {{USstate}}, on the other hand, is and example of exactly why the ability to use templates exists. Adding to the text is a good thing (e.g. additional sentences.) But breaking the consistency, by changing the wording as you describe above, would be just wrong. Adding additional sentences in not problematic. There must be something about your POV I'm not seeing, and it bothers me that I cannot.

Now, {{plural of}} contains a considerable amount of wikimagic, especially in the way it implicitly/indirectly referers to numerous .CSS files. It does things to entries that belong somewhere at a deeper dictionary-software level, not in part of the user interface. I'm not saying I don't like the approach - I think it is the best we've seen so far. But it still is not "right." The notion that all templates should be "programs" is a notion that I think is very, very, very Wrong. As Brion expressed in #wikimedia-tech yesterday...what is next; Mandelbrot written in wikitemplates? --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. This also reminds me of MediaWiki being written for an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Also, what do you mean by "numerous CSS files"? Each and every page needs to load all CSS files anyway. This also reminds me of your comment once to remove the hidden stuff that was very briefly in the Beer parlour. Your argument was that the CSS had to load each time. Well, it indeed has to load each time you load any page, whether there be hidden stuff or not. I think a template calling multiple other templates is a heavier strain on the load time. — Vildricianus 19:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the categories? Yes, that was an experiment from ages past that should be substed into the single template now. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not think this template making definitions uneditable.--Jusjih 15:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:rfd-sense

Doesn't really fit in the RFD process to nominate definitions, right? Such things should be discussed either at RFV or in the Tea room, so I hereby nominate this RFD template for depreletion (= deprecation + deletion). — Vildricianus 23:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. RfV's are sometimes moved to RfD when there is question. How would an uncertain admin move an rfv-sense word to the deletion phase? I'm also not convinced RfD always applies to the whole page. How would you nominate e.g. an English word for deletion when an unrelated foreign language word of the same spelling exists? If you can find work-arounds for these, then sure, delete it. Davilla 18:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no "rfd phase" when an individual sense fails; it is removed from the entry when rfv is over. Looking at WT:RFVA I see several examples of the latter; skeef, foob, haba, etc.--Connel MacKenzie T C 13:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Templated "blanked", not suitable for use. Such situations should be dealt with at RFV or the Tea room, not RFD. — Vildricianus 09:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

New noms June

Special:Unusedimages

Which ones of these can go? Or rather, which can't? — Vildricianus 16:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't see why you'd want any of these pretty pics deleted, there don't seem to be any licencing problems. Keep them all, they're harmless. --Dangherous 19:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Not used... mostly not licensed... they shouldn't be here, but at commons... anyway they take up space, which is not an argument of course. Don't get me wrong, I like Polyglot's Planckendael images, but what are they here for? — Vildricianus 20:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There's been a few times when I get stressed that I search through this page and see lots of pretty flowers, which have a calming influence on me. You wouldn't want to see my rage would you, who knows what I'll do with Mediawiki:Sitenotice! Even the pictures of the antelopes help to calm me down. I'm not going to go into detail what effect the picture of the pig has on me, you may get worried. --Dangherous 20:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Try browsing Commons or Wikipedia :-). — Vildricianus 22:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

deleted. I am uploading them now to commons. - TheDaveRoss 02:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

July

Basic English stuff

These don't look very good. How can we recycle them, and if we can't, shall we delete them? — Vildricianus 19:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Basic English Word List

• No. Keep. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait a sec. The templates are Appendix:Swaedish lists of some sort, right? The word lists clearly belong in Index:Basic English. I do agree this is quite a mess. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That's indeed what I meant. Someone (not me this time) should make a list of the words on these pages, and then delete the stuff (they're all empty!). The few Swadesh-like stuff will probably already be covered in our real Swadesh lists, but it perhaps should be double-checked. — Vildricianus 19:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as copyvio, as per Wiktionary:Basic English Word List's introductory paragraphs, which indicate another website publisher holds the copyright. --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• We could Transwiki them to the Simple English Wiktionary. (don't look at me!) SemperBlotto 14:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's a pretty bad idea. Basic English is not the same as Simple English, IIRC. And it does seem to be a copyvio. --Connel MacKenzie 05:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

gone - TheDaveRoss 03:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Leet

Not sure if this category should go (again) or just the contents. But it seems to have sprung up/encouraged a fresh batch of nonsense recently. --Connel MacKenzie 04:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There is some complete nonsense in the Leet category, are they really words? I would say that most of them aren't words and should go.--Williamsayers79 12:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of your feelings on leetspeak, the fact is such terms do currently exist in Wiktionary. Having this category allows you to find them all easily - whatever your motives towards them may be. While we're talking, it should be moved to Category:Leetspeak for the greatest accuracy. –Gunslinger47 22:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

To address your comment more directly, William... There is an uncountable number of leetspeak variations, but only a number of them have resulted in any literary significance. Here is a list of words with leetspeak etymology that have unique meanings:

warez

A prime example [1], roughly meaning "pirated software". Pronounced either "wares" or "ware'ez".

leetspeak

This is the "official" term for what we're talking about. Deliberate, gleeful brutalization of English.

leet

Used as a noun, it is short for leetspeak, but as an adjective it has cultural significance.

pwn

Not just a typo. It's meaning has deviated slightly from the word own, referring specifically to its slang usage.

There are a few other notable, "standard", variations such as pr0n, but words such as this do not have meanings distict from their original word. So pr0n means exactly pornography.–Gunslinger47 05:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep the category, nominate its entries instead. What do you mean by the "fresh batch of nonsense"? I see no new entries since my additions yesterday, and the additions I made were preexisting terms in Wikitionary. If anything, this shows why the category should remain - so we have a complete list of all terms in Wiktionary with their etymological origins in leetspeak. RfD the entries, not the category. Deleting the category just makes all this "nonsense" lost, with no way of finding it and rooting it out. –Gunslinger47 22:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, keep the category unless you can argue deleting its contents. 59.112.55.192 13:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Could we have the RFD removed and a comment on the talk page saying that the category passed rfd?--Williamsayers79 10:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep. This is very useful as a category. While it may appear to be nonsense to the uninitiated, leet is widely pervasive on the internet, particularly on message boards and in mmorpg's, such that the case can be made that it is developing into a full dialect. I'll go further: one shoud not recommend for deletion what one does not understand. Pisomojado 18:28, 14 September 2006 (PDT)

Keep. This is the first place I've found definitions for Internet slang. My family and friends play MMORPGs. It's nice to have a resource to gaming language. And, as I understand it, it is popular and growing language. I see no need to delete this catagory (or entries), provided the definitions are accurate.Madgamer2007 08:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing and showing your support. However leet is not a "popular and growing language" because leet is not a language. What your family and friends speak is still English. DAVilla 16:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the rfd tag since it has been there since July 2006 and it seems the consensus is to keep. H. (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:English words affected by prescriptivism

To be deleted, or not? No entries in it. Beobach972 04:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see the couple dozen entries that were in it originally put back in. It think it would be a disater to loose the historic gem Category talk:English words affected by prescriptivism. Most of our existing category policy was hashed out there. --Connel MacKenzie 06:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it was Ec who nominated it and campaigned against it and "boldly" removed all the words in it, to keep Wiktionary in line with his personal POV of how to use English. — Hippietrail 06:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Irregardless, ... DAVilla 16:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

die, graffiti. dice, datum, medium, tsunami, media, data, decimate, comprise, priority, tidal wave, irregardless, graffito, podium, prioritize, koala, german shepherd, killer whale, bitter end

--Connel MacKenzie 05:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

August

Wikisaurus:breasts

I made an attempt at cleaning this one WS entry up. The vast majority of terms there are such off-the-wall nonces, they have no chance of ever meeting CFI. --Connel MacKenzie 03:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

And now you want it deleted?? DAVilla 16:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it serves no useful purpose, but it does encourage bad entries. So, I think its removal should be considered. Can we trust it not to be overrun by ridiculous entries again? --Connel MacKenzie 18:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How is this any different from the problems faced with any of the "more popular" dictionary entries? I would consider changing the rules before deleting it, such as making requirements for a corresponding Wiktionary entry, even locking it if that's really necessary. I know the thesaurus has had trouble picking up momentum, but if you're going to omit pages then you'd might as well give up on the whole thing.

Incidently I'm more worried that what shows up on a single thesaurus page like breasts might tend to be scattered all over the place in Wiktionary as red links that could never be attested. I'd like to see a bot that can automatically maintain or at least suggest Wikisaurus entries from synonyms given the right information to do so, e.g. anything that lists penis as a synonym (though not everything that lists cock as a synonym, since a rooster doesn't count). Having a page where all the junk accumulates in one place would actually be useful for feeding the mulcher. DAVilla 21:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep. It is useful. I just used it for an article I'm writing that includes a list of synonyms of breasts. It may be childish and immature, but it's still a useful entry. -Kotra 03:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a student who is doing a photo project where she is making images based on double entendres for the word breast and the simple fact is that within our culture there are a phenomenal amount. The immaturatey is and artifact of our culture not of the entry.

No one is denying that there are many words and terms for breasts...that doesn't change the fact that most of the ones listed on that page are downright false. Anyone can apply any phrase to any concept or thing and call it a synonym for the accepted term, but unless it gets wide usage (what we call our CFI) it doesn't get to be included in the main dictionary, and shouldn't get included in the Wikisaurus. These entries need a bowdlerization, a severe cleanout. Oh, and I suggest you think twice before using this list as a resource for any scholarly work. - TheDaveRoss 22:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I'm a freelance comic adaptor and I just looked up this entry for translation purposes. The Japanese source material I'm working with used vulgar slang, and I'm using the Wikisaurus to find a suitable English substitute. Crass language is a universal fact of life. Its shock value is what gives it power, which is why vulgarity will always be embraced by certain artists and loathed by certain puritans. Thus, no objective resource can avoid acknowledging its importance. In response to Dave Ross, who determines the "cleanout"? What does "clean" mean? I object to bowdlerisation. Instead, I suggest giving this page the same treatment Wikisaurus:penis has recieved. Wikisaurus:penis/more is used to hold slang which gets fewer than 1,000 hits on google. Pisomojado 17:50, 14 September 2006 (PDT)

It's past time to take this off RFD. If you're going to delete this entry, you also have to delete half of Wikisaurus. Of the 155 entries, most (buttocks, penis, nipples, vulva, prostitute, vomit, homosexual, marijuana, etc.) center around vice and vulgarity. I think that would be a mistake. Granted, wikisaurus is a mess right now (three entries for conjugations of agony???). However, for me wikisaurus as a resource for colloquialisms and vulgarities is its only draw over established, sanitized resources like thesaurus.com. It is its only edge, but it is a vital one. As a working writer, I find these entries extremely useful. I'm not the only one who thinks so. Visitors to wikisaurus have lovingly contributed over 2,000 entries for penis alone. The people have spoken. Keep. --Pisomojado 19:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Keep. — This unsigned comment was added by 65.35.11.39 (talk).

While I assure you that I think Wiktionary would be much better off, with Wikisaurus deleted and started fresh, I clearly do not have consensus. Indeed, the "/more" solution seems like the only viable approach, at this point in time. Removing RFD. --Connel MacKenzie 09:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:ver

The only content on this page is 'ver', added by 81.193.116.133. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 04:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe this was sorted some time ago now!--Williamsayers79 15:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphans from Template split

'Templates' were originally called 'custom messages' and intermingled with the interface messages in the MediaWiki namespace. In June 2004, these were moved to their own Template namespace in three steps by a script designed for the task (see [Foundation-l] Template initialisation script). It then updated all pages to use the new template namespace.

However, a byproduct of the process is that the 'custom messages' still exist as unused and orphaned redirects, even though some of the templates they redirect to have since been deleted. These clutter a few specialpages, the uppercase-to-lowercase redirects combined with the MediaWiki-to-Template redirects to make a mess, and some of them are broken redirects. Tim Starling (developer) confirmed on IRC that these are no longer used anywhere; since there's no use for them since early 2004, there's no point spending time maintaining them ever after.

I propose the templates in the MediaWiki namespace be deleted, along with any broken double redirects from the later capitalisation redirection. Wiktionary:MediaWiki custom messages is a very incomplete list of these; a more complete list can be obtained from Special:Contributions/Template namespace initialisation script. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 05:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. Delete. —Stephen 10:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Thank you for the clear explanation of the history of these. Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 17:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Is that everything in here? — Vildricianus 09:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  Yep. Those 272 pages should take less than half an hour to delete, once I get around to it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk / map) 03:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

deleted. - TheDaveRoss 01:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Nahuatl language

According to ISO 639-3, the code nah for Nahuatl "represents a group of individual languages that are not deemed to be one language in any usage context". People sometimes say "Nahuatl" when they mean "Classical Nahuatl", similar to the usage of "Greek" for "Ancient Greek". --Ptcamn 15:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep. We have a Nahuatl Wikipedia and a Nahuatl Wiktionary, and Nahuatl is commonly used for a closely related range of dialects. I believe they tend to be more closely related than some dialects of English are to AmE and Southern British English. It would probably be useful to specify more narrowly, but that would require a fluent Nahuatl speaker who is familiar with the different dialects. In the meantime, keep as is. —Stephen 14:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Translations to be checked (Gothic)

No more translation to check -- Sajasaze 14:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yay! DAVilla 22:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• But there probably will be in future. Keep. SemperBlotto 16:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a symbolic gesture of the wonderful accomplishment! It can be recreated if/when that category grouping has two or more entries. But I think it would be quite nice to remove these as they are cleared. A lot of people have helped us tremendously with these. We should have a bag-full-o-barnstars or something for them. --Connel MacKenzie 16:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted as per WT:TTBC. DAVilla 00:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm, where in WT:TTBC does it say that? These categories remain permanently because, as SemperBlotto says, new translations to be checked can arise in the future. — Paul G 08:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:language

Used exclusively for the immediately above, but could not be maintained regardless due to the tendency for exceding the page size limit. DAVilla 18:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Was deleted, current version (28 Dec 2006, DAVilla) is not a candidate for deletion. Robert Ullmann 16:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

September

Unused images on wikt

We are no longer hosting images here, so they really belong on commons anyway, but the images in this category are not only here, but unused. Is there a good reason to keep them around? - TheDaveRoss 00:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of them would be used if they worked from their present location, but apparently they do not. —Stephen 01:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Mentioned before, and the only objector was Wonderfool. — Vildricianus 08:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we would make certain that each of the images in question is on WikiCommons (because they are PD after all, so they ought to be kept around somewhere), and then delete them. Beobach972 03:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, move to WikiCommons. There are also some .ogg files that should be useful, for those who know how to add them to pages successfully. —Stephen 14:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

{{audio|en-us-WORD.ogg|Audio (US)}} is how for those who want to know. - TheDaveRoss 14:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Old Prussian interjections

Category:Old Prussian interjections has been moved to Category:prg:Interjections, to include the language prefix. Unless I happen to have dyslexified the standards for when to use language prefixes, you can safely delete it. Beobach972 18:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 21:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Resurrected - its a part of speech therefore gets the Language partofspeech format now.--Williamsayers79 23:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

October

Category:British English

This was supposed to be the "disambiguation" category for British vs. Commonwealth terms, both of which were previously identified as {{UK}}. What happened here? How are Americans like me supposed to know which is which? --Connel MacKenzie 16:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello there although I nominated this category for speedy deletion I do agree we need some way of distinguishing British (UK) English from Commonwealth and other forms of English.

Being British and from the UK I asume that British and UK mean the same thing pretty much. Therefore it confuses people to have two categories called British English and UK. I suggest that anything that is not British (or UK) English go under the respective sub categories in category:Regional English:

category:UK - for terms only used in UK/Britain

category:US - for terms only used in the USA/US/United States

category:Canadian English - for terms only used in Canada

category:Irish English - for terms only used in Irish English

category:Scottish English - for terms only used in Scottish English (not Scots!)

category:Geordie - for terms only used in Geordie an English dialect in the UK

etc.

What do you think?--Williamsayers79 18:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That is the sort of breakdown I was hoping for, yes. --Connel MacKenzie 18:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Australian and Indian Englishes were also included in there, sometimes. --Connel MacKenzie 18:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added the category:UK tag to all the British regionalisms so it sould be easier to navigate now. I suspect that there are entries categorised in category:UK that actually would be better off in a tighter category, so I'll check when I get time. Regards--Williamsayers79 01:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Move to Wiktionary

...is empty. -- Beland 05:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Right now yes. But after each transwiki run, until cleaned, has very obvious Wikipedia residue. --Connel MacKenzie 05:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note that it is now populating nicely. The preamble is good enough, right? --Connel MacKenzie 08:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I find it amusing that Wiktionary has a category titled "move to Wiktionary"... -- Beobach972 02:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Better, "Moved to Wiktionary" . --Rider 06:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:wjargon

I'd like to replace this redirect with "Wiki jargon" or "WMF jargon". Comments/objections/suggestions? --Connel MacKenzie 06:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Whether Foundation is necessary I don't know. I would guess WMF defines it pretty well. DAVilla 15:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

WMF is a less ambiguous TLA, so I would think it might work better...but "WikiMedia" might be better for several reasons, actually. --Connel MacKenzie 02:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:protologism

Protologisms are not permitted in the main dictionary namespace; should follow rfv process. DAVilla 13:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

What better way to find them? The template itself remains useful, no matter what becomes of the various multi-namespace proposals. The Wikisaurus sub-pages, I'm sure, will use this extensively. --Connel MacKenzie 08:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. DAVilla 20:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

November

Template:en-proper noun

Not needed. Use Template:en-noun instead. Ncik 23:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep; I believe {{en-proper noun}} and {{en-noun}} categorise entries differently (into Category:English proper nouns and Category:English nouns, respectively), do they not?. Beobach972 18:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep; We use this to automatically categorise and format proper nouns. If we delete this the mess would be unimaginable.--Williamsayers79 12:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep. --Connel MacKenzie 02:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:⻮

Move to a language section? --Connel MacKenzie 06:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This is probably related to WT:RFDO#Category:しゅ (shu), or, at least, it could follow a similar path : delete it. -- Beobach972 04:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This one is a (redundant) radical index, the others are character/compound indexes. We already have facilities for this; delete these. Cynewulf 00:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:deletedpage

I think the presence of this template encourages bad things. In particular, if this evil Wikipedia template were ever used here, it would guarantee skewing of results that we feed to google.com. That said, today, we still don't have adequate filtering of 'redirects' from the google search pages - but a switch now to use this template would definitely make the problem(s) worse. --Connel MacKenzie 18:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirects are indexed and are very likely to remain so forever, since this is desirable in the vast majority of cases (Wiktionary:Wiktionary language considerations →‎ Wiktionary:Language considerations or send to early grave →‎ send to an early grave, for example). We should not depend on any future de-indexing of redirects to correct skewed search results. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that the current method (redirecting to --error: link target missing--) skews search results. Even worst, the redirects (and --error: link target missing--) are hosted by mirrors, skewing search results even further.

This template is intended to be used temporarily to mitigate malicious recreation by a particular user, not to permanently protect pages (thus the category). The best solution to the indexing problem, in my opinion, is to delete the pages outright and watchlist them. This notifies us of recreation, lets us notify individual editors (who may simply be misguided good-faith users) of the problem with the word, and completely removes them from search results.

I've used this method successfully with very persistent vandals on Wikipedia, where the phenomenon is much more severe. I simply clear any recreated pages in the first thirty seconds of editing every day, and most vandals generally give up within a few days. The more persistant vandals are more annoying, but their efforts come to naught. Using --error: link target missing--, however, such vandals are assured to get exactly what they want: search results.

I'm quite willing to take on the burden of every such page on Wiktionary, which is still a tiny fraction of the deleted pages I watchlist on Wikipedia. (Perhaps we should move this discussion to the Beer parlour?) —{admin} Pathoschild 19:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The Grease pit would be a more appropriate place, unless you think people think they somehow should be skewing the search results.

The 40+ admins here obviously cannot sustain the volume that the 1,000+ WP admins can/do. It also depends on admins using their watchlists in a rather new way (obliterating all other uses of watchlists.) But, if this works, that minor inconvenience would be, well, minor.

How many people should be watching them? Should we give a couple days for people to rearrange their watchlists before starting this mass-deletion? --Connel MacKenzie 07:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

One person can easily watch them all without a special watchlist; a bold N appears beside recreated pages, so they're easy to pick out. More users watching will ensure a quicker response, though. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This template should be deleted, it is unnecessary now non existent pages can be protected. Conrad.Irwin 17:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Greek declension templates

now an empty category - superseded by Greek inflection templates Saltmarsh 07:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 15:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously resurrected recently! --Williamsayers79 12:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

now repopulated —Saltmarsh^Talk 15:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:translations

Wrong capitalization...merge with real policy page? Or move to help: namespace? --Connel MacKenzie 06:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the right name : Wiktionary:Translations ?. I think the information is usefull and must be updated. --77.209.10.184 12:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Min Nan idioms

Previously deleted, but has items that need to be moved. (Check edit history and inform whomever of the correct category?) --Connel MacKenzie 08:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It is Category:nan:Idioms that is incorrect, but the naming of categories for the traditional and simplified forms in various Chinese languages is not fully resolved. This one is what it should be. Controlled by {{nan-idiom}}, which is doing the right thing as it stands now. Robert Ullmann 10:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:selfref

Not sure how long this has been copied over here, but I'm pretty sure earlier discussions concluded that we would never want to use this style. --Connel MacKenzie 21:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? 16@r 21:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

1. We (Wiktionary) want as little encyclopedic stuff in our main namespace.
2. The circular style of the Wikipedia templates and the general layout don't match Wiktionary.
3. Not invented here (my poor paraphrasing) In general, just because it exists in Wikipedia does not imply that it necessarily has a role here. If it is an "old" (>1 year) template on Wikipedia, it probably has been discussed here and rejected for one reason or another.

Some other reasons (if you'd give me a moment to track that down. Hmmm, maybe it is mentioned in the deletion log?) Well, I'll try and track it down later tonight. Perhaps my memory is of a different, similar template. --Connel MacKenzie 21:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What does this even do? The only use at the top of our dictionary entry for Wiktionary seems too simple to require it. According to Wikipedia's w:Template talk:selfref, "In support of forks and mirrors, articles should never refer into category space, wikipedia space, or talk space." Is that something we should be worried about? DAVilla 05:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm not sure, we have the choice, if I don't mistake, it is written in the GDFL, that the project can be forked. And so this template would help forking but above all this template help us to have a good organisation of our project to distinguish what is self-reference and what is not. 16@r 09:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Innocuous, logical, potentially even useful... I say keep. DAVilla 22:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Now I remember what the original arguments against it were. On WP, the {selfref} thing means something, as encyclopedia articles describe concepts not words. Here, on the other hand, we are not describing the concepts at all. If we have an entry for Wiktionary it is to represent either our jargon, or it has become mainstream enough to be considered a "word." The {{wjargon}} already covered the jargon case adequately. The {{selfref}} thing is a thing to make Wiktionary more encyclopedic again. --Connel MacKenzie 06:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

While the concept is different from the 'pedias, which doesn't apply here, there is a similarity that is useful: the idea that {{selfref}} contains something that appears in the main namespace here, but is meaningful only here, not on a mirror or other derived database. A perfect example is at sandbox: the note only makes sense on the en.wikt. If, say, my 'bot imports the sandbox article into the sw.wikt, the self-reference disappears. (Because it is an unknown template, but could be because the bot explicitly elided it.) I've improved it so that it will work even if a copy uses all the templates, as they usually will if they are using MediaWiki syntax. Kept.Robert Ullmann 12:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

category:Cockney rhyming slang

Thsi category was never very tidy, not all Cockney slang rhymes too, therefore I have created a new category to replace it: category:Cockney slang. I have also created some new label templates to label any Cockey slang terms appropriately (whether rhyming or not), these all point to category:Cockney slang. Please to the talk page of the new category to see how new template set-up will work.

I beleive that this new set-up is tidier, however I thought I beeter get everyones thoughts before I kill off the old category.--Williamsayers79 17:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

When Americans want to look up Cockney rhyming slang, we would only think of Cockney rhyming slang. Cockney slang looks like something different that most Americans would not be interested in. —Stephen 04:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll updated the templates so that they pur all the Cockney rhyming slang in category:Cockney rhyming slang which will be a subcategory of category:Cockney slang. That should make things easier to find then.--Williamsayers79 08:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Finished the word described above, this category should no longer be considered for deletion.--Williamsayers79 16:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:template

Duplicates {{temp}}. DAVilla 20:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Should be a redirect, IMHO. --Connel MacKenzie 06:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

yes, reasonable idea. done. Robert Ullmann 10:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:unconfirmed

Should be rfv-sense. Redirect or just junk it? DAVilla 23:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclinded to simply redirect it and forget it. --Connel MacKenzie 06:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirected DAVilla 14:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Appendix:Proto-Germanic *ǥuđa-

(And numerous redirects to it.)

Cites as a source, a 2000 publication. How is one supposed to believe that the contributor is a native speaker of Proto-Germanic, who merely checked one or two nuances from that publication? How can this be anything but a copyvio?

--Connel MacKenzie 00:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"spirit immanent in a burial mound" is quoted from the reference, p 31. I think all the things in double quotes are just that, from the reference. But the other odd thing in looking at this and the PIE/Pokorny stuff is that the entries here do NOT say what the references say, beyond copying the English definition lines. Very odd. Robert Ullmann 22:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Added some out-of-copyright referenes. --Ivan Štambuk 17:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary:List of protologisms/large numbers

This page is hopelessly full of made up terms which don't even qualify for protologism status..

Keep. As well, some of these terms actually have been used, for instance "eleventy", "twelfty" and "googoltriplex". 209.247.22.199 22:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

How could a term not qualify as a protologism? That's a pretty low blow. Keep or move since this seems like a useful way to divide the protologisms thematically. From the lists we've seen, big numbers are just something people like to come up with names for. No objection to trimming if you want the page to be something useful, but then if any of these were useful they'd belong in the main space in the first place. DAVilla 23:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Because of the massive sockpuppeting for the promoter of the "large numbers", the original motions to just delete them were curbed to merely LOP them. But in fact, it is just some individual's construction of them, using Wiktionary to promote the nonsense. The sheer volume of nonsense has clogged the LOP list. Also, they very likely are plants of copyvio material, so that proponent can circuitously sue WMF. Lastly, they are useless - you just can't use terms for numbers in that range - scientific notation is the only way to convey meaning (particularly unambiguously) for them. So not only have they never been used, it is absurd to think that they every could be used with any sort of frequency, to then be be included in the thing we descriptively call "The English language." --Connel MacKenzie 06:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The copyright vio is an issue for keeping the entire list. But was Fark or Shoof or whatever he's called making these up himself? I thought he was consolidating lists, and if that's true it just speaks to how inventive people are when it comes to something so useless. In other words, I would keep numbers as a separate list not because it's Fark/Shoof but because it's everyone else who's pumping them out, and that one contributor was just the messenger in documenting them. Anyways the LOP is long and those definitions are also easy enough to distinguish. You can't argue trying to organize things unless... it's an inferior organization, perhaps? DAVilla 08:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that Shoof has been very disruptive, in his efforts to use Wiktionary to promote this crap. The arguments for keeping them (up until just a few moments ago) have all been his under different sock-puppets, to arrive at the original compromise of allowing them (a much smaller quantity, at that time) to clog WT:LOP. Since this has only encouraged further abuse from him, there is no reason such nonsense should be retained. --Connel MacKenzie 00:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete because most of the words have only been used by one person. They have not been used by any in the field of mathematics, or have not noted by whom they have been used. Bballoakie 23:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep whichever ones can be verified as having been proposed by at least one person independent of Shoofark. Keep the separate page, WP:LOP is full. bd2412 T 01:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete them all. Also, all of those weird "less" terms (e.g., yelloworse, youngorse) that Shoof added to the page. He’s added so many words that I suspect he’s trying to use the LoP as a backdoor to publish his personal constructed language. —Stephen 01:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep Let us keep the numbers on this list, not because they have any common usage, but that the different notations used may stimulate young minds and old to investigate the underlying expressions.

I propose that every expression have a link to an explanation its own notation and how it may be evaluated, perhaps in other notations as well. (Fine work for a graduate student.)

Alphabetical ordering is one method that has been done; increasing or decreasing value is another; type of notation used would be useful as well. To be able to switch between the 3 orderings would be nice also.

I longanimously include for submission a number that is used quite frequently in my circles, a Davillion.

In Conway’s chained arrow notation a Davillion is defined as

D = 6 → 6 → 6

--NewWorldOdor 18:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep

(supporting NewWorldOdor above).  

I agreee that most of these number words are utter drivel and are unlikely to be used outside the imagination of contributors, but they illustrate the uncountable property of the natural numbers and the fact that all numbers are "invented", therefore the fact that someone has taken the trouble to define the number actually proves its existence! They do serve to stimulate the imagination and to illustrate different notations. Could we not find space for them somewhere with the appropriate caveats? -- perhaps an external website with a link if Wiktionarians feel that they are too silly to include on the main website. As a mathematician, I would be willing to co-ordinate this and even host the page on my server space if necessary.

What does anyone else think?

Dbfirs

• Keep - Needed a new protologism OR a proto- neologism OR whatever

I believe that we need a word for the modern equivalent of the medieval discussions about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Although, I'm not sure whether it would be more applicable to this list or the discussion about its deletion. John Harvey 13:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Reconstructed terms

Page created with the impression that such entries are desired (they are not) and acceptable (they are not) in this form. Page should be deleted and possibly restarted, from the en.wiktionary.org consensus viewpoint, rather than the viewpoint of one individual. --Connel MacKenzie 03:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of doing fairly serious editing, not starting from scratch; there is some good explanatory text that is not the work of the one individual; I think we should keep the page history. But 1/2 of it will just get tossed. Robert Ullmann 03:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of that page was to focus and centralize discussion of this issue, because it's a very relevant one for a dictionary project like this. The only reason I made the page myself was because no one else was interested in doing so; I asked numerous Wiktionarians what the current policy was on reconstructed roots, and all of them said that there wasn't one. So, I decided to start the page simply to give people a place to voice their ideas, and so we could synthesize those ideas (once there was more interest, which can still happen at any point in the future) into a working, consensus-based policy or guideline. But obviously none of that can happen before we even have a page, so I tried to make as explanatory and useful a page on that as possible.

If you want to delete and recreate it solely because you disagree with one of its (several) proposals and want to hide its horrible, horrible history from the light of day forever, that doesn't seem very productive. Anyone is welcome to edit it at any time, and always has been; this is a Wiki.

A question: which part of the "explanatory text" in the article is "not the work of the one individual"? Are you saying that 100% of what I spent hours working on for this dictionary is useless, but there is some "good explanatory text" from others? You guys sure know how to make a fella feel appreciated. :/ -Silence 18:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I was going to start with the 18 May 2006 edit, your text is what I want to keep, including some deleted later. (and Connel, we have to keep that history, right? ;-). All it really needs is removing A, B, and D under Placement, and some minor edits. Robert Ullmann 14:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. MacKenzie and Mr. Ullmann have the unfortunate tendency to push their opinions by deletion votes instead of discussions. The last edit to Wiktionary talk:Reconstructed terms by Mr. MacKenzie dates to 9 April 2006. The page in question is the location of bona fide discussion on a topic on which there can admittedly be diverging opinions. I did complain that Mr. MacKenzie and Mr. Ullmann enforced their view of things (including using admin privileges) instead of contributing to the discussion. Instead of a reaction to these complaint, the discussin is listed for deletion. I am a veteran Wikipedia editor, and I may be prejudiced by the way disputes are resolved there. Practices may be slightly different here. But I feel that I must remind everybody that this is still a Wikimedia project, and point to m:Consensus, m:Consensus_editing and m:Dispute resolution, which apply to wiktionary as well as to any other part of Wikimedia. Mr. MacKenzie appears to be convinced that reconstructed entries are "unacceptable". I beg to differ. Per Main Page, Wiktionary is

"a collaborative project to produce a free, multilingual dictionary with definitions, etymologies, pronunciations, sample quotations, synonyms, antonyms and translations. Wiktionary is the lexical companion to the open-content encyclopedia Wikipedia."

nowhere in this, or in Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion (note [2]!) do we exclude reconstructed entries. There are, in fact, perfectly academic etymological dictionaries organized by reconstructed forms. I do recognize the practical problems related to such entries, and this is precisely why we have the page under debate. I would now request of Mr. MacKenzie and Mr. Ullmann to either help in good faith in establishing a consensus on the topic, or leave it alone, but stop their distruptive tactics of deleting, moving, and edit-warring. Dbachmann 13:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As our (the Witionary community's) CFI stands at present, there is no way that reconstructed terms can be included. You are therefore suggesting, and many here would agree, that our CFI should be modified. In accordance with Wikimedia rules, please raise a discussion on this in the community-accepted policy forum, ie the Beer parlour, re changing CFI. Once CFI has been changed, by consensus, admins will no longer summmarrily delete items which then comply with the new rules. --Enginear 15:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

people keep saying this. Yet nobody has been able to point out to me where CFI states any such thing. There is a section on constructed languages even. CFI says there is "no apparent consensus" to include entries on "D'ni, Ekspreso, Glos, Kyerepon, Latejami, Latino sine Flexione, Lingua Franca Nova, Romanica, Sasxsek, Suoczil, Toki Pona"; I wouldn't dream of creating "D'ni" or "Glos" entries, CFI is even more lax than I would personally recommend in this. Reconstructed languages are, if you like, a special class of constructed languages. CFI says, entries must be attested. And hell do I agree with this. They should be attested in notable, academic dictionaries. No other words need even be considered. This holds for reconstructed, historical and "living" words. Now where, for goodness' sake, do people perceive a "no reconstructions" clause in CFI? That's all I would like to know. Incidentially , this very discussion would properly belong on the very page proposed for deletion here. If there had been a clear statement that "consensus is against including reconstructed term" on CFI, I would not have been annoyed at "summary deletions" by admins. This is my entire point, I am annoyed at admins acting without CFI backing up their deeds, making airy statements about CFI that are not, in fact, true. The page under debate here was aiming at building consensus on the question, and if Messrs. Ullmann & MacKenzie had been so kind as to provide constructive input instead of deletion sprees, we could actually have gotten somewhere by now. Dbachmann 16:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I've got shit for brains, and should just bow down to your superior methods.

Oh wait, this isn't Wikipedia.

You have instigated what appears to be a valid policy page, in direct opposition to current practices. Yes, as per WT:VOTE, this should be deleted and restarted, taking into account WT:CFI#Languages to include, WT:CFI#Attestation and other community-agreed upon conventions. Your duplicitous arguments for retaining the policy look-alike page offend me, as do your personal-attack flavored indictments. --Connel MacKenzie 16:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

See also WT:CFI#Conveying meaning on the CFI page itself, and w:Use-mention distinction which is directly linked from it. As a rule of thumb, the only parts of a dictionary which can be used for the three cites (usually) needed for CFI are any quotations it contains and, possibly, although this is contentious, and obviously only for the language in which the dictionary definitions are written, the use of a word conveying meaning as part of an extensive definition of another word. --Enginear 21:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

WT:CFI: If the language lacks an ISO 639 language code, it is almost surely not acceptable. Which (of course) PIE lacks. Languages with ISO 639-3 codes meet CFI (in this respect), including some constructed languages (being actual languages, they have codes ...) Languages without ISO 639-3 codes fail to meet CFI. It is quite clear. Nothing "airy" about it.

We are following our policy and procedure to formalize the clear (and prior) concensus: terms in reconstructed languages do not meet CFI, should not meet CFI, and may be described in Appendicies.

(It should be noted that personal attacks tend to severely—if not entirely—discredit the arguments made by the person conducting the attack. Even if they would otherwise be considered to have some merit.) Robert Ullmann 14:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

not deleted, rfdo removed: I have edited this to represent policy, will be linking from WT:CFI. Robert Ullmann 15:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:List of idioms (F)

Wiktionary:List of idioms (F) and Wiktionary:List of idioms (A), Wiktionary:List of idioms (B) etc. Appendix:English idioms has all the idioms already.

And what about the category? My God, what a mess! DAVilla 00:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, where were these hiding? How'd they get missed for so long? --Connel MacKenzie 04:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

January

Where do these belong?

Should these be in the Index: namespace, or the Appendix: namespace?

http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixindex&from=Chinese&namespace=4

--Connel MacKenzie 08:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Appendix. The Cangjie indexes are a Chinese input method, a way of typing Chinese on a Roman keyboard. Cangjie is difficult to learn, but after you learn it, it’s an extremely rapid and logical way to type Chinese. Each index shows the letters that you have to type to get a certain character. So it’s important information, but it belongs in the Appendis. —Stephen 09:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And they should get the "index" dropped from the name. E.g. Wiktionary:Chinese radical index 邑 should be Index:Chinese radical 邑 One of the things I've had on my list to figure out. Fortunately, there aren't 60,000+ links to these pages like there used to be (;-). Sort of a bot task, but they also have (proper) redirects in between some of them, so it isn't so simple! I'll think about it some more. Robert Ullmann 10:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sort-of a bot task, but not. I'd object strongly to this being done by bot, based on my experiences moving many other pages to Index:/Appendix: when we got the new namespaces. Someone needs to slog through these. --Connel MacKenzie 18:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Index: namespace, all page references corrected (except this page and Beer Parlour archive, left unchanged). Wiktionary:Chinese radical index 邑 is now Index:Chinese radical/邑. Remaining redirects should be cleaned up sometime after DblRedirBot has been run. Robert Ullmann 11:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Low water mark

This was superseded by patrolled edits. --Connel MacKenzie 22:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone will need to clean up the few links to this, and its redirect WT:LWM. --EncycloPetey 18:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:List of idioms

This (and 26 subpages) should be moved to the appropriate namespace. --Connel MacKenzie 09:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a useful TODO/Request page, as the note at the top says. It should be retitled as such, since the "official", automatically updated page is the Category:Idioms. I'll start going through it removing items already tagged as idioms and ones not in "normal form" as described on CFI. -dmh 15:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Invasion biology terminology

This page is from Wikipedia and is massive! Whay was it even transwikied? I say delete it on the grounds that it is massively encylopaedic and probably won't even pass the CFI--Williamsayers79 10:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Before I look at the contents, I'll say that we do have many "terminology" lists in the appendix: namespace, where the title suggests it belongs. Individual Wiktionary entries can be gleaned or checked, from that list. --Connel MacKenzie 16:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There ought to be a "rainy day" namespace for things like this. It's not content-free, and odds are there are words in there that we don't cover but should. On the other hand, I'd like it well off the beaten path, lest people think that we endorse it somehow. The idioms appendix is another such. I don't necessarily want people adding to it, but it's a great list of things to get around to defining. -dmh 06:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Utah

Encyclopedic topic. Only possible listing would be on a list of Shibboleths, but that would not merit such a miniscule breakdown, even on that list. --Connel MacKenzie 16:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete.  You're right that there's not enough Utahisms out there to warrant a category, and the Mormonism category already exists. — V-ball 17:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a different encyclopedic topic.  :-)   --Connel MacKenzie 17:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep.  I saw there was a category for Hawaii so I thought I'd make one for Utah. -- Zaui 17:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

While the Hawaiian language merits lexical investigation, I can't see how this does. It is a very bad precedent to have a category for each US state. Please note that Category:Hawaii has nothing to do with the US state, only the language. --Connel MacKenzie 17:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite correct. The category for the Hawaiian language is Category:Hawaiian language. The Category:Hawaii exists (1) as an anchor point for looking up languages by geography (it has been an independent kingdom, and includes a native language), and (2) as a place to organize Hawaiian geographical terms (e.g. Honolulu, Maui, Oahu). A Category:Utah is fine, but its immediate content should be limited to including geographic terms (e.g. Salt Lake City) and relevant subcategories, just as for other similarly named categories. See Category:Canada for a good example of how this is done. --EncycloPetey 19:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep.  OK, now that I've read EncycloPetey's comments, I've erased my last comment because it was dumb (it's in the page history if you want to see it), and am fine with the Utah category.  As a reference point for geographical terms, I think it's fine (as would categories for other states). — V-ball 19:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. This does seem to be something quite new. EncycloPetey, are you sure we should accept a whole new realm of new categories, without a vote, nay, without ANY discussion on the beer parlour about it at all? Yes, the possibility seems to have merit, but this seems to me to be going quite a bit beyond "be bold." (But I've been wrong before!) --Connel MacKenzie 16:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

They're actually not a new realm of categories, since I've discovered quite a number of such geographically named categories as I've been tidying up the "Category"Xxx language" listings. Now, I don't know whether having them as standard for subnational regions is the way we want to go, but they'll be of real practical value for nations, where we'll want a way to cross-index, say, the English names of Greek places in Category:Greece and the Greek names of Greek places in Category:el:Greece. Otherwise, all the names of all the places in the world end up in a single colossal but pointless category. Again, there are quite a few of these already out there, they just are underused and underpopulated thus far. --EncycloPetey 01:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Mycenaean

I'd like to request Category:Mycenaean language be deleted. All of its content has been moved to Category:Mycenaean Greek language for clarity. Thanks. Cerealkiller13 00:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

But it's called w:Mycenaean language on Wikipedia and everywhere else on the Wikimedia servers. Calling it "Mycenaean Greek language" is redundant. --EncycloPetey 03:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Shit, I didn't think of that. Would you allow me a few days to peruse the scholarly literature on the subject and see what it's generally referred to as there? If it is generally referred to as simply Mycenaean, I'll change it back. Fair enough? I wonder if it's a hold-over from before Ventris figured out that it was Greek. Cerealkiller13 09:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonale explanation for the term. There's no rush; I doubt that many people come looking here for their Mycenaean vocabulary (yet). --EncycloPetey 17:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Appendix:Glossary of Canadian English words

Moved here from WT:RFD since I moved it to the appendix namespace.--Williamsayers79 09:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Completely silly attempt at Transwiki, not compliant with either the old (deprecated) version of transwiki, nor obviously, the new. Same 'admin' deleted page on Wikipedia out of process, so it is now quite a mess. --Connel MacKenzie 17:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You're going to erase perfectly good information because it was poorly transwikied? wow. - 70.71.155.24 16:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. It will get transwikied (if it hasn't been already) properly, complying with the GFDL, or not at all. --Connel MacKenzie 17:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no verifiability in most of the terms, so I think it should be deleted. 154.5.232.223 03:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The appropriate approach is to seek verification for the terms, to create entries (or update existing entries) for them, and then to delete the page. This sort of list has no place in Wiktionary. It is not appendix material either. If anything, it should be an automatically generated category (perhaps Category:Canadianisms). — Paul G 15:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This article should not be erased. It is a perfectly good article that just needs some work — This comment was unsigned.

After a clean transwiki, it needs to move to the Appendix namespace. There is no reason at all for having the "Glossary of" entry in the main namespace. This is not Wikipedia. While it may be a perfectly good Wikipedia article, it is not a good Wiktionary Appendix entry at this point in time. --Connel MacKenzie 14:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't delete!

I think that this is extremely helpful and useful. My husband is a Canuck and sometimes I NEED translation!

What word are you talking about?? —Stephen 16:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be Glossary_of_Canadian_English_words

Don't do it!

I think this has to be one of the most thorough and up-to-date Canadian language tools I have ever seen. As a Canadian I see this as incredibly valuable resource and would be disappointed to see it deleted.

What word are you talking about? —Stephen 05:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably #Glossary of Canadian English words.

Don't worry, it won't be removed before incorporating the content. DAVilla 15:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not? My reading of WT:MTW indicates that such content will get swept into the history of the appendix: entry, never to be seen again. (Granted, WT:MTW is rather new, and probably needs more technical discussion itself.) But the disruption caused by improper transwikiing is a Bad Thing. --Connel MacKenzie 16:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, too bad. Well we can always blame Wikipedia. Drop them a note to redo it. DAVilla 20:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, why is this not in the appendix namespace? --Williamsayers79 08:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved.--Williamsayers79 09:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't Delete; Fix

Whoever is experimenting with ways to find the correct location for this information really needs to make sure it does not get zapped into Neverland. Sure, citations may be hard to come by, but they will come. In the meantime, it looks like a very useful list of words. Let me suggest checking what is going on with other, similar lists before you do anything drastic. Also, please be careful bandying the word "improper" about; plenty of people are doing things in good faith, which may or may not conform to the procedure of the day. It's easy to assume good faith and doesn't cost anything. Besides, I think it's one of Wikipedia's policies. Cbdorsett 07:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

And it may be a policy of the Tajikistan government, but Wiktionary is not bound by the policies set either by Wikipedia or the Tajikistan government. Also, improper can mean "incorrect". It does not imply bad faith. If you have a vested interest in having a particular action taken, then by all means join the Wiktionary community and participate in discussions to see that your views are presented. It is not helpful to pop in to the group a single time, and to complain that the active Wiktionary community isn't taking the action you want them to. We're not psychic, so we need input, yes. But neither do we implement every random comment made by a Wikipedian who drops in, creates an account, and posts exactly one comment before disappearing again. Wiktionary is a separate community with its own policies, procedures, and goals. These are not the same as Wikipedia's policies, procedures, or goals. --EncycloPetey 22:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wiktionary:Pronunciation

The category Category:Wiktionary:Pronunciation is a needless subcategory of Category:Pronunciation, isn't it? Do we have other similarly titled categories? --EncycloPetey 22:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't Category:Pronunciation be for terms about pronunciation? Not sure about the naming, but I would keep Category:Wiktionary:Pronunciation separate from that. DAVilla 17:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

{{trad}}

It has been a redirect for some time, I don’t think it is used. henne 11:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A couple hundred uses -- [3]. Would be nice to standardize on {{t}}. (Why trad? traduction? Makes me think of traditional Chinese) Cynewulf 14:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

trad is indeed short for traduction; this idea comes from the fr.wikt. Probably should stay a redirect, lots of wikts use "trad" and people will use it. We can always change them if it gets to be too many. Besides, the whole t template thing still has unresolved issues. May be a waste of time to try to clean this up right now. Robert Ullmann 21:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Mycenaean language

A form of Greek, this 'language' has, to my knowledge, no ISO code. Beobach972 00:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This category is already listed eight entries previously. I sincerely apologize for my sloppiness in forgetting to tag it. I moved all of the entries to Category:Mycenaean Greek language. However, as EncycloPetey so reasonably stated, the language is listed as simply Mycenaean on Wikipedia. I promised to peruse the scholarly literature on the subject to find out what it is generally referred to there. I have not done so yet, because I am lazy. I will soon (soon being a relative term). If you are contending that Mycenaean does not deserve a language category, regardless of whether Greek is appended to it or not, I will say this. Mycenaean uses a separate alphabet and follows different rules. I would think that there is certainly a bigger distinction between Mycenaean and Ancient Greek than between Ancient and Modern (at least from an orthographical perspective, which is what Wiktionary is resigned to). Cerealkiller13 01:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure it has a code: gmy. It isn't listed in SIL/Enthologue because it is a dead language. References such as Oxford and Brittanica (and our own 'pedia) all seem to prefer "Mycenaean" to "Mycenaean Greek". Template {{gmy}} that has been around since 2004 says Template:gmy. Robert Ullmann 01:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A quick perusal of the literature on the subject reveals that Mycenaean Greek may not be a bad way to go. If you take a look here: [4] you shall see that there are a number of hits for the phrase "Mycenaean Greek" in scholarly writings. What stands out most clearly to me is that Chadwick himself refers to it as Mycenaean Greek (I suppose you could claim a conflict of interest on that one). However, while I must admit I'm not terribly swayed by Brittanica's usage, if Oxford (which I'm assuming to mean the OCD) prefers Mycenaean, that is certainly worth consideration. Ultimately, I don't think it is a huge deal which way we go, as both forms clearly have some usage. If anyone has any particularly biting arguments one way or the other, by all means please present them. For my part, I prefer Mycenaean Greek, as it clearly demonstrates to those uninitiated into the subject the fact that it is (most likely) a dialect of Greek. Btw, would this merit a BP thread? (Although I can't imagine that there are too many people who know anything about the subject who aren't already present in this discussion). Cerealkiller13 02:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:active discussion

The idea was a good experiment, but went nowhere after the initial tagging of a group of entries. In particular, this individual template created considerable confusion (as what it said, was believed to be true, on an inactive series of pages.)

If a mechanism is invented to auto-expire the template after a week, then it perhaps can be retained. Since that is impossible with today's WM software, I recommend deletion.

--Connel MacKenzie 06:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Communication templates

Another experiment that seemed to have potential, but died on the vine. --Connel MacKenzie 06:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Index to Policies

This outdated page provides a lot more incorrect information than correct information. The pages it links to should all be reviewed for deletion, if they are not now part of the new policy organization scheme. --Connel MacKenzie 07:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The page itself should also go. The shortcut to it should simply point to the main policies and guidelines page. --Connel MacKenzie 07:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I see Connel is still as "outspoken" as ever. But he still doesn't understand why many books have both a Contents page and an Index, to make it easier for users. Oh sorry, I forgot. Wiktionary is for Connel, not users. Silly me !--124.189.36.219 09:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally oppose CM's misguided demolition of the Policy Development structure. And the way he is trying to achieve this through RFD. He shows no understanding of policy development. See [[5]] for my argument.--Richardb 11:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests for Policies

This has never been the method used for gleaning new policies. Discussions on WT:BP evolve towards policy - nothing else. --Connel MacKenzie 07:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

But it is always so damn hard to find the relvant discussions in Beer Parlour. For instance, where is the centralised discussion of this hare-brained idea of Connel's ?? Or has Connel just jumped in boots and all to knock down a current policy, without a real discussion or vote. Who knows. The only discussion I can find are these scant little bits in "Request for Deletion". I wish we could "Request for Deletion" for CM!.--124.189.36.219 09:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally oppose CM's misguided demolition of the Policy Development structure. And the way he is trying to achieve this through RFD. He shows no understanding of policy development. See [[6]] for my argument.--Richardb 11:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Policy - Wiktionary Draft Proposal

Each item in this category should be submitted for a vote (perhaps one a week? One a day?) until they are all eliminated, or completely reworked to fit Wiktionary. When done, this category should go to the recycle bin with them, as it is a bad mechanism for developing policies (massive long-term inactivity being one good sign.) --Connel MacKenzie 07:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps massive inactivity indicates - lack of interest in policies in general - a stable draft policy that could be promoted to a higher level.

It seems that in Connels' book there is either an Official Policy, or there is Beer Parlour. Funny thing is, we would not have had any policies at all unless someone went to the trouble of pulling the discussion together outside of Beer Parlour, as Draft Policies, Policy Think Tank etc. What Connel proposes is to not have the current mass inactivity, but a return to the previous never-ending, never resolved cyclic discussions in Beer Parlour.

Any organisation worthy of polcies has some steps between bawdy general discussion in the pub, and voting on a policy at the Annual General Meeting. There are discussion papers, white papers, committees, drafts for review, proposals etc. Somehow Connel thinks we don't need those stages. I can only see a return to the bad old days of no way for policies to develop.--124.189.36.219 09:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally oppose CM's misguided demolition of the Policy Development structure. And the way he is trying to achieve this through RFD. He shows no understanding of policy development. See [[7]] for my argument.--Richardb 11:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Meta Elements of Policy

OBE. --Connel MacKenzie 07:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally oppose CM's misguided demolition of the Policy Development structure. And the way he is trying to achieve this through RFD. He shows no understanding of policy development. See [[8]] for my argument.--Richardb 11:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Policy - Wiktionary Official

This clearly was not intended as a joke; but it comes across as one, now. --Connel MacKenzie 07:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Your understanding of Policy Development is the joke !

I totally oppose CM's misguided demolition of the Policy Development structure. And the way he is trying to achieve this through RFD. He shows no understanding of policy development. See [[9]] for my argument.--Richardb 11:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Policy - Wiktionary Policy Think-Tank

OBE. Part of the failed attempt at far-too-granular organization from years gone bye. --Connel MacKenzie 07:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If we get rid of this, then we will still need something like it—a place and means to mark those pages that are in draft stages but are intended to eventually become policy. This would include the "Draft proposals" noted above. --EncycloPetey 15:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I intend to list a separate "line" of {{policy}} to identify the nascent & disputed pages. the only policy pages that shouldn't be listed on {{policy}} would then be ones that have been flat-out rejected by the community. (Both of those rejected policies should remain undeleted for history perspective.) --Connel MacKenzie 01:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally oppose CM's misguided demolition of the Policy Development structure. And the way he is trying to achieve this through RFD. He shows no understanding of policy development. See [[10]] for my argument.--Richardb 11:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Policy - Wiktionary Semi-Official

OBE. --Connel MacKenzie 07:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally oppose CM's misguided demolition of the Policy Development structure. And the way he is trying to achieve this through RFD. He shows no understanding of policy development. See [[11]] for my argument.--Richardb 11:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Policies - Wiktionary Top Level

Of the whole series, this will be the last to go? Straggler policy stubs need to be deleted or adapted, from here. --Connel MacKenzie 07:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally oppose CM's misguided demolition of the Policy Development structure. And the way he is trying to achieve this through RFD. He shows no understanding of policy development. See [[12]] for my argument.--Richardb 11:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:List of Policy Templates

The items listed here will soon all be OBE (in deference to {{policy}}.) --Connel MacKenzie 08:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally oppose CM's misguided demolition of the Policy Development structure. And the way he is trying to achieve this through RFD. He shows no understanding of policy development. See [[13]] for my argument.--Richardb 11:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

February 2007

Template:Irish noun m1 vowel

OBE, orphaned. --Connel MacKenzie 05:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:ga noun m1 vowel

User request, but not yet orphaned? --Connel MacKenzie 05:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

They both seem orphaned, though this one is linked to the one above. --EncycloPetey 05:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Both are orphaned; please speedy delete both. Technically User:Tra is the author, not me; but he only made the template because I couldn't figure out the esoteric template syntax and asked someone to help [here]. Angr 06:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 09:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:jainterjection

Orphaned obsolete template, new entries should use ja-pos|...|interjection Cynewulf 16:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:ja:Interjections

This category contains only the above template. Cynewulf 16:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 17:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:nl:Prepositions

Orphaned, obsolete (all its entries have been moved to Category:Dutch prepositions as was requested in the cleanup tag). —AugPi 02:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:eu:Prepositions

As above; just now deprecated of its single entry. --EncycloPetey 03:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 19:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Moral turpitude

Copyvios, apparently from various on-line sources. --Connel MacKenzie 05:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete; SB has now created a non-copyvio moral turpitude. bd2412 T 12:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted --Williamsayers79 14:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:IPA Rhymes Eng

This template has minimal usefulness, since it assumes (1) there will be no regional variation in pronunciation, (2) there will be no alternative pronunciation, (3) there will be no syllable breaks, and (4) there will be no secondary stress. These are all bad assumptions for English. --EncycloPetey 17:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:ja-verb-ichidan

Orphaned obsolete template, should use ja-verb. Cynewulf 22:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted ages ago. Delinked. ―Tohru 00:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:ja-verb-godan

Orphaned obsolete template, should use ja-verb. Cynewulf 22:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted ages ago. Delinked. --Tohru 00:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:ja-quasi-adj

Orphaned deprecated template, should use ja-adj. Cynewulf 22:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 23:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:ja3

This looks like an experiment -- is there any need for the template? Nothing uses it. Cynewulf 22:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 08:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:That

Due to an error at wikipedia, a bot incorrectly transwikied this stub from w:that. The entry already exists here. Ksbrown 15:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's a better idea to redirect these things, if only to prevent any more bot errors. Kappa 08:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Passel

Another bot error. passel already exists here. Ksbrown 15:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 08:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:es:Pronouns

Contents to be moved to category:Spanish pronouns and then deleted in line with current naming conventions for POS categories.--Williamsayers79 22:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:it:Pronouns

Contents to be moved to category:Spanish pronouns and then deleted in line with current naming conventions for POS categories.--Williamsayers79 22:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean Category:Italian pronouns. --EncycloPetey 22:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:About Proto-Indo-European

Page created out of process. This is not a CFI language (like other policy WT:About ... pages).

It recommends "sourcing" entries from Pokorny 1959, which is in copyright.

Note that we have yet to see any PIE entry information cited from a non-copyvio source.

There is very odd info on this page about "transliteration". Transliteration from what? It is all conjecture anyway, and written in latin (with lots of oddities :-) script to start with? Robert Ullmann 09:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I’m sure he meant representation instead of transliteration. I am no expert on copyright, but it seems to me that putting the occasional PIE form (as opposed to wholesale copying of large parts of the document) should be considered fair use, especially since the material is readily available to the public. —Stephen 09:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Although this proto-language may not meet CFI for the primary namespace, it seems a good idea to have a page explaining our policies and decisions about inclusion and proper formatting and placement. We have voted to include such information as some form of Appendix, and I would rather have a page that explained policy on the matter than not have such a page at all. --EncycloPetey 17:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:sv-vulgar

Now obsolete due to use of {{context}} in template {{vulgar}} and use of lang=sv parameter. No current inclusions. --Williamsayers79 20:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

category:Swedish vulgarities

Related to above. Category now empty and superceeded by category:sv:Vulgarities.--Williamsayers79 20:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 07:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

template:Wookieepedia

This seems like a bad idea. Kappa 12:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep, interwiki template, needs to be linked to, as author. - Patricknoddy 12:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would this not be redundant with the wikipedia template? Kappa 12:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Kappa. Let me put it this way - Wikipedia is fairly thorough on its Star Wars coverage, so if a word has an entry in Wookieepedia, and not in Wikipedia, then it's probably not a word that belongs in Wiktionary at all. Also, Wikipedia is a sister project - if we have a Wookieepedia link, why not a Memory Alpha or Lostpedia or even an Uncyclopedia link? bd2412 T 12:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The only page that uses this template is Wookieepedia, and it should be enough to link it to Wikipedia as we normally do. —Stephen 12:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't use sister project boxes for things outside WMF. And this is just link SPAM. Should go ASAP, along with Wookieepedia. There is a Wikipedia article on Wookieepedia, but Wookieepedia has been referred to in discussion of SPAM black-listing by Meta. (Probably because of this sort of thing.) Presently the 'pedia allows the articles at w:Wookieepedia and w:Memory Alpha; neither is dictionary material. Robert Ullmann 13:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 13:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:KJVEze

Nonsense. - Patricknoddy 12:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. - Patricknoddy 12:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) What’s wrong with it? (2) What do you propose for the articles that use this template? —Stephen 12:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Request made as distraction from Wookie rfd/o supra. Kept, tag removed, struck. Robert Ullmann 13:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a user we have to keep an eye on - his entries are pretty useless. SemperBlotto 15:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:el-pro-εγώ

Delete immediately. Template superseded by declension table in Appendix. No articles link here. —Saltmarsh 15:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 19:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:English words with separate etymology pages

Bad concept, should not be used. --Connel MacKenzie 01:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Move to Category:Etymologies by analogy with Category:Citations. Kappa 01:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

STRONG DELETE Very bad concept indeed, goes against Wiktionary:Etymology and would cause major confusion. --Williamsayers79 10:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - an etymology that involved should probably be in Wikipedia. Most any word could be the subject of a two or three page discussion of everything traced back to the primal grunts from which it originated. bd2412 T 10:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• But, we do need a nice simple way to keep track of the Etymology pages, just as we do for citations, otherwise the typical editor (me, for example) won't know where they are. Suggestions? --EncycloPetey 06:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

deleted and added trimmed etymology to pray --Williamsayers79 13:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Separate English etymology pages

As above.--Williamsayers79 10:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. bd2412 T 10:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete both. —Stephen 15:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 13:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

March 2007

Category:en:Plants

Empty category (I recategorized the only entry) that seems to be a duplicate of Category: en:Plants. — V-ball 17:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. (Category:en:Plants cannot be a duplicate of Category: en:Plants, because they are one and the same) —Stephen 17:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm dumb.  I meant a duplicate of Category: Plants. — V-ball 18:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:kanji

Template has been replaced out (subst'd) by UllmannBot in all 17,000+ cases; replaced with {{ja-kanji}} and {{ja-readings}}, which do not include the L4 Readings header in the template. No NS:0 references remaining. Robert Ullmann 14:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 15:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely orphaned. ―Tohru 23:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Yapese Nouns

Should be Category:Yapese nouns, right? -- Beobach972 21:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:gd:Polital subdivisions

-- Beobach972 21:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Scottish Gaelic verbs

Empty category. -- Beobach972 21:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This should not have been deleted. The contents of Category:Scots Gaelic verbs should be moved to this category to match all the other subcategories of the Category:Scottish Gaelic language. The category was blanked and deleted inappropriately. --EncycloPetey 02:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Scottish Gaelic proper nouns

Empty category. -- Beobach972 21:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 22:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Restored --EncycloPetey 05:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Scottish Gaelic nouns

Empty category. -- Beobach972 21:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This one isn’t empty. —Stephen 22:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Strange, this and the other two were empty categories I found in the list of uncategorised categories... but it's very clearly not empty and not uncategorised. Well, my mistake. -- Beobach972 00:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I must have somehow confused it with Category:Scottish Gaelic adjectives. -- Beobach972 00:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Finnish negative verb forms

Empty. -- Beobach972 21:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 16:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Esperanto animals

Empty. -- Beobach972 22:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 22:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a good concept to me. Is its emptiness its only drawback? If so, I'll recreate it and actually populate it :-) Would Category:eo-animals or something like that be more appropriate? Signed Language Lover

Category:Greek articles lacking a romanisation

Empty. -- Beobach972 22:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This should not have been deleted. The category holds requests, and wull therefore be empty when everything is working, but will contain items when they are tagged. If the category does not exist, though, those problems will not be fixed. --EncycloPetey 02:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Articles with romanizations of Hebrew

Category is defunct and can be safely deleted. -- Beobach972 22:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 22:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Historical Numbers

This should be Category:Historical numbers, if not some other name entirely, right? -- Beobach972 22:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Certainly needs to be renamed, but keep the categorization. bd2412 T 22:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Scottish Gaelic adjectives

Another empty and uncategorised category. -- Beobach972 00:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why should it be removed? It conforms to the guidelines about categorising POS. Scottish Gaelic surely has adjectives, does it? Or do we use another term for that language? H. (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

After some searching, I found one: aon, but it is listed under Category:Scots Gaelic adjectives. I guess one of the two categories has to go, but I’ll leave to the knowledgeable which one. H. (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Almost all of the Scots/Scottish Gaelic categories are styled Scots Gaelic.... —Stephen 16:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That is untrue, and the parent category is Category:Scottish Gaelic language. This is also the name preferred on Wikipedia, SIL, and Ethnologue. Keep --EncycloPetey 01:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the Scots Gaelic categories were created a year ago, and the only Scottish Gaelic one, IIRC, was "Scottish Gaelic nouns". Almost all of the now numerous Scottish Gaelic categories have been only recently created, mostly by User:EncycloPetey, and many of the original Scots Gaelic categories have been recently deleted, mostly by User:EncycloPetey. Scots Gaelic and Scottish Gaelic are equally correct, one is not better than the other. Wikipedia and Ethnologue chose one but could just as easily have chosen the other. Possibly Scottish Gaelic is more common in BrE, but in AmE, Scots Gaelic is far more common. Since most of the categories were already styled Scots Gaelic, it was disingenuous to delete a bunch of them and to create a rash of new ones with Scottish. —Stephen 14:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion in the BP, unanimously favoring the use of the name Scottish Gaelic. While both names are legitimate, using both leads to confusion. Since one of them leads to confusion with the language Scots, we should prefer the other. In my experience neither term is common in AmE. --EncycloPetey 14:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If I had seen the discussion in BP, it certainly would not have been unanimously in favor of Scottish Gaelic. While both names are legitimate, and using both leads to confusion, the first spelling used for almost all of the categories was Scots, and we normally keep the first common spelling, whether British or American. In my experience, Scots Gaelic is common in AmE, and at least twice as common as Scottish Gaelic. —Stephen 14:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:es:Interjections

This category needs to be emptied and its contents placed in Category:Spanish interjections.--Williamsayers79 16:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, but we still have:

• Category:fa:Interjections
• Category:fi:Interjections
• Category:fr:Interjections
• Category:hr:Interjections
• Category:hu:Interjections
• Category:it:Interjections
• Category:ko:Interjections
• Category:la:Interjections
• Category:nan:Interjections
• Category:no:Interjections
• Category:prg:Interjections
• Category:pt:Interjections
• Category:ru:Interjections
• Category:sr:Interjections
• Category:ur:Interjections
• Category:zh:Interjections

Not a problem to do these as well, however, if that is appropriate. bd2412 T 17:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:prg:Interjections is empty now, and can be deleted. -- Beobach972 20:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:fr:Interjections is empty and can be deleted. -- Beobach972 01:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:it:Interjections is empty. -- Beobach972 05:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Suffixes by language

Rfd'd by Keene, I agree that this ahould be deleted, as suffixes are already subdivided by language within Category:Suffixes. bd2412 T 16:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 19:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please restore; The category is intended to parallel the structure used by other categories of POS. See Category:Nouns by language, Category:Adjectives by language, Category:Verbs by language, etc. --EncycloPetey 05:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Should the contents of Category:Suffixes be moved into Category:Suffixes by language, or should the two categories exist separately (and if so, why)? -- Beobach972 17:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Both categories should exist, just as for the other parts of speech. Did you look at the other categories I listed above? --EncycloPetey 13:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Beobach972 is asking whether, for example, Category:Italian suffixes should be in both Category:Suffixes and Category:Suffixes by language. As you may have noticed, Category:Suffixes by language was an empty and unused category at the time I deleted it, and all of the suffix categories had already been created exclusively in Category:Suffixes by other editors. bd2412 T 14:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It was only empty because the contents had been incorrectly removed shortly before you looked at it then. It previously had contents. In any case, the recommendation at the top of this page is to wait at least a week before deleting categories, "so that the various server-side maintenance scripts can run at least once, clean". This time also allows for discussion. --EncycloPetey 14:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

People who create categories but who don’t actually use them tend to complicate things. I make frequent use of categories and it is much easier just to put all languages in Category:Suffixes the way we have been doing it. The suffixes of the various languages appear in a different place on the page from the English suffixes and it makes them more intuitive and makes everything easier to find. All of the "...by language" categories should be done away with. —Stephen 14:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Who are those "people" you speak of? I myself use categories quite a lot, so I can't gues what kind of ad hominem argument you are getting at. If you have a proposed improvement to the way we are currently categorizing parts of speech, then by all means draft a proposal and post it in the Beer Parlour for discussion. This is not the forum for that discussion. --EncycloPetey 16:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephen, look at Category:Verbs - there are enough different kinds of divisions of verbs that it makes sense to have a Category:Verbs by language as one of these divisions. Perhaps there are additional ways of categorizing suffixes (etymologically? by part of speech?) that would make it sensible to have division by language as one of a number of subcategorical divisions within the category. bd2412 T 16:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:prg:Conjunctions

Needs contents moving to Category:Old Prussian conjunctions as with all other POS categories.--Williamsayers79 21:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Now empty, and deleted --Williamsayers79 21:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Body

This seems to have been deprecated and is now empty. — V-ball 14:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 13:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Furigana stub

What is the purpose of this category and its tag template? Cynewulf 16:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It used to be that there were entries that used "furigana" as a header; the entries now have the proper part of speech and are identified as the hiragana form of the kanji term (which is sometimes used as furigana). Deleted. Robert Ullmann 16:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Not comparable

This category makes no sense and certainly is a bit odd being in category:English adjectives. I think the contents probably need updating and the category deleting?--Williamsayers79 11:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The category does make sense conceptually. However, the name should probably be changed to reflect the fact that it pertains to English adjectives only. Perhaps Category:English adjectives that lack comparative forms? --EncycloPetey 15:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal sounds better than the current category. Would we automate placement of ajectives within this folder by specifing the category in the {{en-adj}} template for each instance where "-" has been given because there are no comparatives or superlatives?--Williamsayers79 16:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Automated inclusion sounds like a good idea, but I don't have the technical skill to set that up. --EncycloPetey 17:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I edited {{en-adj}} to do this automatically. H. (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Zachary Hauri

Please delete this userpage. :: ZJH ^{(T C E)} 10:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why?--Williamsayers79 10:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

More parts of speech categories to rename

These need contents moving to relevant category and then deleting:--Williamsayers79 11:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

category:bs:Adjectives

category:hi:Adjectives

category:hr:Adjectives

category:nan:Adjectives

category:sd:Adjectives

category:sr:Adjectives

category:te:Adjectives

category:zh:Adjectives

Template:janoun

Thanks to User:Balloonguy's valiant efforts, this template is no longer used. Since we have the modern Template:ja-noun, is there any need for this? Cynewulf 23:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, nice work! There shouldn't be any reason to keep janoun, the newer template does everything it did. Robert Ullmann 11:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. --Tohru 16:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

And completely orphaned. ―Tohru 21:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

category:Colours

This category has languished in the dust filled corners of wiktionary too long, contents need to be moved to category:Colors which seems to be the consensus category.--Williamsayers79 23:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Emptied and deleted.--Williamsayers79 23:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Hungarian brand names

If at all, this should be Category:hu:Brand names. H. (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don’t think so. This isn’t brands (such as Tide, Cheer, Post Toasties) as written in Hungarian, but actually Hungarian brands. Brand names usually stay in the original language, except where marketers decide to establish a product under a localized name in the national language. So English Coca-Cola does not change in Hungarian, and Hungarian Traubi does not change in English. The purpose of having such articles is to describe common products. For example, the German product Persil may be found in general literature and is used in some sayings (see Pimmel), and without the German Persil article, people would believe that Persil meant parsley (cf. French persil). —Stephen 13:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why that would make a difference. If we had an English translation for such a brand, wouldn't it properly go under Category:en:Brand names? And we do have some, by necessity, since brand names from Japan are at least transliterated from Kanji when crossing the ocean. bd2412 T 01:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't because we never prefix categories of English words with "en". It would have to go either in Category:Brand names or in Category:Hungarian brand names. --EncycloPetey 16:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, there is that. But "Hungarian brand names" suggests that the names are Hungarian (i.e. if they were brought to the U.S. they would be translated into English). bd2412 T 19:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The imported brand Nutella didn't change its name to English. Proper nouns often aren't translated when moving between countries. --EncycloPetey 19:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

So then Nutella is both an English word and an Italian word, and should be in Category:Brand names and Category:it:Brand names. Or brand names that are transported about without being changed should be considered interlinguals rather than belonging to a particular language. bd2412 T 20:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted without prejudice, as its constituent entries have both been deleted following RFD. -- Visviva 08:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Hungarian institute names

Should be Category:hu:Institute names. H. (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:ay:Numerals

Should be Category:Aymara numerals, empty (I am moving the one entry now). H. (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Mila75

Self promotion. No other contributions. SemperBlotto 17:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be very tempted to delete it outright. Still, lets give her a talk-page notice and a day or two to see if she cleans it up herself (and possibly makes some actual dictionary contributions. bd2412 T 17:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the promotional content with a brief note & a welcome message --Versageek 18:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Does exactly what it says on the tin

This exists at what it says on the tin, the Transwiki can be deleted (or merged and deleted). -- Beobach972 23:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Merged. DAVilla 07:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wiktionary pages with shortcuts

There is no explanation of what this category is for. It has no obvious usage. It surely is just unnecessary clutter.--Richardb 12:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it exists so that people can find all the pages that use shortcut links. --EncycloPetey 19:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

...which I for one find useful. --Enginear 19:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Kept. ―Tohru 03:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:External references

I stumbled across this category linked under Category:Languages (but I can't think why it's categorized there and under Category:Korean language). It is one of the most bizarre discoveries I've come across, and can't see any point to it. --EncycloPetey 19:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

deleted --EncycloPetey 21:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Shmutz

Unrecognized as misspelling of Schmutz, this was transwikied from en.wikipedia.org. I've set a redirect to schmutz at Shmutz, and copied the transwiki's text to Talk:schmutz. This transwiki can be deleted. Wait, Shmutz and shmutz are different? Oy. Shenme 03:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The spelling schmutz if from Yiddish via German; the spelling shmutz is just a transliteration of the Yiddish, no German intermediary. I would say that schmutz is English, but I think shmutz is just romanized Yiddish. —Stephen 11:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Kanji reading

Either this or Category:Kanji readings needs to go. I think "readings" is more consistent, since we have header "Noun" and category "nouns", so header "Kanji reading" and category "Kanji readings".

Category membership is now controlled by Template:ja-kanjireading, so it'll be easy to switch either way. Cynewulf 02:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Cynewulf 16:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Education kanji

I think this was to contain all the Kyōiku kanji, but they have been divided into categories according to grade level. The category is currently unused. What should probably be done with this is be put into Category:Japanese kanji and have categories grade 1-6 be put into this category and all the Kyōiku kanji should be put in here as well as in their respective grade category. Else this category should be deleted.--Balloonguy 19:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Originally nominated over a month ago [14], seems nobody would care if I delete this, so... Cynewulf 19:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Wiktionary-Supported Software

Maybe I am out of my depth here, but is Wiktionary:Wiktionary-Supported Software still active and useful? --Keene 01:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

CDVF was renamed a few times, but still is a viable tool. --Connel MacKenzie 06:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wiktionary:Fundamentals

I think it is the same as Category:Wiktionary. --Keene 01:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

deleted --EncycloPetey 21:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Appendix:Fish

This is just a list, albeit a pretty comprehensive one. Its contents need to be merged into Category:Fish. — Paul G 08:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep, at least until such a merge has been completed and/or copyright questions are answered about it. --Connel MacKenzie 05:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Kept as useful appendix - --Rural Legend 14:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Translations to be checked (Koine Greek)

I have just emptied this cat of its single occupant. This cat should be deleted and not renewed, as words from this are lumped under Ancient Greek. Atelaes 08:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 17:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Wetiko

Just another spelling of Wendigo, which already exists --Miskwito 08:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• If, as you say, Wetiko is a real word and an alternative spelling, the correct solution is for an ordinary editor to hit that "move" button at the top of the page and do some ordinary editing — no administrator intervention required. Uncle G 11:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm still getting the hang of Wiktionary, sorry...so, you mean, move Transwiki:Wetiko to Wendigo, or move Wetiko to Wendigo? (Wendigo is the more common spelling). --Miskwito 07:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Move Transwiki:Wetiko to Wendigo, with the resulting "soft redirect" entry indicating the language, the part of speech, and a definition line using {{alternative spelling of|Wendigo}}. --Connel MacKenzie 05:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Entry moved to wetiko and wendigo and cleaned up; Transwiki redirect deleted. --EncycloPetey 21:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary talk:Representing pronunciation

Old discussion. DAVilla 16:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the contents of this page and the one listed below are archived in Wiktionary talk:Pronunciation/Collected archive, so no information would be lost in deletion. --EncycloPetey 17:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary talk:IPA Characters

Old discussion. DAVilla 16:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Occupations or Category:Professions

Category:Professions

We don't really need both of these, so which one should we deprecate and delete? --EncycloPetey 04:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I say we keep Category:Occupations. -- Beobach972 20:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. In British use at least, usage of profession is much as our definition "An occupation that requires expertise or a high level of skill." It is hard to see the advantage of putting such words in their own category, rather than in the broader category of occupations. --Enginear 14:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, everything is cleared out of that category and subcategories except Category:gd:Professions. Looks like a 'bot job. --EncycloPetey 15:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:English:Clothing

Should a redirect remain, or does this just get whacked? --Connel MacKenzie 18:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was quick. The redlink answers my question, I suppose.  :-) --Connel MacKenzie 18:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Hollandic

This was creted back in October but has not been used yet. Was it supposed to be a Regional template?--Williamsayers79 21:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No response therefore deleted.--Williamsayers79 10:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Xettonym

I can find no evidence that this is actually a word at all — no use in books, no use on Usenet, no use on the World Wide Web. Uncle G 11:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

deleted --EncycloPetey 17:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Scots Gaelic Titles

Empty category with a bad title (it should have a minuscule 't' for 'titles'). -- Beobach972 19:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. The correct category should be Category:gd:Titles. --EncycloPetey 22:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kanguru.jpg, Image:Trompeter swan.jpg

Unused and unsourced. The uploader no longer edits. User_talk:Polyglot#Untagged_images also lists a lot of untagged images.--Jusjih 14:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No objection thus deleted both.--Jusjih 14:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Computer technician

Sum of parts Language Lover 15:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Discrete phrase with particular translations. —Stephen 00:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep - major job category titles, we were keeping, anyhow. Also, set phrase. --Connel MacKenzie 05:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep per tennis player, although the meaning of this set phrase may require a little more knowledge about the two parts. DAVilla 16:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Documinutery

It looks like a very new neologism from Youtube, no support at bgc or ggc and not much from google.com. Since it DOES appear to be used on Youtube, it's worth keeping an eye on since it might evolve into a beautiful candidate for our Wiktionary :-) For time being though it seems a little underused Language Lover 01:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Move to WT:LOP and delete. --Connel MacKenzie 05:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

done & deleted --EncycloPetey 18:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:gr.

This template duplicates Template:Gr., which is the appropriate name -- all etymology templates should be capitalized. --EncycloPetey 15:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia terms

I thought we'd decided against such practices? --EncycloPetey 02:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not know you all decided against a practice like that. Tedius Zanarukando 02:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The {{wjargon}} tag is for this - it shouldn't be a separate category. --Connel MacKenzie 05:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hadn't you decided to merge all of those under some WMF terminoligy banner or something? Do that or just keep the Wiktionary ones, but delete this. DAVilla 16:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted - Terms recategorized with {{wjargon}}. --EncycloPetey 21:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Confusopoly

(confusopoly)

If usenet were used, this could narrowly scrape by CFI, but most of its usage there is stiff, the majority (from the skimming I gave it) make references to Adams or to wikipedia. So it seems to be a pretty raw neologism. Certainly more usage than most the things in LOP, but still not a lot. Worth keeping a close eye on, to see whether it fizzles out, or becomes internalized by English speakers in the next few years. Language Lover 21:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Supplemented by a hit in print. Keep. DAVilla 07:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Keene-un

I'd like to delete, as creator, the template Template:Keene-un. I think using a bot would be a far better way to create the thousands of articles starting in un-. --Keene 22:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Euphemism

Wrong capitalization - seems to be exposing a bug with redirected {{context}} labels (as a result of some recent WM software change?) --Connel MacKenzie 06:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted now --Williamsayers79 10:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Untelnetable (untelnetable)

2 groups hits, 0 books hits. This koan from google.com will inspire enlightenment: "Results 1 - 3 of about 1 for untelnetable." Possible candidate for the jokes page just for the classic "Derived from the Latin word Telni", that cracked me up :-D Language Lover 03:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted --EncycloPetey 22:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:npl

Purports to be "noun, plural".

1. Two and three letter templates are reserved for language codes, no?
2. "n" means "neuter" in context of gender/count
3. gender and count templates are never allowed to be combined

I'm sure if I spent a minute, I could find more things objectionable about this template. --Connel MacKenzie 06:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It is used in translations sections along with {{mpl}} and {{fpl}} that designate male plural or femenine plural etc.--Williamsayers79 08:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it means "neuter plural" and is very useful in languages that have the neuter gender, such as German, Russian, Polish, and so on. Keep. —Stephen 06:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that having such a template is useful, but it should be renamed. --EncycloPetey 16:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Could be renamed {{n-pl}}. But probably better to encourage people to use {{n}} {{p}}. Hmm, use seems to be more in inflection lines, and it generates n plural, not n pl. Rename to n-pl, f-pl, m-pl? Robert Ullmann 12:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

See also WT:GP#Bot replacement needed. DAVilla 04:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Support a rename, together with the "mpl" and "fpl" templates. For the record, there are no languages bearing the NPL or FPL codes, but MPL is the ISO 693-3 code for Middle Watut, a language spoken by about a thousand people in Morobe province, Papua New Guinea. -- Visviva 04:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Template:n.pl. and created redirects from {{n.pl}} and {{npl.}} just in case. Similarly for other gender and number templates that I saw. DAVilla 20:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:CyberBludging

Neologism or worth keeping? —Stephen 07:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:es-noun

The entries which use this template should have it replaced by either {{es-noun-m}} or {{es-noun-f}}. This is the older template and needs to be deprecated and deleted. --EncycloPetey 17:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no remaining entries as of now. (and only reference is this section) Should be deleted presently. Robert Ullmann 12:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

But the list of correct templates should be preserved somewhere -- perhaps at Wiktionary:About Spanish. --EncycloPetey 15:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I just replaced another 20 uses of this template. Can it be deleted now? PierreAbbat has been using it, so I'm going to leave him a note about the other templates (which are listed at Wiktionary:About Spanish#Advanced templates). Mike Dillon 18:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the history, it looks like it was deleted soon after the original discussion here in April 2007 and recreated in June 2007 by User:89.168.30.118. The same user also created Template:pt-noun, which is redundant with Template:pt-noun-m and Template:pt-noun-f. Mike Dillon 20:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm. This seems to have been forgotten. I'm going to go ahead and delete it now, then. :) — [ ric ] opiaterein — 18:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Finnish irregular plurals

This category (along with numerous others) has been blanked by User:Frous, presumably for a good reason. -- Beobach972 18:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted --EncycloPetey 22:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Finnish slang

Same as above. -- Beobach972 18:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently he has moved this to Category:fi:Slang, which is wrong. The proper name is Category:Finnish slang. I don’t know what he’s moving the above irregular plurals to, but the above name is good. —Stephen 14:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe Category:fi:Slang and similarly titled categories (e.g. Category:fi:Etymology) are correct because they are topical rather than for parts of speech. However, these categories do lie in between the areas that have normally been discussed, so we may need to address them specifically and decide. --EncycloPetey 15:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

DELETE - category:fr:Slang is the correct on since this is the standard naming convention for non-POS categories. The context label template {{slang}} will place any foreign slang into similar categories when the lang=xx parameter is specified (where xx is the wiktionary language code).--Williamsayers79 16:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It it not the slang of another country (or international slang) that is translated into Finnish, but actually Finnish slang. We use Category:fi:Mountains because the Andes Mountains are not Finnish mountains, they are South American mountains. But, unlike mountains, Finnish nouns are actually Finnish nouns, and Finnish words are actually Finnish words, and Finnish slang is actually Finnish slang. We only need the style Category:fi:Mountains when the usual Category:Finnish mountains would be illogical. —Stephen 16:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It shoudl still be Category:fi:Slang because this is how the {{slang}} template categorises entries when the lang= parameter is given. Category:fi:Slang would contain Finnish slang. The only categories that get the Language partofspeach format are part of speech categories which slang is not. If this is going to be a cyclical argument then we need to have a wider discussion on WT:BP. The current way the context templates all work is to take lang= parameter with the 'iso' code for the language and this yeilds the xx:Category format such as fi:Slang. If we are going to change the way we categorise foreign language slang then we need to change all autocategorisation via context label templates to be compatable and that leads us back to the argument of, for example, fi:Biology vs Finnish Biology if we used the {{biology}} template.--Williamsayers79 10:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I'd forgotten that all the context tags took the ISO code as the parameter. But how does this work for those cases where a POS must be included in the context tag? --EncycloPetey 16:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a lot of trouble with the context tag. It doesn’t understand that many categories have language names instead of codes. Frequently I just delete it and add the categories separately. —Stephen 10:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This would be a problem with the individual context labels themselves. If you're willing to edit the label templates, I can make that less painful to do. DAVilla 17:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Template doc page transcluded

We do not need a vast and cumbersome template to cross-link templates between projects. --EncycloPetey 12:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Template doc page viewed directly

Same as above. --EncycloPetey 12:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Polish phrases or Category:Polish phrasebook

Is it standard to use eg. Category:Polish phrases or Category:Polish phrasebook? The "phrasebook" idea seems to go against Wiktionary's categorisation policy. --Keene 09:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Polish phrasebook is good. Other one deleted. —Stephen 14:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Keene: WT:POS says the category for (language) should be (language) phrases or (language) phrasebook, "phrasebook" seems to be preferred. Robert Ullmann 14:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

{{vulgarism}}

This is bullshit ;-) I do not think we should be doing this. And of course, {{wanker}} should go too, though that one could be kept as a joke. H. (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 13:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Spokesmodel

Orphaned talk page. --Connel MacKenzie 22:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

moved to Talk:spokesmodel. --EncycloPetey 22:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Miniseries

Orphaned talk page. --Connel MacKenzie 23:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:miniseries; the entry for miniseries should exist. --EncycloPetey 18:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:la-nounforms-gen-2nd

Preload template impersonating an inflection template. Definitions counted as "missing" as a result of doing it this "curious" way. If it really needs to be something like this, then subst in the top-level template, leaving an un-subst:'d inflection template and the definition lines as plaintext. --Connel MacKenzie 08:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, almost a dozen templates: http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=MichaelLau&namespace=10 --Connel MacKenzie 08:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably should be subst-ed where it is used, rather than deleted outright. This is a useful template if you want to create inflectional forms pages quickly. Same for below. --EncycloPetey 18:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was opening the discussion of deleting it, after clearing it. But anyhow, it should be then, at Template:la new noun gen 2nd or similar. The Latin nouns do need inflection templates of some sort, but including definition lines means the entry is AFU. --Connel MacKenzie 00:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This template is now deprecated. --EncycloPetey 22:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:la-nounforms-gen-1st

Same. --Connel MacKenzie 08:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This template is now deprecated. --EncycloPetey 22:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Latin words from Greek

All functions formerly served by this page are now fulfilled by Category:la:Greek derivations & Category:la:Ancient Greek derivations. Atelaes 18:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Now deleted - good work! --Williamsayers79 18:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Um... how long was this category deprecated? We usually want categories to be empty for at least a week before deleting them, just to make sure the mechanics run smoothly. --EncycloPetey 18:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

OK ,I'll be less hasty next time ;-) --Williamsayers79 21:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Squaresoft

Category:Squaresoft and all (or maybe not) of its contents. Not Wiktionary material. --Keene 01:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Now purged - this stuff aught to be on Wikipedia.--Williamsayers79 15:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:kanji

Orphaned talk page.--Balloonguy 21:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Was the template superceded by a new template? If so, then the discussion might be worth merging and preserving in the new location. --EncycloPetey 22:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was superceded by Template:ja-kanji.--Balloonguy 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted --EncycloPetey 15:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Completely orphaned. ―Tohru 23:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

May

Category:Native Korean words

Is this genuine and useful, or part of User:KYPark's effort to link English and Korean? The differentiation of "native Korean" words from "Euro-Korean" makes me suspicious. — Beobach972 22:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This is part of KYPark’s delusion about Korean being genetically related to the Indo-European languages. Besides his steadfast refusal to use our approved Korean transcription system, he insists that he has the right to use Wiktionary to promote his unpopular linguistic theories. —Stephen 17:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright then, let's move this discussion to WT:RFDO. — Beobach972 02:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly a meaningful category, and not particularly linked to the ideas of the user in question. Of course, whether this category is useful & appropriate for WT may be another matter. A very large portion of modern Korean vocabulary is taken up by Chinese character compounds and recent borrowings from European languages; hence, words which are believed to be of native origin are of some interest. -- Visviva 06:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, despite interference from OR genetic theories, Category:Native Korean words is useful. Basic words (basic actions, particles, body parts, traditional Korean foods, etc.) tend to be native Korean words. They have different etymologies and phonological properties, different connotations, and different regional distributions from Sino-Korean words that are otherwise their synonyms. (E.g. Native Korean words typically suggest a sense of tradition whereas Sino-Korean synonyms can sound more formal. Also, North Koreans also now use very few Sino-Korean words, usually substituting native Korean words when practical.) There are three broad etymology categories for Korean words:

1. Category:Native Korean words (probably safely defined as any word that existed in Korean prior to the Han occupation in the 1st century BC, although documentation is scarce)
2. Category:Sino-Korean words (including Chinese words imported directly, words coined in Korean based on Chinese words, and Sino-Japanese imports from before and during the Japanese occupation of Korea)
3. Loanwords recently imported, e.g. for modern technical and foreign terms

• Keep. Rod (A. Smith) 21:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Euro-Korean words

As above. — Beobach972 02:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The least defensible of the three, but would arguably be a useful superordinate for various more specific "language X derivations" categories. For instance, I'm not in a big hurry to go out and create Category:ko:Portuguese derivations just for 빵. -- Visviva 06:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

delete. Nobody uses that phrase except to try to demonstrate that Korean has roots in the Indo-European languages tree. If we want a third etymology category for Korean words, it should be more general, e.g. “Category:Korean loanwords”. Rod (A. Smith) 21:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Sino-Korean words

As above. — Beobach972 02:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This should be at Category:ko:Chinese derivations, if it is kept at all. — Beobach972 04:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, not all Chinese derivatives are Sino-Korean, a term which is generally restricted to hanja and hanja compounds. I'm given to understand, for example, that 자장면 (jjajjangmyeon, “noodles in black sauce”) is from the Chinese zhajiangmian (炸醬麵). So even if we create ko:Chinese_derivations, there is arguably still a role for this category. -- Visviva 06:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. This is a very common classification of Korean words and "Sino-Korean" is by far the most common English name for them. (See #Category:Native Korean words above.)

* Keep. Rod (A. Smith) 21:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Ugaritic alphabet

Shouldn't that be "Translingual"? --Connel MacKenzie 15:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The one entry in the category should have a ==Translingual== language header, but I think the categorisation is good — compare it to Category:Arabic alphabet. — Beobach972 18:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a new format for letters and characters of the various scripts and alphabets has been decided on, but I don’t quite understand it. I think it’s supposed to have ==Translingual== first, and then some information that I am not clear on, and then a dividing line and the name of the language: ---- ==Ugaritic== ===Symbol===. Someone who understands it better needs to make these changes, or at least begin them so we can see what is intended. —Stephen 14:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think Hamaryns and I have come to a sort of agreement, but I guess I don't know if that qualifies as being decided (only a handful of people were willing to join the conversation). In any case, what we decided is that most letter content should go under its respective language L2 header, just like words. It then receives a special L3 POS header. So instead of Noun, it'll go under vowel, or consonant, or maybe just letter or symbol. To be honest that hasn't been hashed out completely yet. In any case, only information that doesn't apply to a specific language goes in the "Translingual" header, such as unicode information, IPA stuff, etc. I've changed the language header. I'm not sure about the L3 header. Now, if I'm not mistaken, Ugaritic would be an abjad, so I suppose we could switch "Letter" to "Consonant"? Atelaes 16:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it’s an abjad, so the individual glyphs are letters. —Stephen 17:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's not quite as important with abjads, but I was thinking that we may want to distinguish between vowel and consonant in alphabets. But, perhaps "Letter" might be specific enough. Atelaes 17:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I still can’t quite figure out what you have in mind for the letters of alphabets, abjads, syllabaries and other scripts. If you could edit, for example, в (and add the formatting instructions to WT:ELE), then I could fix the other letters. In particular, I don’t understand what if anything goes under ==Translingual==. Since I do not bother with Unicode info or IPA stuff, it would seem that the ==Translingual== header will usually be empty. —Stephen 18:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think "Letter" is enough. Even for more familiar languages, distinguishing between vowels and consonants can be problematic...for example, Greek υ, which is sometimes a vowel (i, y) and sometimes a consonant (v, f). Or the English letter e, which is sometimes a vowel (bed) and other times something quite different (lode). Arabic and Hebrew have some letters which are normally consonants, but which, like English e, often play a completely different role (alef of prolongation, waw of prolongation, etc.).

The only place that I think it would be useful to distinguish vowels from other letters would be in the Indic scripts and the Southeast Asian scripts that evolved from the Indic scripts, which have an important class of letters called independent vowels, and which are treated differently from all the other letters. —Stephen 17:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Proto-Germanic noun

Should be Category:Proto-Germanic nouns, if at all. H. (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:sv:Food

Now replaced by Category:sv:Foods to match English category structure.--Williamsayers79 15:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Appendix:List of portmanteaux

This is just wrong...

We already have Category:Portmanteaus which is slowly becoming populated, and already contains many of these words.

Many of them, however, are nonsensical urbandictionary-style inventions.

Note also that, while at first glance it may seem that we are doing well at including these words, a large number of the words link to Wikipedia articles.

Further, what is the point of simply duplicating a page from Wikipedia, when we should just be linking to it from portmanteau? My mistake - it looks like it's been transwikied to Wiktionary. So keep for now, but remove junk. — Paul G 17:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: As it is "our" page now (rather than Wikipedia's) I suppose that gives us licence to delete terms that fail to meet WT:CFI(but keeping any that have Wikipedia articles). — Paul G 17:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

keep wikipedia is likely to dump this article in the immediate future with a move to wiktonary rationale. a list of portmanteus is useful, lets not delete any words that are in usage no articles for em or not.

• Strong keep - The WP category is headed for deletion (rightly)- see [15]; a list is much better for this. Johnbod from en:WP87.194.23.18 01:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Wictionary, not the category system in Wikipedia, is the place for lexicological information. I suggest cleaning up the list rather than deleting it. (Dr. Submillimeter at WP) 155.198.204.98 09:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This looks like a Transwiki gone awry. None of these were referenced on Wikipedia, so it inherently encouraged people to make stuff up; a very large portion of it consists of imaginary combinations. Our portmanteau category does a much better job of listing real terms, without encouraging school kids to try to think up their own combinations. Much can be merged into WT:LOP, perhaps, but I'm not stepping up for that painful task. --Connel MacKenzie 01:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per Connel. Thryduulf 08:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Agree with Paul G.: keep but cull.Tam 20:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: This looks like unblocked Wiktionarians agree this should be deleted. (Confer "Wictionary" above.) Might have usable content, but that much is certainly duplicated already in the category. Might be worthwhile to keep for another couple days to flush out terms that now have mistakenly made it into the main namespace. --Connel MacKenzie 18:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree to deletion due to its being redundant, but only after all the CFI-passing words are added, and all these portmanteaux are listed in the category (presumably by the addition of the blend template to their respective etymology sections). † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept as a redirect to WT:LOP. --Connel MacKenzie 07:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:wiktionary

Even if the template weren't nonsense, it would hardly be usable. Medellia 00:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I suspect this exists because of the many, many Transwiki-ed articles from Wikipedia that use this template. We probably don't need to clear all those links, but any links from mainstream entries should be removed before this template is deleted. --EncycloPetey 00:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good candidate for {{dontlinkhere}} (or similar.) Weak delete. --Connel MacKenzie 10:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep - Looking through the "what links here" for this template it would appear the EncycloPetey's suspicion was correct. I have removed a few of these from the mainstream entries. However, there is another place where you find this transcluded. It appears on talk pages in the Transwiki namespace as part of a snapshot of the page's Wikipedia history. Do we expect more of these snapshots? If not, then delete it and let's put <nowiki></nowiki>'s around these. Just in case there will be more on the way, I've replaced the nonsense with code that turns the template into plain text (with a maximum of two parameters - as with the WP template). I.e.

• {{wiktionary}} gives "INVALID Wikipedia link to: {{wiktionary}}",
• {{wiktionary|parameter}} gives "INVALID Wikipedia link to: {{wiktionary|parameter}}" and
• {{wiktionary|param 1|param 2}} gives "INVALID Wikipedia link to: {{wiktionary|param 1|param 2}}" but
• {{wiktionary|p 1|p 2|p 3}} gives "INVALID Wikipedia link to: {{wiktionary|p 1|p 2}}" and
• {{wiktionary|1|2|3|4}} gives "INVALID Wikipedia link to: {{wiktionary|1|2}}" etc.

Jimp 08:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've got rid of it from everywhere else; now (besides being here) it's only on the following pages.

• Transwiki talk:Kiriban
• Transwiki talk:Prelapsarian
• Transwiki talk:Avuncular
• Transwiki talk:nimrod

Jimp 09:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I still suggest {{dontlinkhere}}, instead of deletion, as each day the list may grow during the Transwiki import. --Connel MacKenzie 01:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to the skilled editors and advanced users, I found the appendix useful and informative. Perhaps it can be preserved. --Mprieto 17:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What section did you mean to reply on? --Connel MacKenzie 01:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Presumably the #Appendix:List of portmanteaux section immediately above this one. Thryduulf 08:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Wikimacro usage

And a whole slew more of User:Fabartus "treats." --Connel MacKenzie 11:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete away!, and has thi guy been blocked already? he seemed to be busting your chops a bit back then!--Williamsayers79 23:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

These templates all seem to be a tragic waste of time for every one that was involved.--Williamsayers79 23:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Sicilian noun forms

This category has been replaced by Category:Sicilian plurals and is no longer in use. Medellia 18:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Edited to wikilnik. — Beobach972 17:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:wsl

Old experiment, not being used.--Richardb 14:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Not quite true; it's still used throughout on Wikisaurus:mountain, a page in need of much attention. --EncycloPetey 21:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed it from Wikisaurus:mountain. DELETED: --Richardb 13:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:tlh:*Topics

I do recall we voted to exclude Klingon from wiktionary. In that case, we probably ought to delete this category, correct? Any reason to keep it? — Beobach972 20:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

More precisely, we voted to limit Klingon to a single Appendix page. But, yes, we should delete this category. --EncycloPetey 21:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:ja-furigana

Template I created and moved to Template:JAruby. Nothing links to the old one anymore. -- Coffee2theorems 14:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(And Talk page redirect) I was just about to do this ;-) Un-needed redirect(s). Done. Robert Ullmann 15:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:-ize

This is a bad precedent for the formation of other suffix categories. The category name indicates nothing about the word except for the last three letters. It could be a category for any part of speech in any language, or even a mix. --EncycloPetey 16:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, delete. — Beobach972 17:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:-able

As above. --EncycloPetey 17:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, delete. — Beobach972 17:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:English words spelled with diacritics or ligatures

This category has been 'moved' to Category:English words spelled with non-standard characters, and can be deleted. — Beobach972 17:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Soft-redirected - should not be deleted outright, as this will destroy the edit history with respect to content currently on the moved page, which would violate the GFDL. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the page Category:English words spelled with diacritics, which was once the name for this category. If someone could now move the nominated category to that location, then the edit history can be preserved there. There is no "move" tab for categories though, so I'm not sure how this could be accomplished. Hacking the Special:Move URL gives the message "Source or destination title is of a special type; cannot move pages from and into that namespace." DAVilla 18:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

cri-de-coeurs: Added plural in error

cri-de-coeurs: Added plural in error. I don't know French and I think this is not the correct plural.

Deleted. The plural is cris de cœur. —Stephen 18:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Reta Vortaro

I'm not sure why this page or the templates and images linked from it exist. It seems to be part of an old abandoned project. --EncycloPetey 04:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Long before we had the "Appendix:" namespace, this was abandoned. That said, it might merit an entry in the main namespace? --Connel MacKenzie 04:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved. DAVilla 17:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A few unused dead categories/category redirects

Sorry for making a big list instead of having individual parts on the page, but it is to save me time. I've listed here the most obvious candidates for category deletion that were found in Unusedcategories.

• Category:Maori days of the week
• Category:Manorial
• Category:Min Nan/font instructions
• Category:Macintosh Computers
• Category:Languages of Antarctica - !!! see below
• Category:Italian continent nouns
• Category:Icelandic palindromes
• Category:Germanic female given names
• Category:German elements
• Category:French slang
• Category:French slang
• Category:French fruits
• Category:Finnish colors
• Category:Fictional
• Category:Estonian country nouns
• Category:English drinking terms
• Category:Drink
• Category:Czech country nouns
• Category:Chat-room
• Category:ja:Graphical user interfaces
• Category:ja:family name

--Keene 22:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:quot

Inproper template now orphaned. --Connel MacKenzie 19:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

delete --Williamsayers79 16:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted --EncycloPetey 17:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:ptmanagement

Needs to be a "context" thingy, with lang=pt instead, then orphaned, then deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 07:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:wikipediapar (again)

Well, this was orphaned and redirected, but apparently is still being abused. Needs to be re-orphaned and deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 16:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It still has a load of categories linking to it, I don't have a bot so someone else may want to blitz the rest of it and the we will delete it.--Williamsayers79 13:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned... the only incoming links there now should be userpages and archived discussions. — Beobach972 13:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. — Beobach972 20:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

See also Template:Wikipediapar. Dmcdevit·t 22:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Also deleted. — Beobach972 22:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:definitionless articles

Template:definitionless articles hasn't been touched for nigh on 2 years. --Keene 18:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

deleted --EncycloPetey 17:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, why would you 'touch' a working template? It had entries reference it off and on, during that time, but were cleaned up (that was the point of it, after all!) No matter, these seem to be addressed in other cleanup lists now. Still, seems a bit hasty. --Connel MacKenzie 04:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's superfluous at this point. Everyone seems to be using {{rfdef}} these days, probably becasue that's the option given on the various lists of cleanup and requests templates. This one was never listed there, so people weren't using it. I can't say I've ever run across it before. --EncycloPetey 17:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Languages of Antarctica

Tagged for speedy deletion by Keene (have you no sense of humour?!). I think it is useful. It fits our model (cf Category:Languages of Europe). Perhaps we could, in addition to the note that no human languages are native, include the languages spoken in all the manned bases and outposts? — Beobach972 20:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That list of languages varies seasonally, and there isn't really a "population" based there in the biological sense - it's not a place where children are raised. I created the category as a placeholder to cover the one area of land on Earth that wasn't listed. People might not know (there are some people who really wouldn't, sad as that may be). --EncycloPetey 21:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

PS- does anybody else's browser display the deletion bin creepily superimposed over the penguin, or is that just mine? — Beobach972 20:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. --EncycloPetey 21:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed'. Whenever an image clashes with translations or other elements on a page, just add a {{-}} to separate them. —Stephen 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No harm in keeping it - of some (limited) lexical value, and penguins are cute. --Connel MacKenzie 04:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No harm? H{{plural of|}}w about it makes the website look really silly an unprofessional. that page looks a bit to me like one that says "This category is completely empty, but we've got a cute picture so it should be OK I'm quite shocked this cat is still on Wikt --Keene 22:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete until Antarctica is sufficiently populated to have natives of any stripe. There is no Antarctic nationality - might as well have a Category:Languages of the North Atlantic Ocean to accomodate mariners from the world over (at any given moment, there are certainly more sailors on the high seas of the North Atlantic than there are people in the whole of Antarctica). bd2412 T 23:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with deleting this; I want to keep it, but can't think of any legitimate reason for doing so. The page is funny; maybe we can BJAODN it. ;-) -- Visviva 14:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted. Keene is absolutely right.  :-(   --Connel MacKenzie 01:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Citations needed

OBE. --Connel MacKenzie 04:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Officer of the Order of the British Empire"? --EncycloPetey 17:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Onboard, everybody! — Beobach972 13:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably overcome by events and now redundant/useless in light of RFV and RFD/RFC. — Beobach972 13:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. — Beobach972 20:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Closed pages

I have no idea what this was supposed to be for. (And history says I created it.) Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 04:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Since it doesn't need deprecation; deleted --EncycloPetey 17:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Wikisaurus/criteria

I can't believe this nonsense exists. It is in direct conflict with the VOTE passed on this topic. Crap in the WS namespace has to pass WT:CFI, or it is not on the WS page. Instead, such items are relegated to a "/more" subpage, without wikification. --Connel MacKenzie 08:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete or rewrite. DAVilla 16:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The only vote I could find related to Wikisaurus was Wiktionary:Votes/2006-09/Wikisaurus semi-protection. Is this the vote you are refering to? -- A-cai 20:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Not surprising you could not find such a vote. As is often the case, CM asserts something is common practice, or has been VOTED on, when there is no truth in his assertion, and the evidence to counter him can be shown.

Contrary to CM's assertions, Wiktionary:Wikisaurus/criteria is a valid policy page. It has been a policy page since May 2006. Futhermore, Wiktionary:Wikisaurus/criteria is referred to by a paragraph in WT:CFI that has been there since May 2006. And WT:CFI has been VOTED on as policy since then, I believe. If WT:CFI is policy, then this is policy too, by virtue of this clear, long standing exception reference.

What CM really means is, it doesn't match his idea of what policy should be. He's entitled to that view. But it is totally inappropraite to RFD a policy page. If you want to delete it, AND make the necessary amendments to WT:CFI, then come up with a proposal, argue it, and put it to a vote. Do not just RFD it, and abuse me in the process.

To avoid a "war" I am not removing the RFD banner at this time, even though I think it was put there totally inappropriately, contrary to policy. I would ask CM to remove the RFD tag, and put his proposal for change to a VOTE.--Richardb 12:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't quite paint the whole picture. If you look at the edit history, you'll see that the page in question was a Policy Think Tank as recently as last October. It was not accepted policy. The current banner on the page does not assert that the page is policy, but rather that it is policy or a guideline or common practice. That banner was edited, but not the page on which it appears, and neither was the page ever elevated to policy except by the quirk that the banner which appears there was altered. This "policy page" was never voted in as policy, so as far as I'm concerned it's still a "think tank" or "guideline", not policy. --EncycloPetey 15:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

So, let me understand this. You know the history, so you "know" it isn't policy. And that the facts, that it has a Policy Banner on it, and is referred to directly by WT:CFI, carry less wait than your personal knowledge. But how are other less "knowledgeable" users to know this. Why would they not believe it to be current policy, with the banner and the clear reference ? You either have and abide by policies, or you act regardless of the policies. When will people get that into their heads.

Personally, I believe that since WT:CFI was voted on, with the clear reference to the exception for Wikisaurus criteria in it, then the Wiktionary:Wikisaurus/criteria page has some standing as Policy, or suggested policy. No matter your personal "knowledge" or assertions otherwise. --Richardb 02:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The page history of {{Template:Policy-TT}} shows 15:45, 28 January 2007 Connel MacKenzie (Talk | contribs | block) (Redirecting to Template:policy) [rollback] '. ie: Connel made the redirection so that Policy-TT pages (think tank) became Policy pages. Whether he intedned that consequence or not I cannot tell, but that was the effect.--Richardb 03:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't try to spin-doctor my statements. I know you're upset at Connel, but getting angry at everybody will not bolster your position. I am laying out facts that are evident to anyone who cares to look in the edit histories. Your argument above seems to be that since Connel (knowingly or not) changed the banner to say that the page is policy, therefore it is policy. You're giving Connel a lot of personal power with that argument. --EncycloPetey 17:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If a someone who doesn't know the history comes to WT and sees the CFI page pointing to the Wikisaurus/criteria page, and the Wikisaurus/criteria page with a policy banner on it, and the policy banner says it can only be changed by voting on it, what are they to then make of CM marking it for deletion without a VOTE first. It would seem to be clearly a violation of that "no change without a vote" instruction. And surely, the policy as seen by such a person has to take precedence over some somewhat personalised rememberance of what was really intended, especially when that rememberance is disputed. To have rememberance over-ride clearly stated policy and instructions is not the way a policy controlled environament should be working.--Richardb 13:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, all along we have all been asssuming that CFI was voted upon. Yet I cannot find a reference to this in the VOTE history, or on the page History of CFI. Anyone know when/where the vote was taken. Can we, should we "post-facto" move such an important VOTE record into VOTE history.--Richardb 03:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you have been making that assumption. I have not because I have never seen such a vote take place. Since I have been the one taking the time to archive old votes, the fact that I haven't seen any evidence of such a vote should be taken to strongly mean there probably wasn't one. There certainly was never one on the VOTE page. In fact, very few policies have ever been voted into place. Most of them were grandfathered in under your policy restructuring a little over a year ago, rather than voted on. --EncycloPetey 17:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been making that assumption precisely because CM repeatedly asserts that CFI was VOTED on by the community. My argument was only that IF it was voted on by the community, then the reference to Wikisaurus as an exception was in there WHEN it was VOTED on. But now you are telling me, that despite all CM's assertions, CFI as such was not voted on! --Richardb 13:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you read I'm getting angry at everyone into my trying to use a logical argument?--Richardb 13:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that you seem willing to accept that someone can slap a banner on something saying it's policy, even when no vote happened. When the same person returns to correct that mistake, you begin arguing that the page is now policy. Your position is coming from two irreconcilable viewpoints, and is therefore illogical. The only sense I can make of the situation and your behavior is that you are temporarily blinded by anger, otherwise none of this makes the least bit of sense to me. --EncycloPetey 22:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

{{WP2}}

How is {{WP2|word}} easier to type than [[w:word|word]]? This is an unneeded template. Dmcdevit·t 22:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[[w:word|]] is shorter (it yields word) -- delete this. Cynewulf 21:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is one of those templates which appears primarily in Transwiki items. --EncycloPetey 22:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not from Wikipedia, it was put in later by a Wiktionary editor as an attempted aid. In any case, I've subst'ed all the uses, so it van be deleted. Dmcdevit·t 05:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted --EncycloPetey 20:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

{{wikinewspar}}, {{wikibookspar}}, {{wikisourcepar}}, {{wikiquotepar}}, {{wikispeciespar}}, and {{commonspar}}

As with wikipediapar above, these should be gone as well. (I think the joint listing was justified in this case, split up if need be.) Dmcdevit·t 22:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Are there templates that perform the functions that these presently perform? I see {{wikinews}} et al, but they do not seem to have the same functionality. — Beobach972 03:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

They should; likely they're just a bit neglected. A template-coder should update the main templates and migrate the uses over to the single template. Dmcdevit·t 05:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've done it myself, and these are all orphaned now, and ready to be deleted. Dmcdevit·t 16:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:tk:Etymology

This category seems to be a duplicate of (Turkish) "tr:Etymology", unless there is a language with the code "tk". Pistachio 13:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, but why are there pages that link to this category? I can't figure this out; there aren't any hard links from Category:vo:Etymology or Category:sco:Etymology, but both show up in the "What liks here" for Category:tk:Etymology. Why is this?. --EncycloPetey 17:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah! This isn't for Turkish, it's for Turkmen, which is a different language encoded in the {{nav}} template. Keep. --EncycloPetey 17:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks *-* . Just to explain myself, I added it here to be deleted because I had found Turkish words in it which I moved to "tr:Etymology". Pistachio 17:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Understandable. The page had claimed it was for Turkish words, but I fixed that. --EncycloPetey 17:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Old Church Slavonic

Contents to be moved to Category:Old Church Slavonic language and then deleted.--Williamsayers79 08:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete to standardize categories.--Jusjih 16:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Old Church Slavonic, unlike most language names, refers to the language only, and to nothing else. Also, Old Church Slavonic is what the language is almost always called, and "Old Church Slavonic language" is a tautology. Besides that, as far as I know I am the only, or at least the main, contributor of OCS, and I have never used "Old Church Slavonic language". Move to Category:Old Church Slavonic. —Stephen 16:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That would break with our consistency. All language categories end in "...language" for consistency of identity. I see no reason to break with that pattern. --EncycloPetey 01:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

One reason would be that I don’t think anyone will use oddball names like that and OCS contributions will probably not go much further than they are right now. I have wanted for a long time to devote some time to adding a core OCS vocabulary with conjugations and declensions as I did with бъіти, but I don’t like to fiddle with illogically named category tags that are hard to remember and troublesome to type. Time will tell, maybe somebody else will do it. —Stephen 03:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Now migrated to Category:Old Church Slavonic language --Williamsayers79 10:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:wikipediadab

Yet another needless proliferation of sisterlink templates. --EncycloPetey 08:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. How Wikipedia articles are arranged (and such an arrangement may change) is not our business. CloudNine 18:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep In the Wikipedia's guideline Wikipedia:Disambiguation, it is said disambiguation pages are not a list of dictionary definitions. So these pages and Wiktionary's entries are naturally related. And then there is some disambiguation pages named "X (disambiguation)" because X describes a dominant meaning of the word/noun and most of the time this meaning is the first one to be described in the Wiktionary. So I think we should distinguish the links pointing to a disambiguation page from the links pointing to a "normal article" in order to show a certain concordance and to make it clearer for people browsing from Wikipeda to Wiktionary and vice versa. 16@r 19:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

delete. Wikipedia's guidelines have nothing to do with our guidelines. We have {{wikipedia}} to takes care of all our sister links to Wikipedia. We don't need to be worrying here about how they organize their articles. That's their business, not ours, and it's subject to change. Consider calliope, which is only a musical instrument and Calliope, which is only a mythological figure here. Wikipeida has w:Calliope (the muse) as its primary article, whereas we have two primary articles. Wikipedia also has w:Calliope (disambiguation), w:Calliope (music) (the instrument), w:Calliope, Queesnsland (the town), w:Calliope River, w:HMS Calliope, and many more besides. We don't need multiple sister link boxes from any of our pages to there. One sister link box per page is enough, and it can be handled with {{wikipedia}}. I can see no reason to have multiple template forms to handle a single function. One sister link on a page is a courtesy. The three and four boxes you've been adding per page is an eye sore. --EncycloPetey 20:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a detail when you say: "whereas we have two primary articles". No we don't, it's just that Wiktionary is case sensitive, Wikipedia is not. Moreover I think the example you give me is not a good one because the sister link on calliope propose to read the article about the muse thought it should be the article about the musical instrument.

I don't say we need as many links as there is encyclopedic articles on Wikipedia. For example, we're not gonna put a link to w:HMS Calliope because there's nothing about it in the Wiktionary.

In several cases, saying Wikipedia has a disambiguation page about the word's entry is a good idea (I think). For example consider cast, you cannot just put {{wikipedia}}, because it will say "Wikipedia has on article on: cast" and it's not true. Wikipedia's entry "cast" is a disambiguation page. Then you can merge all of these templates in template:wikipedia if you prefer and you can also change the way the sister links are displayed on the screen (only one box if you prefer) but I say we have to tell the truth about what is a disambiguation page and what is an encyclopedic article. 16@r 22:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to expand the functionality of {{wikipedia}}, that's fine. What we don't need is five or six different templates to choose from where the choice is dependant upon the arbitrary way in which Wikipedia has chosen to name their articles. A revision of pages names over there would then lead to mutliple changes of template over here. Any system that requires that kind of upkeep is a bad idea. --EncycloPetey 22:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

We could easily import this template's functionality into {{wikipedia}}, so that it says "Wikipedia has a disambiguation page on X" instead of saying it has an article. Do we want to? I could get pywikipedia to quickly find-and-replace the template to orphan it if so, otherwise I can jut convert them to the standard "has an article" box. Dmcdevit·t 02:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This template is now merged into {{wikipedia}} (Use "dab=") and orphaned, and may now be deleted. Dmcdevit·t 21:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete after re-orphaning. Deprecate the template for at least two weeks, so people stop using it. --Connel MacKenzie 15:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:wikipediapl

...and another. We should just be using {{wikipedia}}. --EncycloPetey 08:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep, for the same reason explained above. 16@r 19:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? We have {{wikipedia}} to link to Wikipedia. We don't need to bother keeping tracking of how Wikipedia organizes their articles. --EncycloPetey 20:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Merged into {{wikipedia}} (use "dab=" or "disambiguation=" now) and orphaned. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 21:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:wikipedia1

...and another. --EncycloPetey 08:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep, (yes again) 16@r 19:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? We have {{wikipedia}} to link to Wikipedia. We don't need to bother keeping tracking of how Wikipedia organizes their articles. --EncycloPetey 20:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you want to do with this category, it is unnecessary as it duplicated functions that {{wikipedia}} already performs. I have orphaned it and replaced all previous uses with {wikipedia}. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 08:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted --EncycloPetey 20:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Untagged images uploaded by User:Polyglot

I have asked the uploader the sources and copyright statuses of the following without any answers. Some are from Planckendael.be without licenses. Others are unsourced. If no objection, we should delete these and find replacements from Commons.--Jusjih 15:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Raccoon.jpg
• Anoa.jpg
• Arabian oryx.jpg
• Bison.jpg
• Chimpansee.jpg
• Deer.jpg
• Elk.jpg
• Grey wolf.jpg
• Millipede.jpg
• Ostrich.jpg
• Nelsons elk.jpg
• Vulture.jpg
• Yak.jpg
• Alpaca.jpg
• DuckWithDucklings.jpg
• Rhododendron impeditum.jpg
• Ruta graveolens.jpg
• Tulip.jpg
• Hoe gaat het.ogg
• Hoe heet jij.ogg
• Hoe laat is het.ogg
• Ik denk het niet.ogg
• Ik denk het wel.ogg
• Mijn naam is.ogg
• Waar is het toilet.ogg
• Wat een mooie dag.ogg
• Heel erg bedankt.ogg

I have also given the uploader the last notice.--Jusjih 15:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Some have notes on the talk page (e.g. Image_talk:Ik_denk_het_wel.ogg) -- these I guess we could move to commons? In any event there's no reason to have these locally on wikt: move to commons what we can and delete the rest. (See also Special:Imagelist) Cynewulf 15:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've started cleaning images and checking for any links we have to them. Do we know where the .ogg files came from? I'd guess they were recorded by Polyglot personally. Can we migrate them to Commons? --EncycloPetey 17:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think all the ones that are released under a free license (check the talk pages, too), should be moved. Meanwhile, I had actually been planning on sending Polyglot an email to ask him to release the rest, as well. I'll go do that. Dmcdevit·t 21:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The rest (photos) all came from two sources: (1) Planckendael.be (2) Leuven botanical garden. I suggest asking him to upload any of his own images to Commons, rather than continue to worry about them here. There were suitable images on Commons to replace everything. Only the cute image of a duck with ducklings didn't seem to have a good counterpart there. --EncycloPetey 01:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've started trying to get some of the images and sound files transferred over to Commons, but find that the tools they provide (1) don't work, (2) have incomplete instructions, (3) don't work. I have asked for help and was brushed off with a message telling me that the relevant links I needed were on my talk page. Well, I tried those links too and found conflicting information and more tools that don't work. Is there anyone here who is experienced in dealing with the snooty folks over at Commons, or who can exlpain the process? --EncycloPetey 01:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

CommonsHelper can do the trick. I am somebody at Commons, also on Wikipedia, who migrates images/media, so I (and everyone else) can do it as well. As for licensing, look at the talk pages; looks like they're released under GFDL. (→zelzany - minefield) 02:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried Commons Helper, but it didn't work. --EncycloPetey 02:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Just migrated two using CommonsHelper. What you do is change the project field to wiktionary, and then enter the name of the file without the Image: prefix. Uncheck WikiSense, and then hit get text. Everything else beyond that point is pretty self explanatory. After you're done uploading, tag the copy here with {{subst:ncd|}} so that admins can speedy delete the local copy. I've already done the first two. (→zelzany - minefield) 02:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I included "Image:" and that's why it didn't work... hmm. --EncycloPetey 02:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. I forgot to tell you that the above list was copied from the text result of UntaggedImages tool. When Polyglot declared self-GFDL licensing for any works, we can honor them.--Jusjih 17:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been working form the full list at Special:Imagelist, though only a little at a time with lengthy pauses in between bouts. My goal today is to take a much improved picture of a sandwich :), since Commons doesn't seem to have any really pretty pictures of one (they're mostly brown and difficult to intepret if you don't know what you're looking at to begin with. --EncycloPetey 18:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

These have all been licensed and moved to Commons (and deleted from here) now. Dmcdevit·t 14:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Appendix:Names animal-A

This is a nomination for all Appendix pages about animal names. Firstly, the page is completely POV and unreferenced; secondly, these appendix pages are extremely incomplete; and thirdly; animals can be given any name, female or male or non-human names. I don't suggest we add all names of animals to these appendices, I suggest we delete all these pages as an idea that went wrong. For completeness, Appendix:Names animal-A, Appendix:Names animal-B, Appendix:Names animal-C, Appendix:Names animal-D, Appendix:Names animal-E, Appendix:Names animal-F, Appendix:Names animal-G, Appendix:Names animal-H, Appendix:Names animal-I, Appendix:Names animal-J, Appendix:Names animal-K, Appendix:Names animal-L, Appendix:Names animal-M, Appendix:Names animal-N, Appendix:Names animal-O, Appendix:Names animal-P, Appendix:Names animal-Q, Appendix:Names animal-R, Appendix:Names animal-S, Appendix:Names animal-T,Appendix:Names animal-U, Appendix:Names animal-V, Appendix:Names animal-W, Appendix:Names animal-X, Appendix:Names animal-Y, Appendix:Names animal-Z. Thanks admins --Keene 22:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

These are some of User:Alasdair's projects. All he works with is names and he is still active on Wiktionary, although I don’t believe he reads this particular page. I would not go deleting something that he’s put so much work into without discussing it with him first. He probably has plans for these pages. —Stephen 00:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep, names like Rover, Fido and their equivalents in other languages belong on a page like this. Everything else is cleanup. Kappa 02:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete, A single list that mixes names like Rover (dog), Polly (parrot), Socks (cat), and names of all other manner of animals is pointless. How exactly will we judge CFI for these names anyway? People can name their pets whatever they please. This would be better handled as an Appendix listing the few common and traditional names by kind of animal. --EncycloPetey 06:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep the concept, refined per EncycloPetey. I'm not a big fan of lists, and I would suggest using categories instead. Don't delete until there has been sufficient time for a conversion. DAVilla 17:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

{{trans11}}

I can't think of any good reason to keep this really.--Williamsayers79 08:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Also:

{{trans1}} {{trans2}} {{trans3}} {{trans4}} {{trans5}} {{trans6}} {{trans7}} {{trans8}} {{trans9}} {{trans10}}

This seems to have been a lot of effort for someone to go to make these and not actually use them either!--Williamsayers79 08:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• You didn´t see the history of the template. Trans11 fussion from trans1 to trans10. It is used with words that don´t include translation sections, but a lot of meanings (i.e. 11 meanings). It´s used to automate Wiktionary translations. It has been used in some pages and it´s been used more and more. Soo STRONG KEEP --Rider 06:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of reasons to keep and it is usefull (spare a lot of work). So clearly Keep. --Mac 06:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please explain this. Is the intent for it to be "subst:"ed only? --Connel MacKenzie 06:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, so you can add upto 11 translation items to the page. It´s only to be substitued. And it has been used in a lot of places to improve articles (definitions) --Mac 06:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think Wiktionary:Translations wasn´t read before put the deletion banner. So delete it from the template now. --Rider 06:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep and yes, delete the deletion message. --82.159.136.216 06:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There has been no explanation of whether or not it will be subst'ed or used as is? Surely it must be subst'ed otherwise newer contributors could make a hell of a mess with this template.--Williamsayers79 08:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Appears clearly in Template talk:trans11 how to use the template with TWO examples and with subst: IN BOLD. Can you say it clearer and easier to understand ?. On the other hand, delete the deletion message --Mac 08:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a subst-only template; I helped Mac put it together (w/o the list of transN for lots of values of N). Can be very useful in adding translations sections. Or not, is at worst harmless. Kept, tag removed. Robert Ullmann 15:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:List of Characters

A very old Wikt page, with no information that isn't elsewhere, especially at Appendix:Writing systems and alphabets and pages stemming therefrom. --Keene 21:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

delete --EncycloPetey 22:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted --EncycloPetey 20:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:List of idioms (A)

Request deletion for a big batch: From A to Z. These pages are all together at Appendix:English idioms, and I see no need to have 27 pages instead of 1. --Keene 21:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If each word is checked to have the correct category, then I see no reason for these pages at all. The same function is served by the Category. --EncycloPetey 21:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can't put a category on a page that doesn't exist yet. As it is now, these pages are a good list of idioms, some of which still need creation; it's a good place to go to find articles that are still missing. Dmcdevit·t 22:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:List of new words and expressions in New Concept English

Looks out of place, unfinished, and not useful in current form. If it were to stay, I'd recommend it in Appendix or Concordance namespace --Keene 21:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This belongs at Wikibooks. --EncycloPetey 21:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Potential copyvio though, no? Anyway, I don't see the use of anything so specific. Deleted. DAVilla 16:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't quite fit the use of Concordance. I'm not sure I'd like to see vocabulary lists there. DAVilla 16:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:List of words without articles (French)

An old page with little information that we could use today - contains lists of pages that were on French Wiktionary in 2005, which weren't here then. Superceded by User:Darkdadaah/Diff? I suggested deleting Wiktionary:List of words without articles (French) and all subpages. --Keene 21:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Darkdadaah's list is one of English words on the French Wiktionary that we don't have. The "List of words" includes mostly French terms that we don't have. The list is woefully incomplete, but it still have value. It might be worth cleaning up and renaming, or else linking form the list of Requested French articles somehow. --EncycloPetey 22:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather see the contents of French Wiktionary updated there. bd2412 T 22:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is a list of all the articles that do exist on the French Wiktionary (or did at the time). The list was put here so we could see what the French edition has but that we're missing here. --EncycloPetey 16:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Vandalism in progress/Ass Pus

OK, so I wasn't around when Mr Ass Pus was, but I reckon this page glamourises him a bit. His vandalism shouldn't be recorded here in a single page. As AssPus hasn't (apparently) hit for at least a year, this page should be safe to delete. --Keene 21:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete, obsolete and to deny recognition. bd2412 T 22:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete I agree with BD2412 - the best sub to this bamp is to delete all of his rubbish and deny him perceived credit.--Williamsayers79 12:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted --EncycloPetey 20:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:wikipedia2

Another duplicate, already orphaned. Dmcdevit·t 08:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

But it was subst'd a few times by your bot run, so those calls will need to be removed. --EncycloPetey 09:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the substing was on purpose. All this template did was put the parameter you gave it into {{wikipedia}} (which means that it actually took one more character, the "2," to type). By subst'ing it, every {{wikipedia2|blah}} is now {{wikipedia|blah}}, which is the exact same function it was performing before. Dmcdevit·t 09:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

But why has this category:wikipedia2 been added to them all?--Williamsayers79 12:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Because the template includes the category without "noinclude" around it. So the subst'ing added that category to all the pages. --EncycloPetey 16:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but why? Dmcdevit added the category to the template before subst'ing it; presumably for some reason. We are all curious ... maybe he wants to recheck them or something? ;-) Robert Ullmann 16:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Er, easily fixed. They are all gone now. I added them so that the category would generate the list of articles for me to fix with pywikipedia, but I forgot that that would subst in to, and didn't remove it. :-) Dmcdevit·t 18:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I see; would have worked well if you had just replaced the call s/wikipedia2/wikipedia/ instead of s/wikipedia2/subst:wikipedia2/ ? ;-) Robert Ullmann 20:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but that is so much less elegant. :-) Dmcdevit·t 21:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

DELETED --Williamsayers79 08:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:wikipediaabbr

Very unnecessary. It was only used on three articles, so I orphaned it. Dmcdevit·t 08:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:wikipediamulti

An unnecessary duplicate of Template:wikipediamul (if that is needed at all). Dmcdevit·t 09:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Korean indeclinable nouns

No nouns in Korean are declinable (unless you consider appending a particle to be declension), and the words in this category are no different. Rod (A. Smith) 04:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete. There is something awfully declension-esque about particle use in Korean, but of course you can still add particles to these nouns too. -- Visviva 08:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 09:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:wikipediacat

Added the functionality to {{wikipedia}} (now use "category=" which means you can pipe the link and use other languages, which wikipediacat couldn't), and now it's orphaned. Dmcdevit·t 09:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User:24/Alisha, Alisha, Alisha!

Contains nothing of useful, from a user not seen here for 2 years. Also delete User:24/Alisha. --Keene 10:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 10:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR DELITION (DON'T DELETE)

THIS ENTRY HELPED WITH WITH SOME RESEARCH, PLEASE LEAVE IT —This unsigned comment was added by 74.213.93.212 (talk • contribs) 2007-06-27T19:41:07.

Which entry? --EncycloPetey 19:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:es:Spanish derivations

Is this (and others of a similar ilk, if they exist) really necessary, or desirable? Widsith 12:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

These categories are a result of the etymology templates, which Ruakh and Atelaes encouraged me to use. Matthias Buchmeier 12:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Templates are good. But, as I understand it, not normally used when linking to etymons in the same language. Eg word, From word (if both English), or word, From Latin wordum (if etymon is from a different language). Widsith 14:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is where some of use may have got carried away! Also Category:English derivations is a bit of a nonsense too, however that is used to house all the subordinate foreign language derivation categories where words in other languages have English roots. For derivations (category:es:Spanish derivations) of Spanish words from Spanish it hardly seems necessary. Maybe someone needs to go in and expand or tidy up these etymologies?--Williamsayers79 15:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The template should never be used in cases where the language of origin matches the language of the word, or in template terms, the iso code should never be for the language displayes by the etymology template. So, no {{S.|es}}, {{F.fr}}, {{AGr.|grc}}, {{L.|la}}, etc. --EncycloPetey 20:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Such categories are unnecessary. DAVilla 11:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

data daytah not datta battle rattle

Comment moved to Talk:data. Rod (A. Smith) 19:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Estonian topic templates

Should use context labels with lang=et DAVilla 02:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:anno Domini/BP April 2006

Orphan talk page + strange place for an archive. --Connel MacKenzie 06:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be merged into Talk:anno Domini. It is a valuable discussion. --EncycloPetey 06:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

moved --Williamsayers79 08:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Finnish categories gone wild

Ok, so we now have Category:Finnish adjective comparative forms, with a subcategory of Category:Finnish singular adjective comparative forms, whose sub-subcategories are:

• Category:Finnish singular adjective comparative forms in ablative
• Category:Finnish singular adjective comparative forms in adessive
• Category:Finnish singular adjective comparative forms in allative
• Category:Finnish singular adjective comparative forms in genitive
• Category:Finnish singular adjective comparative forms in illative
• Category:Finnish singular adjective comparative forms in inessive
• Category:Finnish singular adjective comparative forms in partitive

...and the list seems to keep growing. There are many more subdivisions of Finnish adjectives now in existence besides the one aspect I've noted above. Is this kind of multiple subdivision with exact precision for every aspect of grammar desirable? Not in my opinion. --EncycloPetey 21:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Finnish, I'd have to say yes. Otherwise you're going to end up with the ablative,adessive, allative, etc. forms for each and every Finnish adjective in the same category, leading to a very clogged and opaque arrangement. The level of granularity may be a bit premature, but it will eventually be needed. -- Visviva 08:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

So you think this also applies to Latin and Greek and Slovene and Polish and Hungarian and ... When it comes to adjectives, all of these languages have both singular and plural (Ancient Greek, Solvene, and Polish also have dual); all but Hungarian have three genders; all of them have multiple cases (at least Non, Gen, Acc, Dat, Voc, and several have ablative, locative, instrumental, etc.); all have positive, comparative, and superlative and each of those forms goes through the same set of inflections! We're not talking about a policy that simply affects Finnish, but which affects all of the highly inflected languages. And what about those languages like Dutch, whose modern form is hardly inflected at all, but whose form of a century ago was highly inflected? Are we planning to have this level of complexity in categorization and template structure for all inflected languages? Having all the non-lemma forms in the same category (e.g. Category:Latin adjective forms) shouldn't be a problem, since they all basically just point to the lemma (which is categorized in e.g. Category:Latin adjectives). What possible purpose could it serve to have so many separate and specific little subcategories (and corresponding templates) for each possible inflectional form? --EncycloPetey 20:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, at 200 entries per screen and 15-16 forms per adjective, only about 12 adjectives would display per screen, rendering the category virtually useless for browsing; if we had anything close to a complete set of Finnish adjectives, not even a category TOC would be much help... Of course, this is somewhat academic because our coverage of Finnish is still pretty weak, but since many such entries could be added in a very short time, I don't see what's wrong with having the structure in place. I don't really see a problem with having similar subcategories for other languages, as needed. -- Visviva 01:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And exactly who is going to browse a Category:Finnish singular adjective comparative forms in illative? The point of the "forms" categories is not browsing. --EncycloPetey 19:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would, if I were studying Finnish -- which I have in the past, though not very successfully. Maybe I'm weird, though... I'm puzzled by your second sentence; what do you see as being the purpose of such categories, if they are not intended to support browsing by the end user? -- Visviva 11:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Me? I see little use in them at all, but about a year ago there were passionate technical arguments made for these hugely inclusive categories. You'd have to talk to the proponents of that side of the discussion, as I can't say I understood the technical reasons at the time. --EncycloPetey 17:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have changed up one template as an example of where I think this should be going. Template:fi-comparative instructive plural of can now be called as {{instr pl of comp of|...|L=Finnish}}. including the final period, which is not included in the template. The lowercase version is achieved with {{lc of|instr pl of comp of|...|L=Finnish}}. This will not work with anything other than Finnish, although the list of languages can be expanded by creating the appropriate category. I would like to come up with a standardized list of abbreviations for use in such templates. DAVilla 04:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I will start by making some suggestions. Below are abbreviations of terms that I've seen used repeatedly. These would apply to form of templates only, not to categories. The idea is to have the template name reflect the resultant text.

If there is a standard abbreviation please modify the list! For some words it may be better not to abbreviate, including anything not in the list. An option abbreviation or more than one is also possible, with a choice for the page standard and the rest uniform redirects. Since these will be reserved, however, few alternatives should be named here. That way alternatives not named here can be used for whatever purpose is fitting. DAVilla 17:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

<snip>

Edit: List moved to Wiktionary:Form-of templates

Suffixes are allowed as -suffix. Ordinals are passed as nth=number. If useful for a particular language, these can be called indirectly and coded as 1st, 2nd, etc. DAVilla 18:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I admit — I didn't use that much discretion when creating all those templates. :) I just don't know languages where e.g. participles and adjectives are as highly inflected as in Finnish. But well...I'll try to change the state of affairs as far as I have time for that. -- Frous 12:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know how to change the templates so that they're not language-specific (i.e., templates just for inflected forms of Finnish words). Help... (!) :S -- Frous 12:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Almost forgot: Sorry for this mess. Frous 12:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Great to hear from you! No need to rush. We can work this out together. DAVilla 13:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

At least the templates for Finnish present and past participles ({{fi-active present of}}, {{fi-active past of}}, {{fi-passive present of}} and {{fi-passive past of}}) should not yet be deleted, because —in Finnish— the participles of verbs are divided into two distinct groups, active and passive (they have different meanings). But I presume that Estonian —closely related to Finnish— has this same system. But since I have no command in Estonian, I'm not yet modifying the templates. -- Frous 13:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there may be a case for allowing language-specific form of templates in certain instances. Ideally these would be indirect, substitutable form-of templates, resolving to the direct form-of template, which is not language specific. I was thinking that, in English, the singular form of a verb is understood to be the third-person singular simple present. So there could be a case for {{en-sing of}}. But I feel like I'm pushing most of these reforms, and I'd like to hear other regulars' input on this. Perhaps we should start a project page and bring all the relevant discussion to one place? DAVilla 14:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit: This doesn't address the above, as I'd misunderstood.

Something more: I don't know languages where verbs have, in addition to the personal forms (first-, second- and third-person, singular and plural), a specific impersonal form. For example, the impersonal indicative present form of näyttää, "to show, present", is näytetään and it means approximately "one shows" if we don't mention that something that one shows. If we have an object that someone or something unknown shows, i.e. we say "an object is shown", in Finnish the object is in partitive or accusative case: kirjaa näytetään, "a/the book is being shown". So, as far as no equivalents in other languages appear, the templates {{fi-impersonal indicative present of}}, {{fi-impersonal indicative past of}} and {{fi-impersonal indicative connegative of}} (template for the impersonal connegative form) should be preserved. (I don't know if anyone understood any of that, but at least I tried:) -- Frous 08:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to consider if each template could possibly be used in another language. By default, they should be language-independent. I misread what you said above. I don't intend to delete all the templates, just move them to remove fi- in the name. There should be a version that is not prefixed by language first, before the others can even be considered. DAVilla 09:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, I made some time ago a template {{fi-form of}} which should take care of all various Finnish form of templates (nominal words only, though).

I agree that the best solution is a common inflection template for all languages and inflections. The current situation where every category has its own template isn't sensible (especially when the template name is almost identical to the text it replaces).

Regarding the deletion of various inflection categories, can't see how deleting or combining them would help anyone. The category names are unfortunately long, though.--Jyril 16:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The {{fi-form of}} template can now handle every kind of Finnish inflection. For now, inflected forms go to Category:Finnish [POS] forms categories. I'm not sure if each inflection should have own categories and they still remain, but inflection-specific templates are definitely redundant and I've removed them. Enabling the categories needs only a small tweak in the template.--Jyril 11:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:wikipediamul

Now merged into {{wikipedia}} and orphaned. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 03:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No inclusions. Gone. DAVilla 15:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Webster 1913

The Wiktionary:Webster 1913 page and project has been untouched for 2 1/2 years. Most of the subpages linked from it are red links, and all the blue links are to pages in the wrong namespace. This information belongs, if anywhere on our wikis, at Wikisource. --Keene 21:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep and complete. The contents of a dictionary that has fallen into the public domain are useful for the purposes of building a dictionary in the public domain. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep --Williamsayers79 08:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep but move the pages from the main namespace (e.g. “webster 1913:16”, see Special:Allpages/webster) to the Appendix namespace (e.g. “Appendix:Webster 1913:16”). Rod (A. Smith) 19:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:fb, Template:rfc, Template:rfd, Template:rfe, Template:rfp, Template:rft, Template:rfv

Two- and tree-letter template names are reserved for languge codes. DAVilla 16:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

But none of these are ISO language codes. I'd still like to do away with {{fb}} though, since it doesn't seem particularly useful or common. --EncycloPetey 17:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

For the high frequency ones, how about agreeing to use the capitals in principal, and leaving lower-case as redirects until the three-letter codes come to be adopted for some language, if ever? I'm still in favor of moving {{rft}} to {{tearoom}} since it's not a "request for" anything. Is there a better way to generalize {{rfp}} and {{rfe}} for other sections? DAVilla 19:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember ever using {{rft}}, and I'm not sure that it has much use these days. It could probably be phased out along with {{fb}}, or converted to an equivalent tag for {{notenglish}}. No, there isn't a better way I can think of to generalize {{rfp}} or {{rfe}}. I think the current acronyms are appropriate. --EncycloPetey 19:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well {{rfdef}} isn't as much of a problem. What about using {{stub}} with an argument, such as {{stub|e...}} or {{stub-e}}/{{stub-etym}}/...? I would move and redirect {{rfdef}} to {{stub|definition}}. DAVilla 10:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are doing something like that, then I think a {{request|...}} or {{req|...}} would be a more logical naming. Etymology could work with an 'e', 'ety' or 'etymology' paramater; pronunciation 'p', 'pron' or 'pronunciation'; verification could be 'v', 'verify', 'verification'; delete - 'd', 'del', 'delete', 'deletion'. It could also work with multiples, e.g. {{request|ety|pron}} Thryduulf 13:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, {{req}} comes back to the original problem of three-letter codes. I'm not sure multiples would be a good idea since requests for defintions, examples, and translations have to be placed in the appropriate sections. Pronunciation and etymology would have to be a clunky exception to that. DAVilla 15:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Using a {{stub}} template for these opens the doors to a whole new problem: confusion with Wikipedia. We don't want people to think that the stub tags should be added to each an every page where the information is lacking or we'll have the tags on 90% of our pages, rendering them useless. The whole point of the various request tags is that they are specific requests for specific information by specific individuals, not blanket marking the way Wikipedia does. If we switch to "stub" we blur that distinction. The current system works; it doesn't run afoul of any existing ISO codes; and it preserves a needed distinction with Wikipedia. Why change anything? --EncycloPetey 19:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:pronstub

Difficult to remember. Should probably be implemented as a simple string parameter to {{stub}} which seems to be getting far too little use.

We don't want stubs. This is not Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey 19:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Just read your comment. The {{stub}} template wouldn't actually say it was a stub. It would be replaced with the exact same code that exists at {{rfdef}}. It's just a convenient name to remember. Alternatively you could suggest another title, like {{request}} or something. I would like to keep it convenient and also make it consistent. DAVilla 10:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

But {{rfdef}} is a notice that the page lacks necessary definitions. The {{pronstub}} is notice that the pronunciation section needs additional information. So why would we make "pronstub" say that the page needs definitions? We should just eliminate {{pronstub}} altogether. We already know that the majority of our Pronunciation sections are either stubs or lacking altogether. We therefore have no need for a special tag to say so. --EncycloPetey 19:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't use {{stub}} per your comment in the section above. Aren't {{request|pronunciation}} and {{request|definition}} obvious solutions to the problem you pose?

The reason a request template is useful is that it makes it convenient for people to make specific requests without having to find some obscure place to put it. Otherwise everything winds up getting pushed off to an easily accessible talk page that, if it isn't a high-volume page, unfortunately will only be seen by the small number of people who check edits or just happen to run across it. Furthermore, when a reply is made this requires a personalized response rather than just an edit to a dictionary page. It's the latter that works closer to what we're trying to build. Semperblotto for instance does a good job of driving toward that goal, clearing out requests for definition almost immediately. DAVilla 20:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

How would creating a whole new system of templates be easier than deprecating and deleting {{pronstub}}? We don't need to replace it because it serves no function. We already have {{rfp}} and {{rfap}}. What more is needed for pronunciation besides an ability to request an added pronunciaiton transcription and an audio file? --EncycloPetey 19:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If we keep {{rfp}} then you have a point. In order to delete {{rfp}}, as proposed, I have to come up with, or at least suggest, an alternative. Given that you do not support its deletion, it's understandable that you would not support a system of templates to replace it. DAVilla 18:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

In the banner of Wiktionary:Request pages I see the line {{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-cjkv}} - {{rfcc}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} - {{rfr}}. That ignores some things like {{zh-attention}} et al. The "request for" prefix "rf" is pretty handy sorthand. I'm not sure I agree with the notion of an umbrella {{request}} thing, as it would be very open-ended. things like {{rftr}} were deliberated and discussed (yet still died on the vine.) Opening up a free-for-all wouldn't help get the various "requests" cleaned and categorized. --Connel MacKenzie 04:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

How is this a free-for-all? DAVilla 07:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

{{altspellpar}}

This template just replicates {{alternative spelling of}}. We should not have such duplication. I say we redirect the template then delete it after someone with a bot has fixed all of the entries.--Williamsayers79 08:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

There don't appear to be any uses. DAVilla 15:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you open the template and use the What links here it seems to be used on quite a few entries that should be using {{alternative spelling of}}. --Williamsayers79 08:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I might have a go at cleaning these up soonish.--Williamsayers79 08:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There are a few dozen uses. I can replace all instances of {{altspellpar}} with {{alternative spelling of}} if needed. I'm not sure why we would want the one that is longer to type though. Dmcdevit·t 15:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

We have in many cases been using redirects for shortened names, like maybe "alt spelling of" and "altspelling of" or possibly even "altspell of", but the -par concept had been abandoned centuries ago, in wiki years that is. DAVilla 10:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

We do have {{alternative spelling of}} available for one-click entry from the Edittools. --EncycloPetey 19:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes we do, and I originally nominated this oddly named template because we have too may similar templates out of sync or that have different formatting. I reckon we could redirect this template to the main one - {{alternative spelling of}} would that be amenable to most folks?--Williamsayers79 16:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

When you deprecate templates by redirecting them, just make sure that the use of one corresponds with the other, that the parameter list is a subset so to speak. Otherwise you can call the other instead, and mark it as deprecated until a good week after all instances have been replaced. DAVilla 19:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:call

I've discovered that it's always possible to force a template call by using {{:Template:expression}} where an expression such as {{{param}}} determines the template to call. That makes this template completely unnecessary. DAVilla 17:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That isn't what {{call}} was being used for; it was a pre-parser-function trick to do conditionals by taking advantage of the way the parser assigns parameter values. {{Nihongo}} was using it to call {{nihongo/rom}} as long as param 3 was non-blank, else call {{nihongo/norom}}. Your fix broke it. Robert Ullmann 12:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Strange. Not sure what that template is supposed to do. Can this be handled with an #if? DAVilla 14:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/2006-12/"vote"

Orphaned vote. DAVilla 14:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

deleted--Williamsayers79 17:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:cookbook

Orphaned; use the "cookbook=" parameter in {{wikibooks}} now. Dmcdevit·t 14:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 11:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:cookbookpar

Same as above. Dmcdevit·t 14:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 11:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

{{en-interjection}}

This template should be deprecated and replaced by the snappier {{en-intj}} which has more uses also.--Williamsayers79 18:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Snappier, yes, but I wouldn't remember how to abbreviate it. Could we make {{en-interjection}} a redirect? I'm more used to seeing interj as the abbreviation, when one is used, than to intj. --EncycloPetey 19:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll redirect it for now.--Williamsayers79 16:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Various lists

These seem to have been copied manually from Wikipedia rather than by the standard process. If needed, they should be copied properly, cleaned up, and put into the Appendix namespace. SemperBlotto 17:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Appendix:Latin nouns
• Appendix:Latin irregular verbs
• Appendix:Latin verbs
• Appendix:Latin verbs (A to K)
• Appendix:Latin verbs (L to Z)
• list of proto-indo-european roots (second)

I changed the tags on these on 'pedia so that Connel's transwiki bot can get them with full histories.. do we want to delete the current copies and wait for the ones with histories? --Versageek 18:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I’ve moved these to the appendix for the moment. I deleted the last one, which was a duplication. —Stephen 18:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep for the moment. Some form of these pages should be used for the tracking of entry creation, at least. They could eventually become part of an Index to Latin entries, as we have for some other languages. --EncycloPetey 21:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Dvortygirl and I properly imported:

• Transwiki:Latin nouns
• Transwiki:Latin irregular verbs
• Transwiki:Latin verbs (A to K)
• Transwiki:Latin verbs (L to Z)

• Appendix:Latin verbs appears to be a simple index of the two verb pages, and list of proto-indo-european roots (second) was an exact copy of one we already have by another name.

We will delete the improperly transwiki'd ones and move these into the proper location. --Versageek 21:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer they be deleted, moved, restored. That way, the one or two edits that mistakenly happened will at least be in the edit history somewhere. Shouldn't this all have been on WT:RFDO instead? --Connel MacKenzie 21:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Re-listed from December 2006. --Connel MacKenzie 05:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Moved from WT:RFD. DAVilla 18:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

{{noun}}

This template does not do anything that {{infl}} does'nt do so I suggest we depreciate and the det shot of it.--Williamsayers79 08:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

All articles migrated to {{infl}}, this can now be deprecated.--Williamsayers79 11:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Now deprecated. Will delete after giving it a few days. --Williamsayers79 11:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Abbreviations, Acronyms and Initialisms

Not precisely a deletion request, but I am irritated by 1) this category's odd capitalization ("Abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms" would be more standard) and the fact that the category has contractions and symbols in it too, despite the name. At the least, it should be renamed to Category:Abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms, but that involves fixing all the links—not so hard; most (all?) are created by template transclusion—and we might also want to either rename it to Category:Abbreviations, acronyms, contractions, initialisms, and symbols, or if there was some conceptual reason for grouping only those three together, find a new home for Category:Symbols and Category:Contractions. Dmcdevit·t 11:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The boundaries between these categories is not always clear-cut (especially in non-Latin scripts), so lumoing them together is much easier than splitting them. Consider also: Where would 1st go? Is it a symbol? contraction? abbreviation? It's in that hybrid territory of being part one thing and part another. --EncycloPetey 19:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there are problems with distinguishing them often, but I just want to correct the capitalization, and since that will require fixing the links anyway, make sure we don't want to change the name at the same time to mention the symbols and contractions. Do we like Category:Abbreviations, acronyms, and initialisms or not? Dmcdevit·t 06:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's fine as is, if only beacuse each of the three is a valid section header. However, I'm not by any means against such a change if others think it would be an appropriate one. After all, we normally capitalize only the first letter in a category name. Also, I think the majority of calls to this category are via template, so a change might not be so difficult. --EncycloPetey 08:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if no one else minds, I've moved it to the correct capitalization, and left the wording the same, for now. Dmcdevit·t 19:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sentence case instead of title case is correct. Don't know what I was thinking, back then. --Connel MacKenzie 20:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Then again, I've no idea why you chose to serial-comma the title incorrectly. --Connel MacKenzie 04:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Railroad

This category is redundant to Category:Rail transportation which both neutrally named and where the {{rail transport}} context tag categorises articles. This category currently contains no articles as I have just moved the only three pages that used it to Category:Rail transportation, which presently contains 162 pages (including the 3 I moved) and two sub-categories. Thryduulf 08:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

delete Good clean-up --Williamsayers79 09:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 15:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:ordinal numeral

I'm sure were not using this any more as the format has generally went to using {{numeral}} for the headers and using the {{ordinal}} context template on the inflection line.--Williamsayers79 15:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

delete. This was an early experiment of mine. Guess I forgot to clean it up when I was done. Sorry, --EncycloPetey 00:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Ordinal numerals

See above, this now seems to be redundant, being replaced by Category:Ordinal numbers in the end.--Williamsayers79 15:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

delete. This was an early experiment of mine. Guess I forgot to clean it up when I was done. Sorry, --EncycloPetey 00:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:notred-pt

And others: {{notred}} and -is, -la, maybe others.

Conflict with our basic principle of showing red links so that we can fill in missing forms. Robert Ullmann 16:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of this! STRONG DELETE --Williamsayers79 17:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

delete with prejudice, along with {{Notred}} and any others of this ilk. Thryduulf 17:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, showing redlinks is a good thing. bd2412 T 17:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for use in inflection tables, where red/blue is meaningless (see below). Disallow use anywhere else. --EncycloPetey 17:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Orphan and delete. The copious redlinks will encourage an Icelandic, Portuguese, Latin, etc. speakers to test the "pywikipediabot" waters, and find that there is nothing to fear. This is fundamentally wrong and should probably be listed on WT:PT after deletion. --Connel MacKenzie 20:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• This should perhaps also be listed on WT:PT - as the misconception needed for someone to recreate a monster like this should be dealt with up-front. It should not allowed to linger, while the problem continues to grow. --Connel MacKenzie 20:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Notred

See previous. And bad name (capitalized). Robert Ullmann 16:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Get rid of this! STRONG DELETE --Williamsayers79 17:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• It makes it possible to show inclinations and link to already existing ones. It looks bad when you add a declensional template and every form is red. This is not a case of "making-bad-red-links-go-away", because every declension for every word will NEVER exist here. It looks better and doesn't do any harm. Keep. --BiT 18:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • ...? I thought providing every form of every word in every language was our purpose for being here. -- Visviva 20:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

    That it is, and just like píka#Icelandic- where every form has been added. Take for example the {{Template:nav}}, it uses a parser function call "if exist" which is just what the 'notred' template uses. Why should that template use it, and not another? --BiT 20:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

    nav is testing for the existence of a category that may or may not be relevant to the language. For main namespace entries, we want the red links. (and nav has its own problems). And yes, every declension for every word WILL exist here. We have the Spanish verb forms, working on Italian, French warming up; when we get the Icelandic lemmata, we can do that too. Robert Ullmann 21:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

    Then I propose that we notred every form except the dictionary forms? In Icelandic those would be the "Template:indef genitive singular" and "Template:indef nominative plural". --22:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep: This is an exceptionally useful little piece of code for dealing with Latin inflection tables, where red will be downright distracting. Note that a blue link in an inflection table can be very misleading. A blue link only means that something exists at the target location. It does not mean that an entry exists in the desired language. Blue does not mean the appropriate entry exists; the link could be for an entry in the wrong language or even a mistaken redirect. As a result, the red/blue link argument is meaningless. Note however that I wouldn't use the template {{notred}} anywhere but in inflectional tables.--EncycloPetey 00:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Like you said, I wouldn't never use the {{notred}} on words simply because they don't have a wiktionary article. I personally like red links, and I'm not just doing this in a "make the problem go away"-fashion. --BiT 08:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete anyway. False positive blues are no reason to obscure genuine reds (and can be dealt with in other ways). bd2412 T 19:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

But the distraction from patterns in the inflection tables is a reason to hide the red links. Inflections tables are designed to show patterns in endings; having three different colors of text severely detracts from that function. Limiting text color in the inflection tables to only blue and black greatly improves the usability of these inflectional tables. The alternative is not to have links at all, which I think is undesirable as well. --EncycloPetey 20:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphan then Delete. This is wrong in so many ways. Eventually I do expect someone to bot-load all those entries. --Connel MacKenzie 20:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of inflectional tables is not to link to inflected forms. The inflectional tables are on the lemma page and function to show the pattern of inflection. What possible improvement of that function is served by scattering another color of text throughout such tables? --EncycloPetey 20:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That is very much in conflict with how we create entries here. English dictionaries don't break out separate entries for each verb form, plural or adjective form. It is a multilingual dictionary concern to create separate entries; if these languages have set up improper conventions they need to be corrected. --Connel MacKenzie 20:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question, and responded only with philosophical abstractions. When did theoretical possiblities begin outweighing issues of usability? Our primary goal includes providing information to users. Splashing multicolored text in a pattern table is at odds with that goal. These tables are for users to determine correct forms, not to add links. We are not simply a link-farm, we are trying to serve users looking for information. --EncycloPetey 20:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

True, when you add a declension (without the {{notred}}) you would automatically be adding 4*4 red links, and in the Latin verb declension you would be adding a whooping 67+ red links. What if you just intended to add an inflection without adding more then half hundred red links? That's where {{notred}} comes in. --BiT 21:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• revision* Also note: occidere#Latin where there are 130 verb forms. --BiT 21:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, what you say is wrong EP. It isn't link-farming, it is entering all the forms that are supposed to be here. Your premise is wrong...yes all those entries are desired here...otherwise we wouldn't be much of a multilingual dictionary. The purpose of "inflectional" templates is not only to show the pattern. Abusive templates like {{notred}} encourage the wrong behavior, suggesting to newcomers that we don't want those entries. That is flatly untrue. --Connel MacKenzie 20:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

keep. The declension tables with red links are imho unreadable, the alternative would be to add no links in the declension table, which is maybe a regress. @Connel, I don't see why this template should make anyone think that certain entries are not wanted. I suggest to modify the template for improving it like: {{ #ifeq: {{{1}}} | {{PAGENAME}} | {{{1|}}} | {{#ifexist: {{{1|}}}|[[{{{1}}}{{{language|}}}|{{{2}}}]]|{{#if: {{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|{{{1}}}}}}}}}

It will then allow You to make the link more specific: it will link to the correct language and it does not add links to the entry itself, if used like {{notred|{{{...}}}|language=#Icelandic}} in the declension-templates. best regards, --birdy _{(:> )=|} 20:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You raise a good point. And I'd like to point another think out; the creation of noun/adjectival/verbal forms are by NO means more important as the creation of new word pages. And might I note that many forms (especially adjectival and verbal forms) are close to never used. So creating an article about those words would be utterly pointless. --BiT 21:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Never used? Hello? Have you forgotten that this is a multilingual dictionary? Have you forgotten that people look stuff up when they don't know what it means? (And how would they know what it is a form of?) The fact (alone) that multiple languages can have a particular spelling is justification enough, for specifying the forms of something. --Connel MacKenzie 07:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. *wink* I have forgotten nothing mind you; nor did I ever mention that we should not make articles for word forms. Did I even insinuate that? I simply said, and now let me disambiguate- that truly many word forms are very common, and many are more important than others. E.g. in the case of adjectives, the Template:singular positive degree is much more used than say the Template:gen comparative degree, and in the case of nouns, the , Template:gen and Template:acc cases are most used by far. Some word forms of specific word (though very few) are never used and would therefore be pointless. Don't we rather want to encourage people to add new words like drive rather than word forms like driven or drives, because even though the word forms are important they are used far rarer than the dictionary forms. --BiT 17:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please compare lt:vaistas. The declensiontable is, sorry to say that, hard to read, imo. Best regards --birdy _{(:> )=|} 20:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete, if inflection tables are not supposed to link then no links should be included, and if they are supposed to link then they should link; it should not be decided by the arbitrary criteria of whether we have a page at that title yet or not. I am personally slightly in favour <edit>of not</edit> having links however I can see the reasons for removing them. Conrad.Irwin 21:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. If the variable colors are distracting, then we should have a {{yesblack}} template (only, you know, named better) that linkifies the word but keeps the text black; but I don't see that we should de-linkify words just because we don't like the link colors. —Ruakh_TALK 00:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep. I thought I'd commented on this already. Hm. Anyway, red links in inflection tables really are distracting, but blue links in them are also very useful. However, it would be cool if instead of de-linkifying, the notred template would just keep the links to articles that don't exist black. Don't take this template away from me, or I'll be sad :) — [ ric ] opiaterein — 18:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:esbot:pastpart

Obsoleted by {{past participle of}} and orphaned (see WT:GP#Updating_uncategorized_TheDaveBot_creations). Dmcdevit·t 19:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done. Better wait a week to make sure none were missed though. --Connel MacKenzie 20:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

At least one straggler... --Connel MacKenzie 20:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 09:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:de-

Where did this wrongly named template come from? It has nothing to do with German. --Connel MacKenzie 20:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's for etymologies. As in "{{de-|humanize}}" → "Template:de-". Hasn't seen much use, though. Dmcdevit·t 10:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

userfy and use with subst in future. Thryduulf 11:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Or change it's name. I suggest {{prefix-de}} or something akin to that. --BiT 13:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Or just {{prefix}} if it's really so useful. But I would substitute and delete all Category:Prefix templates. DAVilla 13:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Subst-orphan then delete. Entirely the wrong approach. --Connel MacKenzie 20:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Template:japdef

All of the usages in the main namespace have been replaced with {{ja-def}}. Some in talk pages are remaining and will be left as they are as harmless red links. --Tohru 08:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 14:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So that's why it keeps showing up as "Wanted."  :-(   Can this please be orphaned? --Connel MacKenzie 19:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will do it in a few days. (By the way, what you saw is janoun ranked at the 654th, isn't it? The number that japdef gets is under the threshold to appear in the list... Anyway I will hunt all those deprecated sister templates.) ―Tohru 07:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Completed. Template:janoun, Template:kanji, and Template_talk:kanji, which appeared on the wanted page list, have been completely orphaned. The number of the what-links-here links of Template:japdef has also been reduced to well below the noise level. ―Tohru 03:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

WT:CMK

and WT talk:CMK - speedy, please.

Not amusing anymore. IIRC, when Wonderfool first created this, it was speedy-deleted. (Maybe it was WS:CMK?) No user/user talk shortcuts, please. Especially not with the wrong initials. --Connel MacKenzie 05:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted --EncycloPetey 08:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Connel MacKenzie 19:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:See instead

DAVilla 22:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Tidied up a lot of the contents, only the subcategories are left now.--Williamsayers79 09:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Languages of the United States Virgin Islands

All it contains is Category:English language - we don't need this, or will we have cats like Category:Languages of Idaho etc. --Derda 22:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The w:United States Virgin Islands is not a state, but an insular territory. Inhabitants are not granted citizenship under the US Constitution, and it is not obvious what the local language is for a group of islands overseen by a foreign power. In any case, Spanish, French, and Creoles are the primary languages of 25% of the population. --EncycloPetey 06:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Not under the constitution, no, but (unlike American Samoa) they have been citizens for almost a century now. Which doesn't necessarily detract from the overall point. Dmcdevit·t 14:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This -- like many similar categories -- seems like a really weird use of categorization. Why not just have an appendix (or appendices) listing (and linking to) the languages spoken in each country and territory? -- Visviva 23:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You could ask the same question about any category of any kind on Wiktionary. The answer is that it's a categorization, not an appendix. Appendices have to be hard-coded and constantly updated. The Wikimedia category structure responds dynamically. --EncycloPetey 00:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the underlying question is: "what is the possible lexical relevance of this category?" Sure, we obviously should have similar categories like Languages of Alphabet City, Languages of the East Village, Languages of SOHO, Languages of Tribeca, Languages of Chinatown, Languages of Midtown, etc., all under Languages of Manhattan, right? Sorry, but I don't see how that geographic mapping is really helpful. For an Encyclopedia, perhaps... --Connel MacKenzie 13:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As a territory not within the contiguous US, visible on a globe, its category serves a valuable purpose. Someone travelling to that location may wonder what language(s) are spoken there. Consider that Category:Languages of French Polynesia includes more than French. For the most part, the geographic categories are nations or continents, but there are a few regions (e.g. Category:Languages of the Balkans, Category:Languages of the Caucasus) for regions where the national boundaries are less familiar. The major exceptions are major islands and island groups. Personally, I would like to see Category:Languages of French Polynesia, Category:Languages of Haiti, Category:Languages of Hawaii, etc. retained. These regions often have indigenous languages in addition to colonial ones, and it is very helpful to have that information. I would not advocate categorizing languages by states or provinces, and certainly not for smaller internal subdivisions, but for islands and island groups, there is considerably more going on than with other such subnational units. The geographic mapping categories have been in existence for a very long time now, so you are proposing a change in eliminating them. If you think it would pass a vote, then that would be the appropriate course of action. --EncycloPetey 02:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Hungarian animal names

This is a category of names (proper nouns) given to animals in Hungarian. This is equivalent to a category containing English words like "Fido" and "Rover" not "cat" and "dog". The category of words do meet the CFI (I've not checked the two words the category contains), but I'm not certain we want to categorise words this way.

This is the only category that I am aware of that categorises the words thus ("Fido" is in Category:English proper nouns, Category:Dogs and Category:Names; "Rover" and "Rex" are in the first two of these only); although note that with the category expansion not working properly (c.f. WT:GP#Weirdness in subcategory tree expansion) I've not checked all languages. The page categorises it under "proper names" and "study of masculine given names" (I think this is what the second category is, but I don't speak Italian).

If we do want to continue with this categorisation, the category needs moving to something like category:hu:Animal names. I had a hard time deciding whether this was best placed here, the tea room or the beer parlour as non seem to fit perfectly. Feel free to move this if you think I've plumped for the wrong one, or indeed if we have somewhere else I'm not aware of. Thryduulf 22:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it’s a useful category. I know a lot of such names in Russian as well. Since these are actually Hungarian names (like Hungarian nouns), and not merely international names that have been translated into Hungarian (like hu:Mountains), I think the category should remain Category:Hungarian animal names. —Stephen 11:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we accept human first names? I've got the impression they're not recommended (I've got no opinion on this). In that case animal names would be even less acceptable. But if we keep this category, it should be renamed as Thryduulf said.--Jyril 16:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Interwikitmp-grp

Why is this still here? --Connel MacKenzie 19:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:interwikitmp-grp

--Connel MacKenzie 19:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:es-present participle of

I don't see any reason why these should be language specific. There are also an enormous number of terms starting with “Requests for deletion/Others” in Category:Form of templates. Could someone back me up on Frous's talk page? DAVilla 23:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The Finnish templates are a direct result of Finnish categories gone wild (see above). --EncycloPetey 00:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:500,000 Pool

We've already reached 500,000 articles now. Jooge 14:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 18:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete but not for a week or so (to allow those that took part to see how close they were (or not) - its doing no harm at the moment), and make sure that whoever won has been informed! Thryduulf 18:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No one won. All the guesses were that it would happen in 2006 and it happened in 2007. Jooge 22:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

DELETED --Williamsayers79 09:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Untagged images

I have found a few users with untagged images. I cannot send them to Commons without proper source and license information:--Jusjih 18:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

comment: Have you informed the uploaders on their talk page? Thryduulf 18:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The Wiktionary rule for images, was that all contributions here are released under the GNU Free Documentation License. The ones that indicate they are self-made; do you have any reason to doubt that? Those are from established contributors here. (I.e. the first 6 or so.) Perhaps talk page messages of their impending deletion here/commons migration (with a commons-acceptable license) would be a better approach for those first few.

The rest can be deleted when orphaned. --Connel MacKenzie 18:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If the license is unclear, then it is best to seek clarification first. If no response is forthcoming, then mark them for deletion - again informing the users that uploaded them of this, only if this fails to get a response after the usual time period should they be deleted. We should not be deleting them for want of simple communication. Thryduulf 21:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have informed all involved uploaders. For non-speedy deletions, let's wait for a while first. Some may be eligible to be transwikied to Commons.--Jusjih 15:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What isn't speedy about these? We've had several passes at clearing these out, in the last year and a half that uploads have been disabled. --Connel MacKenzie 04:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

All Dvortygirl images are now licensed, moved to Commons, and deleted from Wiktionary. Dmcdevit·t 14:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Turkeys_1.jpg

User:Dvortygirl claimed self-made without license.Jusjih

Image:Bee on flower.jpg

Same as above.Jusjih

Image:Bobbin.jpg

Same as above.Jusjih

Image:Ladybug1.jpg

Same as above.Jusjih

Image:L-words.png

Długosz claimed "Drawn by John M. Dlugosz sometime in mid-2003. May use freely with attribution." It might qualify for commons:Template:Attribution.Jusjih

Yes, it does. Moved to Commons and deleted. Dmcdevit·t 22:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wynn.png

Muke uploaded it. It might qualify for commons:Template:PD-ineligible.Jusjih

Released into the PD and sent to Commons. Dmcdevit·t 21:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Scan_01.png

CoryCohen uploaded it without source.Jusjih

Deleted obvious copyvio. --Connel MacKenzie 19:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

How is it a copyvio to scan a section of text from an 18th century (or earlier) book? --EncycloPetey 01:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Scan_02.png

Same as above.Jusjih

Deleted obvious copyvio. --Connel MacKenzie 19:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pfstriations.jpg

Pinkfud claimed self-made without license.Jusjih

Now orphaned. Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 19:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pfamethyst.jpg

Pinkfud uploaded it without clear source.Jusjih

Now orphaned. Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 19:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pflimestone.jpg

Same as above.Jusjih

Now orphaned. Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 19:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pfberyl.jpg

Same as above.Jusjih

Now orphaned. Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 19:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pfmorganite.jpg

Same as above.Jusjih

Now orphaned. Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 19:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pfpyroclastic.jpg

Same as above.Jusjih

Now orphaned. Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 19:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Atomizer.gif

HiFlyer uploaded it without clear source.Jusjih

Now orphaned. Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 19:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:CANNULA.jpg

Same as above.Jusjih

Now orphaned. Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 19:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Crematory.gif

Same as above.Jusjih

Now orphaned. Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 19:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:grease.jpg

Homer uploaded it without clear source.Jusjih

Now orphaned. Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 19:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:fisticuffs.jpg

Solidmelts2air uploaded it without clear source.Jusjih

Now orphaned. Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 19:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 21:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionarian c images

Image:Halo-halo2.jpg, Image:halo-halo1.JPG, Image:Lechonillo.jpg, Image:pbb.jpg, Image:Puto_bombong.jpg, Image:Bibingka.png

All untagged, and likely copyvios in any case, in my opinion. Dmcdevit·t 22:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. All of them are unsourced, so we cannot even presume the under GFDL. I just contacted the uploader and tagged and orphaned the images.--Jusjih 10:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 21:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

UK pronunciation of Wikipedia.ogg

Celestianpower suggested self-made without license statement when uploading. A notice has been sent. Presume GFDL or make a new one at Commons?--Jusjih 11:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Celestianpower is still somewhat active, so I think we can wait a bit for him to come back and tell us. Dmcdevit·t 19:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's Public Domain, along with the hundreds of others of mine on Commons. Delete it if you like and I'll re-upload to commons under an appropriate file name and with an appropriate license template. Or I might re-record - they're not very good recordings if I remember correctly. Thanks. —Celestianpower ^háblame 12:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply here. If you want to make new recordings, I recommend uploading to Commons, but if you want to keep what is here, please tag {{PD-self}} because CommonsHelper tool cannot readily accept untagged image transfer.--Jusjih 11:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as he releases it into the PD (as he did), anyone can tag it, and perhaps linking to that diff would help, if it's not the author taging it, but otherwise, there is no problem. Dmcdevit·t 08:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

UK-Wiktionary.ogg

Same as above.--Jusjih 11:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Tugrik.gif

Anemos uploaded it. A notice has been sent. PD-ineligible?--Jusjih 11:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is PD, these should be SVGs. they're easily redrawn though, so I'll try to find someone to do that. Dmcdevit·t 20:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

cedi.png

Same as above.--Jusjih 11:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Million pool

Unless anyone's going to play?

Seems we're only half as far as I thought we'd be! DAVilla 06:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 04:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted --EncycloPetey 18:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Persian-Farsi

We must have a more standard way of dealing with this type of problem. I particularly don't like having to insert the edit link. DAVilla 22:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I wrapped the edit link in {selfref} so it doesn't appear on mirrors.

Why not have the common section appear on one of the two pages, wrapped with <onlyinclude> tags, and then the other page can simply transclude the first? Robert Ullmann 09:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:fairy tales

As used, this is not a context. DAVilla 23:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, but it does seem to parallel {{mythology}} in its intent. Should it be reworked or removed? --EncycloPetey 01:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I can only think of a couple of terms that are specific to fairy tales other than the maybe three two legitimate ones in the list now (edit: seven-league boots is folklore). I will revise the others and we can see how it looks in a year's time. DAVilla 03:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:entry

Doesn't appear to have any use. Currently a redirect, but had been proposed for another purpose. DAVilla 03:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

delete --Williamsayers79 09:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 05:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:-ism

Wrong approach. --Connel MacKenzie 21:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As with all in Category:Suffix templates. No surprise given the prefix templates above. DAVilla 03:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Oiler (occupation)

Content has been merged with oiler. Wait, I know how to do this. DAVilla 04:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is requesting deletion of the redirect from Transwiki:Oiler (occupation) to oiler, then delete. Otherwise please clarify what you are requesting deletion of. Thryduulf 08:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Obsolete and archaic terms

Is this still current? It seems to have been deprecated by Appendix:Glossary, right? Rod (A. Smith) 04:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This has important discussion that should find its way (at the very least) into the common archives. --Connel MacKenzie 05:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Glossaries

Should this category be deleted or should it be added to the main glossaries (Appendix:Glossary and Wiktionary:Glossary)? Rod (A. Smith) 04:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is primarily a Transwiki placeholder. It should probably have {{dontlinkhere}} or something similar for categories. --Connel MacKenzie 05:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:cite news

Totally incompatible with Wiktionary:Quotations: orphan then delete. --Connel MacKenzie 05:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Would Template:cite newsgroup also come under this heading? Conrad.Irwin 20:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. These also mess up date handling (we don't have entries for individual years, nor specific days of months.) --Connel MacKenzie 17:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:en-noun-reg-y-both

This now unused template was deprecated by {{en-noun}}. Rod (A. Smith) 18:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's not the only straggler. The following noun inflection templates are deprecated, and now unused:

• Template:en-noun-reg
• Template:en-noun-reg-both
• Template:en-noun-reg-es-both
• Template:en-noun-reg-y-both
• Template:en-noun-unc

Rod (A. Smith) 20:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

deleted all but Template:en-noun-reg which still needs to be orphaned. --Williamsayers79 09:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Template:en-noun-reg-y - this needs to go too--Williamsayers79 14:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Footnote templates

moved from WT:RFD --Williamsayers79 09:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If footnotes are not used in Wiktionary, should these footnote templates be deleted? Since these are sets of paired templates they should probably be considered together. Jimp 17:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or mark as deprecated so people don't "import" them from Wikipedia. --Connel MacKenzie 17:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:note

[{{ref}} & {{note}}]

Sometimes articles are transwikied from Wikipedia with these templates (though they are being phased out over there). Should we keep them so as to make the transition smoother or delete them so as to draw attention to the need of clean-up? Of course, there is the problem that an editor unaware of the footnote policy (as I had been till recently) might recreate them to make the transwikied article work properly. Jimp 17:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:note label

[{{ref label}} & {{note label}}]

The same argument as the above applies here. Jimp 17:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Orphan and Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 18:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:note 0

[{{ref 0}} & {{note 0}}]

These are different. I've just made these templates. They don't exist on Wikipedia. They aren't used anywhere. Moments after creating them I was made aware of the rule against footnoting. There being therefore no need for them, why not delete them? Jimp 17:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

September 2007

Category:Spanish:Verbs ending in ar

This should be at Category:Spanish verbs ending in -ar. Dmcdevit·t 10:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

move this and the others below. Thryduulf 11:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, did it myself, if no one minds. Dmcdevit·t 04:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Spanish:Verbs ending in er

As above. This should be at Category:Spanish verbs ending in -er. Dmcdevit·t 10:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Spanish:Verbs ending in ir

As above. This should be at Category:Spanish verbs ending in -ir. Dmcdevit·t 10:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Corpun

A secondary source (of sorts) this shouldn't just be deleted, but everything that links to it as probable copyvios.

Obviously not a widely recognized language site. Obviously not durably archived. Do we have specific criteria for this sort of thing yet?

--Connel MacKenzie 01:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:infl

Where'd this come from? Is this supposed to be periodically orphaned, but kept around for trapping stuff that needs specific templates? --Connel MacKenzie 15:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

KEEP I believe it is to be used for languages that don't have templates, and since no one can be arsed to raise the new templates, for who knows how many languages, this template will still be used. I'm happy to raise templates for other languages but this template is very useful for languages that have only a few articles at the moment.--Williamsayers79 17:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Connel, you said yourself that this was a "excellent" initiative when I created it; see the talk page? Like the first comment? What are you thinking? Robert Ullmann 08:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Not sure what I was thinking. Keep. --Connel MacKenzie 17:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not surprised we all have our moments round here with the amount of templates etc. that we have.--Williamsayers79 20:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep It is used for languages that don't have templates, or don't have a template for a particular POS. If a new language/POS template is introduced, it makes it easier to find the entries in which it should be used (is both easy to match in the wikitext, "infl|xx|pos" and consistently categorizes, so entries will always be in the POS cat). But for most of the (say) 7000+ languages we will be covering, we will never have language-specific templates for every POS. There just isn't any reason to; an endless progression of "Template:xxx-noun"'s that take one argument for the plural is pointless. Robert Ullmann 08:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Aleut expressions

This should be Category:ale:Phrasebook right? --Connel MacKenzie 08:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. The phrseabooks are one area where the category naming convention hasn't been discussed and isn't standardized. I could see either using the ISO code or using the language name for this situation. --EncycloPetey 19:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Category:Aleut phrasebook. —Stephen 17:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

WT:POS says it is (language) phrasebook. (Not xx:Phrasebook) I don't recall any discussion, but that is what it says, and says it is policy ;-) Robert Ullmann 09:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the entries in the cat use the non-standard header "Expression", which probably should be "Phrase" Robert Ullmann 10:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Except that they often are not phrases at all. Phrases contain two or more words and therefore qilachxizax, although an expression, is not a phrase. And while words such as i-gai and nat-loun are often spelt with a hyphen, they are actually just one word and they hyphen is only there to separate phonemes (as in to-day, book-keeping, etc.). Before changing "expression" to something else, you always have to examine the term and its meaning at the very least. —Stephen 11:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha! Thank you, that is good information (don't know how I missed it earlier.) But wouldn't "Phrase" be a better placeholder than "Expression," since, as you say, they are both wrong? At least, for the cases (if there are any) where the part of speech isn't apparent, I'd rather we stick to a normal heading like "Phrase." --Connel MacKenzie 09:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

{{sh colo(u)r}}

Looks like an old experiment. Are we OK to delete this now? It is causing mess along with lots of other weird pages in categories.--Williamsayers79 14:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Might be better to export/import onto http://wiktionarydev.leuksman.com/ first. --Connel MacKenzie 17:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. (After export/import.) --Connel MacKenzie 09:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:WikiSaurus

One of these templates should be deprecated, the other subst'd and orphaned. --Connel MacKenzie 16:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Wikisaurus-header

Capitalization of the template is wrong, too. --Connel MacKenzie 17:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikisaurus:big (giant)

WS:Oversized, perhaps? --Connel MacKenzie 18:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? Keep. DAVilla 22:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

See below. --Connel MacKenzie 20:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikisaurus:small (miniature)

Bad title. --Connel MacKenzie 18:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Move to Wikisaurus:miniature (no use letting that work go to waste). Cheers! bd2412 T 18:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Leave it be. Wikisaurus has had a dismal start, so why challenge creativity? The title says these are synonyms of small in the sense of "miniature". DAVilla 22:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more precise, then, to say that these are synonyms of "miniature"? bd2412 T 23:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No, because miniature has several noun senses. DAVilla 10:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, that's why WS entries (when entered normally) have the sense they are describing, listed at the top. The ridiculous entry title must go, though. No, we don't use 'pedia style "disambiguation." --Connel MacKenzie 18:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

With only about 200 Wikisaurus pages total, in various conditions but mostly ignored, I don't see how you could say we do anything in any particular way. I could understand if the titles initially strike you as odd, but it to say that it's ridiculous is unfounded rhetoric. It is not disambiguation in the same style as Wikipedia because there is only one page named "small". Other synonyms would be covered by Wikisaurus:young (juvenile) or similar. DAVilla 00:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for the love of Pete! User:Connel MacKenzie/thesaurus#23 synonyms. I know nothing about Wikisaurus now? Come on. No, 'pedia style disambig is "no gooder." Don't do it. --Connel MacKenzie 19:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean specifically you couldn't say it, I meant no one could say anything was founded in stone with so few entries. DAVilla 20:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for getting so defensive there. I think the confusion to new/visiting Wikipedians greatly outweighs the benefits of what you did. --Connel MacKenzie 21:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No apology necessary. I wasn't being particularly nice that day. You may be right about the confusion. Please note there are other titles that will be changed over the coming days. I find it difficult to concentrate on a single task if it's tedious. DAVilla 21:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

How about "miniaturized"? That has only one sense, so far as I know. bd2412 T 19:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Except that it's the wrong one. It means that something has been made small. I'm completely open to any other ideas for page names that restrict the meaning to one definition, but a single word isn't gonna cut it for the majority of cases. DAVilla 00:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a fundamental choice that needs to be made:

• Do we want a Wikisaurus page to contain synonyms of only one sense of a word?

This is the same organisation used for topics on Wikipedia and necessitates the use of disambiguation in page titles (for words that have more than one meaning). If we choose this option we need to decide what style of disambiguation to use; the Wikipedia-style parenthetical disambiguation is the most obvious imho. or

• Do we want a Wikisaurus page to contain synonyms of all senses of a word?

This is the same organisation used for mainspace entries on Wiktionary, and means there is no need to disambiguate page titles.

There are no other options - you cannot have single meaning pages without allowing page-title disambiguation. Thryduulf 11:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are conflating a few separate things. Thesaurus headwords as a whole number as much as only some smaller fraction of the number of dictionary entries. Now, while in theory it is possible to have multiple thesaurus entries for a given headword, in practice it is not. The primary sense of a word is the one that merits a thesaurus entry. In this example, the headword should be miniature. The second major (IMHO, larger) misconception is that using the Wikipedia style disambiguation would ever be considered reasonable here. It sets a very bad example...if kept as such it would set a horrible precedent that visiting Wikipedians would follow, in the main namespace. If, somehow, a thesaurus entry was needed for two different senses of a word and the secondary sense(s) couldn't fit elsewhere, then it would only be appropriate to use the main namespace style separation within the single Wikisaurus entry. But I have not yet seen an example where that would be needed. --Connel MacKenzie 19:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, we don't have a Wikisaurus entry for light. I completely agree with Connel, however - if we were to have an entry that covered unrelated senses, we should have those senses as subdivisions of the same page. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

bright: cheerful light sanguine sharp smart sunny

ignite: light start trigger

light: fire lamp spotlight spot sunlight ray glow beam headlight highbeam flashlight

As I said, only the primary sense should have a thesaurus entry. Since light (adj bright, adj not heavy, verb ignite, noun source of illumination) doesn't really have a primary sense, it is more reasonable to list it (or at least parts of it) under other headings that perhaps do. --Connel MacKenzie 20:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. DAVilla 21:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with just declaring that the page is restricted to the primary definition, although we couldn't use the more common words that have two or more prominent definitions. That is, there isn't always a primary sense, just like there's a plurality winner but not always an absolute majority. If we run into any futher bumps then we can deal with them at that time. DAVilla 20:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:test

Experimentally imported from elsewhere a long time ago, but experiment never worked; only use now is misuse by visitors. On en.wiktionary.org, we use {{welcome}} (tongue-in-cheek) instead. --Connel MacKenzie 19:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't mean my comment is tongue-in-cheek, I mean that when {{welcome}} is used as our equivalent of {{warn}}, it is done so, tongue-in-cheek. The end result is that it is possible for a newcomer to react kindly to it, unlike they would if they saw the edit summary "{{subst:warn}}." --Connel MacKenzie 19:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Understood. I actually prefer our system. I have been greeted by {{test}} on Wikipedia as as IP. The first time I just ignored it (I actually don't know much about refs) but the second time I was more confident and reverted the roll-back. It's only offensive the first time. DAVilla 21:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it does seem like we should have something between {{welcome}} and "You have been blocked." I do use this, and I don't think I'm the only one (though I haven't checked); its use is also recommended by Wiktionary:Vandalism#Warning templates. What do you mean that "the experiment never worked"? -- Visviva 12:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I still use this template, mostly for anonymous users who seem to just be experimenting without intending to do any harm. --EncycloPetey 18:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - no offense, but, getting rid of this is an awful idea. This template is one of the most common templates, spanning across many Wikimedia projects, from commons, to meta, to all the Wikipedias. A few bad expieriences here shouldn't mean we get rid of something that has worked everywhere else. If someone is goofing off and placing a test template where there was no subtle vandalism or other n00b test, then that should be handled on its own. Patstuart 18:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:disambig

Pooched Special:Disambiguations. --Connel MacKenzie 21:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have orphaned the single page that so far made use of it, replacing:

{{disambig}}

with

{{wikipedia|dab=Swiss (disambiguation)|Swiss}}

Alternatively I would have used {{sister|disambig}}, but that one hasn't really been finalized, and anyways you don't seem to like it either. DAVilla 23:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. You are correct, I don't "like" the result of {{sister}}. --Connel MacKenzie 21:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Remove. I have been playing with {{sister}} as well, and it still doesn’t look good. H. (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Have to say that I am rather proud that I found a nice way to format sister, thanks to style="clear:both" on the right place. H. (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Third-person singular simple present forms (English)

--Connel MacKenzie 22:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Will probably be deleted, but presently required for proper functioning of {{nth s sim pres of}} currently under discussion, indirectly, at WT:BP#Mood in "form of" templates and WT:BP#"Third-person" vs. "Third person". DAVilla 23:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:English third person singular forms

The category in which English third-person singular forms are autocategorised by {{third-person singular of}} has changed due to recent category naming changes. The stragglers in the is category need to be tidied up and this category then deleted.--Williamsayers79 07:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted - all contents now moved, thanks to all involved!--Williamsayers79 18:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:en-noun-reg-es

Another old template to be orphaned and deleted.--Williamsayers79 08:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted (and orphaned) --EncycloPetey 21:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Ab

And all similar redirects.

A redirect from the old capitalized form to the language template ab for Abkhaz. And a hundred or so others, see report User:Robert Ullmann/Language templates. In each case, you will find a link from that page, and from Wiktionary:Index to templates/languages; I intend to rewrite the latter with the same automation that produced the report (is way out of date in various ways); no point to fixing it manually when it is a SMOC. Robert Ullmann 13:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

delete I'm happy for all of those to go when the work above is complete.--Williamsayers79 08:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

These are not used now, except for the template index page. They can go away now. Robert Ullmann 11:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The only references to these should now be two pages that start with "User:Robert Ullmann/...". I'm working on deleting them, slowly because the whatlinkshere has to be checked carefully in every case: some have been erroneously used in ety sections, e.g. "Lat" instead of "L.". The standard index page has been rewritten, and will be again after the XML dump in a few hours. Robert Ullmann 12:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Prepositional phrases:English

Not sure whether this should be at Category:English prepositional phrases, per usual naming practices, or simply upmerged to Category:Prepositional phrases. Thoughts? I believe there may be an unwritten rule of thumb for these matters, but I have yet to grasp it. -- Visviva 14:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I created this page before I had really got hold of the "conventions" for Wikt naming, so it might possibly be better named. However, as I see it, there are other languages, such as French, and possibly Spanish, which could maybe benefit from having a Prepositional phrases:(language) category. So I assumed the rule would be:- first Category:Prepositional phrases broken into sub categories for each language. Hence Category:Prepositional phrases:English -- Algrif 16:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be Category:English prepositional phrases. --EncycloPetey 16:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy with that. But I wouldn't know how to make the necessary changes. -- Algrif 16:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. Is that because this is a grammatical, rather than a semantic, attribute? I think I'm beginning to perceive the pattern at last, although the reasoning remains, alas, still somewhat opaque to me.  :-) -- Visviva 17:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's because "Prepositional phrase" could theoretically be used as a POS header (though in practice we seem to prefer Adjective or Adverb for these). Most categories with the language name spelled out are POS categories. There are only a few exceptions, like the phrasebooks and appendix categories. Yes, it's a grammatical attribute. --EncycloPetey 17:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Grammar. Contributors sometimes note that grammar refs are something lacking that the Wikt format can so easily adapt to. OK Wikt is primarily a dictionary, but wherever possible I like to add some grammar information which will be useful particularly to L2 users. It is one of the aspects of Wikt that is so interesting and that makes it so much better than a paper page dictionary, (or online analogue). It is making fuller use of the data base. That is why I have created this and other category and appendix pages. -- Algrif 17:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The category naming is simple: if the category is about language (noun, verb, idiom) whether a POS or not, we use the language name, if it is a topic, we use xx:. Stephen uses Russian and mountains as an example: we don't have category "Russian mountains", because they (the mountains) aren't. We use Category:ru:Mountains as a short form of "Russian words relating to or naming mountains". Likewise, idioms in Russian are Russian, so we have Category:Russian idioms. There are things that seriously need fixing though: Category:ru:Slang is wrong, it should be Category:Russian slang; when we get enough consistency in the use of the context template, we can change {{slang}} from "topcat=" to "poscat=" and they will all move. Robert Ullmann 12:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

And then we can fix the cases where Stephen changed the "a" in slang to the Cyrillic "a" to keep it out of ru:Slang, as in this edit]. Robert Ullmann 13:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(Copied from exchange in EP's talk page) Hi. Help please. Do I just "move" Category:Prepositional phrases:English to the new Category? Do I then have to edit all the current entries one by one? Or is there an easier way? -- Algrif 15:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't move a category. Create the new category, (copy the text), and then all of the entries need to be changed. Don't bother doing that manually, someone can automate it. Robert Ullmann 16:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Algrif 16:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving the entries manually, as it also allows me to tidy up some of the rather messy entries while I'm about it. There's only 40 odd. I'm also copying this exchange into the RFDO, and leave EP's personal page in peace !! :-) -- Algrif 12:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Finished up the recat (and did a little tidying). Cheers, -- Visviva 08:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Vandalism in progress/Short-term alerts

This page is empty and is redundant — its functions are performed by Wiktionary:Vandalism in progress. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 14:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:m.pl.

Why is this still here? No, composite gender templates are not desired. No, templates with punctuation in titles are not desired. Orphan and delete {{mpl}}, {{m.pl.}}, {{mp}} and {{m.p.}} --Connel MacKenzie 00:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don’t care about the ones with punctuation, but what’s wrong with {{mpl}}, {{fpl}}, and {{npl}}? I find them very useful and I really don’t see the harm. —Stephen 02:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A relevant issue for {{mpl}} etc. is that it is a three-letter template. We have been reserving three-letter templates for ISO 639-3 codes, but given that ISO 639-6 will use four-letter codes, we probably need to reconsider template names. ISO language codes should probably only be used as suffixes to template names (e.g. {{infl-en-noun}}) and as argument values for positional parameters and for the {{{lang}}} parameter that many templates now support (e.g. {{t|de|Wort}} and {{term|palabra|lang=es}}). Reserving the entire two-letter, three-letter, and four-letter namespace for ISO codes would force cumbersome template and parameter names on us. Rod (A. Smith) 02:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

All of the wikts use the ISO code templates. Is not just us. And it isn't much of the namespace. (We'd feel like we had a lot more if we used capitals and such.) In this case, it should be {{m pl}} anyway. Robert Ullmann 12:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"mpl" is Middle Watut, a language in Papua New Guinea with 1,350 speakers. At some point we'll probably need it  ;-). "fpl" and "npl" are not assigned. "mp" is not a 639-1 assignment, and will therefore never be assigned. (No more 2-letter assignments.) Likewise "mf", but we could use {{m f}}.

The other thing we could do very easily is make {{m|p}}, {{m|f}}, {{m|f|p}} work for (fairly) arbitrary combinations of m, f, c, n, s, and p. (Or not, precisely so we don't get arbitrary combinations ;-) It isn't any easier than the fixed ones with the spaces. Robert Ullmann 12:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea, and could be done with a bot I would have thought. We could then get shot of {{mf}}, {{mpl}}, {{npl}} and {{fpl}} - reserving them for future language code use.--Williamsayers79 14:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, why didn't I think of that? Yes, the pipe syntax seems perfect, for these. --Connel MacKenzie 21:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've set up {{mxx}} and a few others as a demonstration.

1. Template:pxx
2. m/f Template:mxx
3. Template:mxx
4. sg/pl Template:sxx
5. Template:mxx

If this is acceptable, could someone add css classes "gender" and "gender-or"? The behavior of the latter may depend on whether it's wrapped inside the first, e.g. it is not in the last example. DAVilla 15:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Must you instantly and always make things so complicated? (Whenever you have a neat idea, wait at least a few days? If it was a good idea, it will still be a good idea, eh?) You've got failure cases and cases not handled. Template:mxx How do you alternate say m or f pl? m/f pl isn't right ... And m/f is usually written m and f so it will change presentation, if you simply change the "/" to " and " then the combination with " or " doesn't work so well. Try writing a function spec before starting to hack code?

My suggestion was just that the simple cases without the "or" should work. But a bit more complicated is possible. But you have to design it. Robert Ullmann 16:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Robert: DAVilla, that creation of {{mxx}} is not only wrong, but unwarranted. It obviously has nothing at all, to do with the proposal. It also has no justification for stomping on a three-letter code. It also makes no sense. Haven't we all collectively learned anything over the years? --Connel MacKenzie 07:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The "mxx" name was undoubtedly intended as a temporary demonstration. Robert Ullmann 11:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to wait a few day just to make suggestions now?

I've substituted the slash for "or", although I'm worried that in a few cases it will be ambiguous. If mine was wrong to require m sg/pl or f pl, at least it was not ambiguous. DAVilla 19:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This is about making some simple cases work so we can replace the unwanted templates, These are what are used now:

• {{m|f}}:
• {{m|p}}:
• {{n|p}}: Template:n
• {{f|p}}: Template:f
• {{m|n}}:

Done. Very simple. A number of others work fine as well. If we need more generality, it is not hard to add. In the meantime, we can retire all of the variant templates presently observed. Robert Ullmann 23:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

While we're at it, are we going to set up {{d}} for dual? --EncycloPetey 01:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. We certainly don't need it to point to {{delete}}. But it isn't that common, and we need trial and paucal as well, so maybe the full names (they are certainly not obvious abbreviations!):

• {{f|dual}}: Template:f
• {{trial}}: Template:trial
• {{m|paucal}}:
• {{m|f|paucal}}:

Good? Robert Ullmann 00:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Why should this minor improvement be used as a method of extending something that shouldn't be extended? Calling {{dual}} a gender seems (offhand) to be wrong. Without it linking to Wiktionary:Glossary (does it meet our criteria for being included there? Do we have criteria spelled out, for what belongs there?) it is even more misleading. I've got a bad feeling about these three. For as long as I can remember, the genders were the only thing allowed to be abbreviated on en.wikt, as they are painfully obvious...but these three obviously are not obvious. Even spelled out, they are unclear. --Connel MacKenzie 07:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Gender and number. "m" is gender, "p" is number. This discussion is about both. These don't get abbreviated of course; du, tr and pau would be fine in an academic text, not here. dual is certainly a number, as are trial and paucal. Arabic has the dual case, and it, Hopi, and Warlpiri (for example) exhibit the paucal case. Tok Pisin has dual and trial case, Slovene trial, and so on. And we don't have to go that far afield, consider Polish:

• dom house (1 house)
• domy houses (2-4 houses, or any number >21 ending in 2-4!)
• domów houses (0, or 5-21, or more ending in 0-1 or 5-9)

(just wanting to show a really interesting example in a very common language ;-) Robert Ullmann 11:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Let’s not forget the extremely rare quadral number, present, most notably, in the personal pronouns of the Sursurunga language of Papua New Guinea (first person exclusive quadral gimhat, first person inclusive quadral githat, second person quadral gamhat, third person quadral dihat), but also found in Marina from Vanuatu and Gao from the Solomon Islands. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 12:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. However the literature suggests this should be a paucal or greater paucal number, as no one has been able to establish that the usage (e.g. in Sursurunga) is exactly four. The term has been used essentially by two researchers:

• Bender, Byron W. 1969. Spoken Marshallese: an Intensive Language Course with Grammatical Notes and Glossary. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
• Hutchisson, Don. 1986. Sursurunga pronouns and the special uses of quadral number. In: Ursula Wiesemann (ed.) Pronominal Systems (Continuum 5), 217-55.

There is apparently no independent attestation of the use. Very interesting though. Robert Ullmann 13:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• It is moronic, then, to suggest that we use as "standard terminology" terms that no one has heard of before. And you're suggesting that fits in the TINY category of "acceptable abbreviations"? I have seen questions regarding terminology for each of these concepts posted in the "Beer Parlour" and/or the "Tea Room", that went unanswered. Sorry, but I find these new proposals more than a little psychotic. Instead, let's try something more reasonable:
  1. {{dual}} #redirect Template:plural, two objects only as a pair
  2. {{trial}} #redirect Template:plural, in Amerindian languages, three objects only
  3. {{paucal}} #redirect Template:plural, in Amerindian languages, an indeterminant amount of objects from three to ten
• It is more than slightly insulting to not have such terms wikilinked and fully expanded, when none of the resident "experts" know the terms (neither offhand, nor after a significant amount of time passed to research these.)
• Most importantly, though, is the outright blasphemy of suggesting these are "common" abbreviations that simply every English speaker will recognize out of hand (as male and female are.) The simple fact that en.wiktionary means "masculine" and "feminine" instead, suggests that even those should never be abbreviated (wiki is not paper, blah, blah, blah.) The fact that confusion surrounds "p" vs. "pl" vs. "plural" or "s" vs. "sg" vs. "single" vs. "singular" also suggests the abbreviations should be prohibited. The default display of each of these should be the full form, with WT:CUSTOM mechanisms for replacing personally preferred abbreviations for such things. Even then, it is dubious that an assertion can be made that those are even recognized terminology within such languages, with such perfectly accurate inaccurate meanings, let alone acceptable English representations of such. In English terminology, these are all called "plural forms." For that last reason, even my suggested technical work-around isn't acceptable.
• To suggest that these abbreviations are automatically recognized by all English speakers, is so far beyond absurd, it is insane. The choice of conflating them into a discussion of "male/female" is beyond reprehensible. The saving grace, perhaps, is that it makes painfully clear, that our choice of abbreviating "common" and "neuter" are in need of immediate correction.
• --Connel MacKenzie 14:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

(not sure why I am responding to this, but:) "No one has heard of"? You mean you haven't heard of. "none of the resident experts"? EncycloPetey, Doremítzwr and I knew dual and trial "offhand"; at least Doremítzwr and I knew paucal and quadral without looking them up (and then easily found the references we were familiar with a priori). As to wikilinking them: this is a dictionary, and they are defined. Being offended because we didn't link the terms in the discussion is absurd. As to the templates, note that they aren't "Amerindian" (where did you get that? Only one of the language examples was), and your definitions are incorrect. I don't get why you are going on about abbreviations; these terms aren't abbreviated. Finally, referring to things as "moronic", "more than a little psychotic", and "more than slightly insulting" reduces the credibility of your comments to zero. Robert Ullmann 15:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You've been here a long time - I'm sure you remember the discussions about "Wiktionary is not paper" and the need to never abbreviate anything except gender (because those are so very widely known.) The fact that common and neuter are not widely understood (nor the difference between them, demonstrated by their almost constant misuse) only makes it clear that even that guideline for abbreviated forms was a bad assumption. Likewise, associating the tersely-expanded items with the abbreviated forms (wrapped in the same CSS class as the genders, even,) naturally leads these to be abbreviated further. (Yes, I worded those examples above based on the example(s) given. And by "try" I meant to demonstrate one type of example expansion for them. The point wasn't to say "Amerindian" but whatever non-English language-group apply, and to demonstrate a sane way of wiki-linking them to the Appendix/Glossary.)

Extending the notion of abbreviating additional terms (apparently limited only by creativity) I maintain, is absurd. Just as Wikipedia strives to summarize highly-technical topics to the layman, a dictionary (moreso) aims to give simple, readable, coherent explanations in a concise manner. By "terms no one has heard of" I mean the requests asking for these specific linguistic terms, that went unanswered. (As I recall, those lingered on WT:TR for weeks and were still unanswered the last time I checked.) Are you suggesting these fanciful pieces of jargon are widely known to native English speakers? They are specialized terminology, of specific interest to an astronomically small subset of our editors (and how tiny a subset of our readers?) I don't understand your opposition to wiki-linking those terms to the Appendix. (I'm talking about linking within those templates themselves, not within the discussion! You provided templates that dead-end with no explanation.) --Connel MacKenzie 08:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

At this point I would mention nullar, but I won't, because Connel's head will explode. And I like Connel. (And let's just forget about singulative entirely, okay everyone? ;-) Robert Ullmann 15:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that would make for impressive video footage. --Connel MacKenzie 08:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, we will note that there are no dual and trial forms in English. (Just thought I'd put my tuppence in. A penny for your thoughts as well, and we'll have thruppence! Hooray!) Robert Ullmann 15:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, so this entire proposal is just a three-dollar bill? --Connel MacKenzie 08:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the dual number of nouns occurs in Ancient Greek, as well as in modern Polish and Arabic. It probably occurs in other related languages as well, but those are the three I know about. It therefore has significant regular use in three major world languages. If we are going to be a Wiktionary that includes all words in all languages, we can't leave out important grammatic information just because it doesn't occur in English or French. --EncycloPetey 15:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

JUST WHERE DID I SAY IT SHOULD BE LEFT OUT? I DID NOT!

The "discussion" here is about incorrectly commingling context tags into abbreviated gender and count templates. That is, of course, wrong. Now that dual, trial, etc. have been mentioned, yes, those tags are too obscure. The target audience is the English reader. Using pointedly obscure terminology without explanation is not good. That does nothing to simplify the explanation of a term (except, perhaps, to mislead readers.) I maintain that {{dual}} should redirect to {{plural, two items as a pair}} and the others to whatever the correct expansion for them, is.

The abbreviated general gender & count templates should not be commingled with technical jargon. The mechanism for dealing with that specialized jargon exists via {{context}}.

French?

--Connel MacKenzie 20:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you be OK with {{dual}}, {{trial}}, {{quadral}}, {{paucal}}, {{nullar}}, and {{singulative}} all linking to an explanation of the terms in the glossary? Or is there some other objection you have that I’m not picking up? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Status: all of these variant templates have been deprecated, and cleaned up by AutoFormat; if they are used they will automatically be replaced. After some time of non-use, they can be deleted entirely. (some people are used to "mpl", many are used to "mf" rather than {{mf}}) Robert Ullmann 14:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Proper adjectives

Sorry if this has been discussed before somewhere, (didn't find it) but, this should not be here. --Connel MacKenzie 21:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct. This category is pointless. It is simply "Capitalized adjectives" or "Adjectives from proper nouns". Those will sort to the beginning of Category:English adjectives anyway. --EncycloPetey 01:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete after orphaning it first.--Jusjih 02:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Emptied and deleted --EncycloPetey 23:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Language-specific script templates

Template:KSchar

Probably good that this isn't used, would take some sorting. It might be Persian Arabic (would be ks-Arab) or Devanagari (Deva). Ask Hippietrail, who created it originally? Robert Ullmann 15:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:KUchar

This is for Arabic script, but has a different set of font choices. Should find someone who knows why. (Usually it is just widely differing knowledge of fonts ;-) Is there a reason to have differing presentation for Arabic script? (see elephant for an example) Robert Ullmann 15:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

When I had gone through the script templates by language, I remember having read that some of the ones with Arabic script were written in a slighly different style. We may have to accommodate this with {{Arab*}} or the like.

Also, could we address the issue of language separately, such as "ja" currently used in {{Jpan}}? DAVilla 15:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If the language has a difference, we should be using for example {{ku-Arab}}, this both fits our naming and matches the HTML/XHTML standard subtag name. Robert Ullmann 16:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that this was developed specifically for Kurdish. I do not know enought about the use of the Arabic script for that language to know whether it merits an independent template. --EncycloPetey 23:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, {{KUchar}} is for Kurdish. Kurdish uses a modified Arabic script that includes some letters not found in most ordinary Arabic fonts. There is also {{PSchar}} for Pashto, {{URchar}} for Urdu, {{FAchar}} for Persian, and {{KSchar}} for Kashmiri. Additionally there needs to be {{UGchar}} for Uyghur, but so far there are not enough of Uyghur entries to worry about. —Stephen 10:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:SDchar

Which is the correct substitution to make for each, or does it depend on what's being wrapped? Only the first has no entries. DAVilla 14:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sindhi is either Arab or Deva; the cases I've looked at are all Arabic script, but that doesn't mean they all are. Robert Ullmann 15:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

{{SDchar}} is for Sindhi. Sindhi uses a modified Arabic script. —Stephen 10:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:EtymOnLine

A redirect to {{R:Online Etymology Dictionary}} that needs to be orphaned.--Williamsayers79 12:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Websters

Another redirect to be orphaned as this was badly named template that refered to a particulart edition of Webster's. Needs to be orphaned and then deleted.--Williamsayers79 12:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

gender/grammar templates

The following gender templates to be replaced:

• {{fpl}} with {{f|p}}
• {{mpl}} with {{m|p}}
• {{npl}} with {{n|p}}
• {{cpl}} with {{c|p}}

Also the templates: {{n.pl}}, {{m.pl}}, {{f.pl}}

Can we get a bot to do this as it could become very tedious in the extreme!--Williamsayers79 12:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is done, along with a dozen other variations. Robert Ullmann 13:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:adv

Another three letter template being used for something other than a language template. This time it displats the text adverb. Will need to be replaced and migrated. --Williamsayers79 13:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted. It appeared in six Russian inflection lines and one Portuguese index page. It did not have wide usage, --EncycloPetey 13:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:en-adj-both-y

An old template that has been deprecated by {{en-adj}}, needs to be orphaned and deleted.--Williamsayers79 13:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There were only three uses. The template is now deprecated and orphaned. --EncycloPetey 13:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 19:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:en-ad2

Another template deprecated by {{en-adj}}, to be orphaned and deleted.--Williamsayers79 13:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

deleted - all articles affected were tidied up.--Williamsayers79 18:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:en-adj-er

Another template deprecated by {{en-adj}}, to be orphaned and deleted.--Williamsayers79 13:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted; all uses replaced. --EncycloPetey 17:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Jastrow

Appears to be a test of some kind. Is it still needed --Williamsayers79 14:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It's used with subst. (Although, to be honest, it hasn't been used in a while, it can be used at anytime. In theory, I'm planning to pick up again on adding Jastrow entries, but I don't know when. Or whether.) See Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:R:Jastrow 1903.—msh210℠ 19:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:French declension templates and Category:French conjugation and declension templates

These categories might snugly fit in the existing category tree, but they are blatantly misleading: there is no such thing as "declension" in French, only inflection. Not to mention {{fr-decl-adj}} is basically a fork of {{fr-infl-adj}}. Circeus 16:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:irregverb

Old template for irregular English verbs, needs to be orphaned and then deleted.--Williamsayers79 20:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted - (and orphaned) --EncycloPetey 18:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:day8

Delete Template:day8 et al. Seems like a failed experiment. All these pages should be shot too --Crowdpleaser 11:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted all. --EncycloPetey 17:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:jbo:Cmavo

This category should be migrated to Category:Lojban particles. Rod (A. Smith) 18:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:wp

Is there any real need for this? - it is orphaned at the moment --Williamsayers79 19:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted --EncycloPetey 17:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Ptarmic

Delete because Wiktionary already has ptarmic (lower case) Goldenrowley 03:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, thanks. -- Visviva 06:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Crud (slang)‎

(1)sounds like copyright vio. (2) duplicate of crudGoldenrowley 03:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Indecisiveness

Duplicate of "indecisiveness". Goldenrowley 03:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. I think you could use {{delete}} for these. -- Visviva 04:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

OKay. Thanks for the tip. I wouldn't want to overburden this board.Goldenrowley 21:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:en-infl-reg-consonant

Another old template to be orphaned and deleted.--Williamsayers79 08:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted (and orphaned) --EncycloPetey 01:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:top

I made this edit under the assumption that we are in the process of deprecating {{top}}. I don't see a notice in the template's documentation, though. Are we still considering keeping that template? If so, feel free to revert my edit. Rod (A. Smith) 04:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume we're deprecating it too. However, I assume we'll want to keep some sort of redirect for it once it's deprecated. --EncycloPetey 04:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's good. It will take a while though; we want to add the sense gloss when converting top->trans-top, and there are about 12,000 of them. fixed type Robert Ullmann 15:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:trans-all-ori

... and {{trans-all}} and {{trans-allsect}}. They require substitution, so editors using them must perform a two step save. MediaWiki:Edittools already lets editors click to insert {{trans-top}} et al. To save mouse clicks, we could make MediaWiki:Edittools add all three trans- templates in a single click and perhaps add a "Headers" block to the edittools. Rod (A. Smith) 18:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to require a two-step save; could take two unnamed arguments for the first and second columns. Don't see the need for more than one such template, though. -- Visviva 01:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep {{trans-all}} and erase the deletion tag. It doesn´t have to require a two-step save. If you want, you can improve the documentation to say how. But delete is an error. And include the trans-all template in the Edittols--Mac 14:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Template:en-infl-irreg

An older template now superseded by {{en-verb}} - needs to be orphaned and the deleted.--Williamsayers79 19:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

deleted - all entries now using {{en-verb}} --Williamsayers79 22:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:en-noun-reg-y

An older template now superseded by {{en-noun}} - needs to be orphaned and the deleted.--Williamsayers79 19:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• All clear. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 19:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:en-noun-irreg

An older template now superseded by {{en-noun}} - needs to be orphaned and the deleted.--Williamsayers79 19:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted (once orphaned) - EncycloPetey 22:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:en-noun-reg

An older template now superseded by {{en-noun}} - needs to be orphaned and the deleted.--Williamsayers79 19:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

All links from entries have been dealt with; there are still about 16 links from various talk pages that will need to be somehow plugged. --EncycloPetey 17:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yuck. I guess the WT:BPA references should be changed to plain text, perhaps annotated with "now replaced by {{en-noun}}" or something? --Connel MacKenzie 16:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:en-verb-e

An older template now superseded by {{en-verb}} - needs to be orphaned and the deleted.--Williamsayers79 19:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

deleted - all entries now using {{en-verb}} --Williamsayers79 19:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Identity creation

delete, not a notable phrase for a dictionary. Goldenrowley 23:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:vulgar slang

[ Template:vulgarslang ]

Obvious error from the start; lack of immediate deletion has left it to be used erroneously. --Connel MacKenzie 20:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Note the above conversation. Not resolved without consensus: side issue of 'vulgar' tag was open, but the combined vulgarslang was an error to begin with, as was vulgar slang. --Connel MacKenzie 20:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Template:vulgar, since all Category:Vulgarities is in Category:Slang. -- Visviva 04:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. If we stick with "vulgar" as a label, there's no need to say "slang". Or if we want to also say "slang", we should do it on all pages marked vulgar, no? DAVilla 16:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The initial reason given for deletion was that it should be done in other ways. It's been resolved that we have the ability to add both "vulgar" and "slang" in this way. The question raised now is if that's the correct thing to do. DAVilla 16:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

See also Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/October 06#Vulgar slang. DAVilla 16:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:-ful

Another errant template. --Connel MacKenzie 00:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I missed the memo. What is the problem with Category:Suffix templates? They do a lot to simplify the writing of simple etymology sections; and while potential naming conflicts are a legitimate issue with the prefix templates, they don't seem to be an issue here. -- Visviva 04:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have marked the category as deprecated. I could see keeping them if they do something useful. Linking to specific definitions like {{-en3}} is the entirely wrong approach though! lighten (1) = light (of low weight) + -en (to make thus); (2) = light (low significance) + -en (to make thus); etc.

Otherwise {{suffix|=subst:}} should suffice. DAVilla 14:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with deprecation. These templates -- every last one of them -- do something useful; they allow for the efficient entry and maintenance of information without forcing the user/editor to deal with pointless formatting nitpicks and tiresome, highly complex one-size-fits-all templates like {{term}} and {{en-term}}.

Efficient entry: If I type {{-ful|beauty}}, I have a complete (if rudimentary) etymology section, with no need to try to figure out the conventions (period or no period? {{term}} or {{en-term}} or simple wikitext? etc.?). Entering information is important; leaving individual editors to work out layout is a recipe for disaster. Wherever possible, it makes sense to have formatting handled separately from data entry. For example, should these simple etymologies end with a period or not? That question should be addressed either at the template level, or at the browser level (through a CSS class added at the template level).

Efficient maintenance: Given the eagerness with which people turn things upside-down here, it is entirely possible that next year we will decide to replace {{en-term}} with something completely incompatible. Using wrapper templates allows us to change 40 or 50 templates instead of 4000 or 5000 entries. Less load on the database server, less load on editors. Furthermore, unless Special:Suffixindex comes along soon, it would be nice to have automated categories for each suffix, i.e. Category:English words ending in -ful. If we have a wrapper template for each suffix, these can be added efficiently with a single edit. If we systematically get rid of all such templates, this requires the manual or automated addition of the category to every entry. More load on the database, more load on editors -- and botting the task just means that other bottable tasks will be neglected. -- Visviva 15:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If it does anything useful, then yes, keep it. But right now {{suffix|beauty|ful|=subst:}} accomplishes the exact same thing. It's not the efficiency that's in question, rather the difficulty of maintaining so many templates if intended to be clones of each other, when there is a simpler way. If you want to add a category, why not [[Category:English words ending in -{{{2}}}]]?

Per your comments on my talk page, see #Template:de- above, for which no action had been taken. DAVilla 15:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I may have acted rashly, but there are only two specific suffix templates still in use (the rest were speedy deleted). I have kept {{-er}} and {{-or}} as they contained more information that {{suffix}}. As such, both {{-ful}} and {{-ism}} may now be deleted as they are unused. Conrad.Irwin 23:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does Template:-er use #Etymology 1? Does only English use -er as an ending? Are we certain the page isn't going to be re-arranged? To me, it looks like a good way to spread a bad decision onto dozens of pages. DAVilla 23:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If the page is rearranged, then the template can be updated and simultaneously fix all of the entries that use it. That seems like a non-issue to me. Mike Dillon 00:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh great, now I see someone built this into {{suffix}} more generally. Ugh! DAVilla 00:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've created {{affixid}} to try to solve this problem, as now implemented in the dictionary entry -er. The respective {{-er}} template seems a little complex, but it works (see richer#Etymology) and this might lead to a more elegant solution. DAVilla 05:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:etymon

Hardly used, and likely to be superseded by {{term}}. Circeus 03:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphan and delete. Rod (A. Smith) 04:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't think it has many inclusions to its name, I reckon that {{term}}, {{proto}} and the templates listed on Wiktionary:Etymology/language templates suffice and work well together.--Williamsayers79 08:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"based on the possibility that the etymon template will accept an ISO language code"

I was under the impression this isn't possible. DAVilla 14:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned and ready for deletionCirceus 05:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:quote

Not the right format, anyway. Not used. --Connel MacKenzie 15:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never felt this was something a template would be useful for. If it were in some cases, it would have to be adapted to the kind of source, e.g. {{book}}, and best substituted. Delete. DAVilla 15:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

deleted --EncycloPetey 20:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:new en advanced

Does anyone still use this? I hope not, because the format is more than a year out of date. --EncycloPetey 18:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's no longer linked from MediaWiki:Noexactmatch. DAVilla 14:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Jesus, someone decided to make it as long as frickin possible. How does that help anything? DAVilla 14:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess the working philosophy was to put as much as possible into the template, so that the page could be created by selective deletion rather than selective addition. It certainly is overkill, though (and thoroughly out-of-date). --EncycloPetey 23:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

delete I certainly have no use for it and I suspect that contributors who consider themselves experinces wiki-folk will not find it useful either. I only confuses nwebies - it certainly flumaxed me when I first started on en.wikt --Williamsayers79 12:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 12:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Games

Not the category itself, but the items listed on the category page (not the category members.) Some have crept in unnoticed and should be speedy deleted, one or two may need actual RFD's. Seems to be a bad faith category creation, to assist re-entry of bogus terms. Useful now, for identifying them (reentered after having failed RFD/RFV.) --Connel MacKenzie 00:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I would delete the contents of Category:Games as I don't think it's useful. A lot of the words there do deserve entries, the non-idiomatic ones like "video game musician" aside. However, if they are to be listed then they can simply be categorized. DAVilla 14:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Auch (name)

this is a family name. Non-dictionary. Goldenrowley 05:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

We list family names -- Smith, 山本, etc. WT:CFI#Given names and family names Cynewulf 06:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

See also: Appendix:Names. --Connel MacKenzie 15:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

OKay cancel request to delete. Goldenrowley 19:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Wiktionary Logo

Not an active conversation/project, and it doesn't seem to needs its own project page. Rod (A. Smith) 19:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Just archive it somewhere, I guess. DAVilla 14:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely archive rather than delete. We still get questions about the logo, so there ought to be a place to log the discussion. --EncycloPetey 23:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Wikisaurus-link

Deprecated; should be changed to normal "===See also===" linking style. --Connel MacKenzie 15:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I would rather see this template continue. What makes it deprecated? --EncycloPetey 04:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why this was proposed. Links to different Wiki projects need to be identified as such. "See also" sections usually only contain links within the same wiki. -- 77.100.119.107 22:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Because this is not a different Wikiproject. It is an internal project within Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey 02:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Slovenian nouns lacking gender

Empty category that just redirects to the standard Category:Slovene nouns lacking gender, anyway. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 03:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 12:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:ro-nounform

Obsolete; replaced by {{ro-noun-def}} — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 03:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted --EncycloPetey 04:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:RP

Inclusions of this template should be replaced with {{a|RP}} per other accent templates. This standardises the format of all accent/pronunciation labels in pronunciation sections of artciles.--Williamsayers79 11:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not just replace the current content of this template with {{a|RP}}? -- Visviva 13:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That would an interim fix I belive but it will still need to be deprecated at some point.--Williamsayers79 14:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:style yi

Imported template, wrong name, should use {{Hebr}} Robert Ullmann 12:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted --EncycloPetey 12:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:style IPA

Imported template, wrong name, we have {{IPAchar}} Robert Ullmann 12:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted --EncycloPetey 12:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:OSL.

{{OSL.}} has been superseded by {{PS.}}, for reasons outlined here.

Also, these empty categories require deletion (in favour of <xx:>Proto-Slavic derivations autogenerated by {{PS.}}).

• Category:Old Slavonic derivations
• Category:bs:Old Slavonic derivations
• Category:hr:Old Slavonic derivations
• Category:ro:Old Slavonic derivations
• Category:sk:Old Slavonic derivations
• Category:sl:Old Slavonic derivations
• Category:sq:Old Slavonic derivations
• Category:sr:Old Slavonic derivations
• Category:Old Slavonic language

--Ivan Štambuk 16:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

all deleted --Williamsayers79 08:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Boadway paradox

neologism. eponoym for author of the only reference. Goldenrowley 05:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Goldenrowley 06:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Latin nouns

One of the pages messing up Category:Etymology. We need to decide if we're keeping it then finaly where it goes]].--Williamsayers79 09:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In what way is this "messing up" the category? --EncycloPetey 14:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, it needs a good tidy up, and a rename to Appendix? --Williamsayers79 15:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, then it should be listed under WT:RFC, not as an item to be deleted. --EncycloPetey 17:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This one is actually what should be called "List of Latin words with English derivative" the other is useless and should be speedy deleted so this one can at least have an accurate name. Circeus 22:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Appendix:Latin nouns with English derivatives and given a basic cleanup. Removed the rfd template. Circeus 05:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:List of Latin words with English derivatives

If were keeping this it needs to be tidied up and moved to the Appendix name space.--Williamsayers79 09:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete so Transwiki:Latin nouns can be moved to this name. I can't see any use to it otherwise. Circeus 22:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. I don't see any value in keeping it either. --EncycloPetey 23:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:List of Germanic and Latinate equivalents

If were keeping this it needs to be tidied up and moved to the Appendix name space. --Williamsayers79 09:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to do the tidying up, but I have no idea what style is expected here. If you can point me to something I can base the new version on, I'll be happy to make sure this one does not go (we have category equivalent with the other two.) Circeus 22:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:List of Greek words with English derivatives

If were keeping this it needs to be tidied up and moved to the Appendix name space.--Williamsayers79 09:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

anbaric

Word is from a fictional work not representing a word in English. RJFJR 02:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Appears to have caught on in this fictional genre. Google books also gives results from Marco Palmieri and Kurt Bruner/Jim Ware. DAVilla 19:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Passed. I'll tidy format and move to anbaric. Goldenrowley 05:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:R:Dictionary.com

Can anyone explain why it would be in our interest to have this? DAVilla 19:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it very much either, I use other sources instead. It could also imply copyvio I have found.--Williamsayers79 22:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Including the template on a page pretty clearly implies the opposite; that we are confident enough in our definitions that we can even (occasionally - where relevant) offer comparisons to other references. --Connel MacKenzie 03:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Dictionary.com is the enemy. They make money off of merely giving people definitions for words, something that we are struggling mightily to give away for free. bd2412 T 01:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I avoid them except to check for copyvios. I've many times found serious errors, so I don't consider citing them ever as an "authority". --EncycloPetey 01:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This really only has any worth in making it easier to include Dictionary.com in Dictionary notes sections (I don’t think that the style would be very suitable for a reference). Even if Dictionary.com is unreliable, it is, unfortunately for us, still popularly relied upon nonetheless. The best way that we can end their on-line lexicographical reign is by showing very clearly that we both transcend and include their content. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That’s a vote to keep this template, in case that wasn’t clear. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Common Oceanian derivations

This category has been replaced by Category:Proto-Oceanic derivations in line with what appears to be the more commonly used term (Proto-Oceanic). Just waiting for the job queue to clear then we can delete this category and all its sub-categories if empty.--Williamsayers79 22:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• deleted --Williamsayers79 13:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:A-bomb/Translations

Apparently modeled after color/colour, this incorrectly assumes that synonyms have identical translations (which, in this case, they cannot.) --Connel MacKenzie 16:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Support deletion, reasonably pointless. Conrad.Irwin 22:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Also Template:time flies/Translations, Template:aurora borealis/Translations, Template:aurora australis/Translations, and Template:breastbone/Translations. I just killed Template:monolingual/Translations. DAVilla 06:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Furmished

No evidence this is a word (checked google, few occurrences, most misspellings rest made up). RJFJR 23:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Is this a common misspelling of furnish? DAVilla 03:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a typo not a misspelling (it occurs becasue M is next to N on the keyboard and people fat fingered it, they didn't mean to spell it that way). So I'd say No. RJFJR 13:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing useful. Definition not backed up by references provided for unfurnished. Delete. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 12:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Pindle

Transwiki:Pindle "Pindle is the triangular end of a slice of pie or cake." Google search does not produce pie, only misspellings of spindle. Goldenrowley 18:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Investigated. Delete. DAVilla 04:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 12:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:FTCL

An initialism for 'Fellow of the Trinity College, London"/ Attestation issues. Goldenrowley 19:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have been in use in publications of music in identifying people with diplomas. DAVilla 03:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Promotional, re-deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 12:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

Category:Fijian Hindi words derived from English

Wrong language name. w:Fiji Hindi. --Connel MacKenzie 12:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a correct language name. see Ethnologue --EncycloPetey 13:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This is also the wrong naming convention for etymology categories it should be Category:hif:English derivations.--Williamsayers79 16:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted; contents moved to Category:hif:English derivations. --EncycloPetey 16:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Fijian Hindi nouns

--Connel MacKenzie 12:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a correct language name. see Ethnologue. Our uses usually, but don't always, match what Wikimedia chooses. For instance, we use Old English while Mikimedia uses the less enlightening term Anglo-Saxon. --EncycloPetey 13:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No! Whether one calls it Fijian Hindi, Fiji Hindi or Fijian Hindustani, it is the same language. People from outside Fiji generally refer to anything from Fiji as Fijian but locally the word Fijian is reserved for native Fijians ( see The Name debate). For example, when not in Fiji we talk about the "Fijian Currency", the "Fijian Passport" etc but within Fiji these are always referred to as "Fiji Currency", "Fiji Passport" etc. The point here is that, I as a native speaker of the language (call it whatever you like)am trying to contribute to Witionary and make available to the people of the world details of the unique language of people of Indian origin living in Fiji. Please tell me what you would like to call this language, instead of just deleting it. Girmitya 04:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we remove the category. The question is what name to use. --EncycloPetey 21:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Native speakers of the language call it Fiji Hindi, but as has been pointed out ISO 639-3 code for this language: hif , calls it Fijian Hindustani and gives the alterantive name as Fijian Hindi, see Ethnologue, but it is the same language. If we want to use the ISO code as the basis of naming languages, then let us call it Fijian Hindi. Girmitya 02:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Concur, our hif template is Template:hif, is a perfectly reasonable name; as observed an ISO/SIL form. Struck. Robert Ullmann 10:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Girmitya: note that if you think we should use "Fiji Hindi", that is perfectly reasonable, we can change it. Given that the ISO/SIL form is "Fijian Hindi" (or Hindustani) and that people in Fiji speaking English call it "Fiji Hindi" that would IMNSHO be fine. Add a note to my talk page about this if you like. (I have code to rename a language in various places ;-) Robert Ullmann 10:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Cluetonic

Not in dictionaries. 2 hits on Google totalGoldenrowley 06:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• deleted --Williamsayers79 18:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Mandrolic

By article's own admission, few use the word. Only use I find is on bulletin boards, none in a published place. Goldenrowley 05:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This word has been regularly deleted here for a long time now. --EncycloPetey 19:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Menstriversary

Not in any dictionaries or using google. The search for its supposed root Latin word is even grimmer. Goldenrowley 05:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• deleted people who make these words up need to get a life! --Williamsayers79 18:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Appendix:IPA chart for English

This is an exact copy of a Wikipedia article. Any usefulness this article has for Wiktionary is already covered by Wiktionary:English pronunciation key, making this Appendix redundant. Angr 18:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

We should have an appendix for English pronunciation (i.e. a resource for readers), not just a Wiktionary project page (i.e. a resource for just contributors). Should Wiktionary:English pronunciation key be merged into Appendix:IPA chart for English? Rod (A. Smith) 19:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but there should be a simple stripped-down chart in the Wiktionary name space for editors who just need to quickly look up some standard. I use the Wiktionary:English pronunciation key from time to time when I can't remember what SAMPA does for some particular IPA equivalent. I don't want to have to look through a comprehensive Appendix for that information; I just need a short reference table. That's how I see the different functions of the two pages. The Appendix should assist users who may need little or much assistance interpreting English pronunciation, while the Wiktionary page should be a quick minimal reference for editors. --EncycloPetey 23:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, this so-called "appendix" is an encyclopedia article. Those don't belong on Wiktionary in any namespace. Angr 21:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand, Angr. Everything in Appendix:IPA chart for English seems inappropriate for a dictionary appendix. Is there a particular part of it that doesn't seem relevant to lexicology? Rod (A. Smith) 22:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Basically, I disagree that Wiktionary should have an appendix on IPA that is more detailed than the existing Wiktionary:English pronunciation key. Readers who want more detailed information can go to Wikipedia for it, and find this exact page as a Wikipedia article at IPA chart for English. In general, Wikimedia projects do not duplicate each other's content. Wikipedia doesn't host source material, Wikisource doesn't host dictionary definitions, and Wiktionary doesn't host encyclopedia articles (which is what this is), not even in Appendix: space. If, on the other hand, the IPA chart for English is considered an appropriate appendix for Wiktionary, then it must be deleted from Wikipedia, by the same token. And I am definitely opposed to its deletion from Wikipedia. Angr 14:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. I suppose next you'll say that a Wikipedia article mustn't begin with a definition of its topic? Or that a Wiktionary entry mustn't include notable quotes that include a term? There will always be some overlap between the various projects, and it's nonsense to say — in italics, no less! — that something found in one must be deleted from all others. —Ruakh_TALK 00:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article can begin with a definition of its topic, but if the definition is all it includes, it will be transwikied here and then deleted there. This article doesn't include some minor portion of a Wikipedia article, it is an exact copy of a Wikipedia article. Where do you find entire pages present in identical form on two or more different projects? Angr 14:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Espenodge

18 or so hits max on Google. No use except for as a user name. See also [16]Goldenrowley 02:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• deleted I really wish some of this crap was just deleted at the source wiki than coming through to us! --Williamsayers79 18:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• thank you. Goldenrowley 07:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Lapodicious

Google books hits 0. Dictionary lookup hits 0. Google hits 3 and all in Wiktionary/Wikipedia. Thus...Not a word. Goldenrowley 06:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 18:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Citizen dildo

Nonse term? --Keene 01:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean nonce :-). yes, delete this. Robert Ullmann 10:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. --Connel MacKenzie 05:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Appendix:Place names/Gråbo

Is there a new way of dealing with places like this, and sneaking them in a subpage? Or just an editor trying out something new? --Keene 02:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a serious proposal to start adding all place names this way, but the conversation was so prolonged and diffuse, I'm still not sure what we decided. --EncycloPetey 07:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe anything has been decided, but this did receive positive feedback when I proposed it on the BP. Therefore, I began employing it when archiving RFDs for placenames which did not meet CFI but were otherwise well-formed, useful entries. IMO this is by far the best solution, but if there is a consensus against it I will happily desist. -- Visviva 06:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:BloggingHeads.tv

Anything usable? --Connel MacKenzie 05:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

1. deleted --Williamsayers79 11:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Misnamed French verb form helpers

Are these ever used, in which case should they be renamed?

1. Template:3ppi
2. Template:3psft
3. Template:3psi
4. Template:3pssp

Conrad.Irwin 22:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

These pages were created by a Wonderfool sockpuppet, and used by Wonderfool. WF subst'd the templates, as it was a way of saving time. Nobody else will use them, but there's supposed to be a bot who's creating all the conjugated forms anyway, so it will be redundant. --Rural Legend 14:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Lapodicious

My college professor told us a story in which his daughter entered a false word into wikipedia in order to fool her teacher.

This word does not exist. I'd tell you to keep it, but I happen to think wikipedia is an amazing site and I hope that it stays honest.

No current entry or record of its deletion. DCDuring 15:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's Transwiki:Lapodicious, transwikied from Wikipedia and listed above for deletion. --EncycloPetey 16:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Superseded by {{prefix}}

It was suggested to me that these should be listed here instead of just {{delete}}d. They have been marked deprecated for over a month now, and I have thus orphaned them all. Conrad.Irwin 13:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

{{un-}}

Done. (No residual uses found.) DAVilla 00:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

{{counter1}} and friends

These seem to have constituted some kind of experiment in the distant past, and are no longer used or useful. Conrad.Irwin 13:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Periodic Table

These are not dictionary material, and are just ugly versions of part of Appendix:Chemical elements Conrad.Irwin 13:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

{{chemelem}}

Added this now it is unused. Conrad.Irwin 21:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted all --EncycloPetey 15:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

{{cleanup/old}}

Unneeded, just contributing to general template name space entropy Conrad.Irwin 13:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

{{beer parlour timeline}}

Unneeded, should be deleted as were the other old redirects to Wiktionary:Beer parlour/timeline etc. Conrad.Irwin 13:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

{{BÂN-LÂM-GÚ}}

Nonstandard name giving a language code result. Conrad.Irwin 13:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I created a number of these, thinking that they could be useful, and stopped when specific ideas for using them were shot down. I still think they could be valuable some day, given our multilingual focus. This one is reachable from {{langcode|Bân-lâm-gú}} per the spelling at Min Nan. The langcode template could potentially be called from a bot-updated template like {{t}}. DAVilla 23:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I feel that as this is the English Wiktionary, and those contributing have to contribute in English, it makes sense only to have English template names - do you know where the old discussion is? Conrad.Irwin 21:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I may be the only one who knows about them. There is a lot of discussion about {{language}} scattered all over, but relatively little about {{langcode}} as it wasn't ever used except by my proposal {{t8}} as discussed in the Grease Pit. DAVilla 01:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Usernames and user pages

This draft policy page has not been discussed publicly, but is already being used to attempt to change contributors' usernames. (See User talk:^demon.) We should allow people to use their actual names, e-mail addresses, or leet online persona as their usernames, even if those names contain characters of non-Latin scripts. Rod (A. Smith) 23:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - What a policy! The only thing that this seems to do is to impose unnecessary censorship based on some personal pet hates. It will play havoc with the hopefully imminent Unified login proposal, and also irritate, anger and confuse users who have not read it. Conrad.Irwin 23:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be abandoned (only edits to writing it are from August 2007). It should either go to votes for approval (I'd vote against it as written as excessively harsh) or be deleted. RJFJR 00:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep, fix, and vote on, if that can be done without a flamewar. (Which I guess might be a longhand way of saying delete.) We currently have some stuff at WT:NPOV that should go on this page instead. Also, my understanding was that it was Wikimedia-wide policy to forbid the use of e-mail addresses as usernames? —Ruakh_TALK 01:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

En Wikipedia's w:Wikipedia:Username policy does prohibit "promotional" usernames, which apparently includes most e-mail addresses. (I'm not convinced that a username like mail@GivenMSurname.name is any more promotional than one like "Given M. Surname", but whatever.) In any event, sign-on would have us accept usernames from other systems, so a blanket prohibition of non-Latin characters, diacritics, punctuation, etc. seems unwarranted. Rod (A. Smith) 04:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a blanket prohibition is unwarranted, but personally I wouldn't object to a guideline that asked people to generally stick to usernames that a typical English-speaker can recognize properly and type on a typical Anglophone keyboard. (I think we can agree that Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Yup___nope/Yup   nope, 獱, and 123.45.67.8 are all fairly unhelpful usernames? Though with the hanzi one it would probably be fine if the sig also gave a Latin-text version that redirected to the right userpage.) Regarding e-mail addresses, I was going by this, but maybe the Powers That Be have since changed their minds? —Ruakh_TALK 05:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep in some form. I'll discuss why privately to senior editors here, but not in a public forum. --EncycloPetey 13:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a more than a little iffy in my opinion. Wiktionary:Policies_and_Guidelines_-_Policy implies strongly that this is not how things should work. Conrad.Irwin 19:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

People are not obligated to give their rationales. It's odd to state that one has a rationale and explicitly not give it, but I'm sure he has his reasons; and I'm sure he knows that fewer people will be convinced this way than if he stated his rationale, but he obviously feels it can't be helped. (I don't know what his rationale is, so can't give my opinion on whether it's convincing and whether it should be kept private, but I've never known him to do this sort of thing before, and I can't imagine he's doing it on a whim.) —Ruakh_TALK 00:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I was more objecting because I felt I might not be included in the "Senior Editors" category. However I have realised that it doesn't really matter, if the rationale is not stated then it won't be considered by those discussing the policy. Sorry for my less than neutral tones. Conrad.Irwin 00:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries. :-)   Really, almost everyone finds it jarring when they first find out about the cabal. :-P   —Ruakh_TALK 05:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

(Weak) keep. There may be good not to be too imperative - there may be reasonable exceptions. But in principle, yes, it's needed in some form. \Mike 01:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I would delete or rewrite it, as it's too harsh on too many issues. However, neither premature enforcement nor an RFD, in my opinion, are beneficial to that process. DAVilla 02:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep the page, delete the policy. The information on userboxes is flat out wrong - we had a vote on this where we agreed that the community could be petitioned to permit userboxes if their utility to writing a dictionary could be demonstrated. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have created a slightly tamer version which I believe will be a better starting point for discussion. This rfd should probably be closed for the moment - but I am not sure enough to do so. Conrad.Irwin 22:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and agreed. I've made some further edits. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 08:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks resolved, so I'm closing this. DAVilla 06:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Bots/Connel

This appears to be a deprecated draft of Wiktionary:Bots. Rod (A. Smith) 00:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like a draft for proposed modification. People who use bots should take a look to see if there are text improvements that could/should be appended to the current policy. --EncycloPetey 15:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:ipacregion

This should be replaced by {{a}}, right? Rod (A. Smith) 01:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's worse than that. Whoever used this template was using it to add synthesized Canadian pronunciations. Look at biodiversity. The results of these additions need cleanup, and a decision on whether we want to allow these hideous synthetic pronunciations to exist here at all. --EncycloPetey 13:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:IPA chart for English

This is identical to the already existing Appendix:IPA chart for English, which is itself redundant to Wiktionary:English pronunciation key. Angr 05:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

And you've nominated them all for deletion for no rational reason. It's identical to the Appendix because it still needs to be imported, as you know, and it is also obviously not redundant to a page that has no Australian or NZ pronunciations, for one thing, which you also knew already. Please stop obsessing over this issue. Dmcdevit·t 07:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't nominated Wiktionary:English pronunciation key for deletion, and uselessness to Wiktionary is a very "rational reason" (as you so redundantly put it). Australian and New Zealand can be added to the English pronunciation key without trying to pass off an encyclopedia article as a dictionary appendix. Wiktionary isn't Wikipedia, and Wikipedia articles shouldn't be duplicated here wholesale, not even in the Appendix: namespace. Angr 21:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:GFDL images

This category doesn't seem terribly useful here. Rod (A. Smith) 00:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete while we have virtually no images left here. Image:Commons-logo.png, Image:Wikipedia-logo-en.png, Image:Wikipedia-logo.png, Image:Wikisource-logo.png, Image:Wiktionary-favicon-en-colored.png, Image:Wiktionary-favicon-en.png, Image:Wiktionary-logo-bn.png are all logos that are partially or entirely copyrighted by Wikimedia Foundation without GFDL licensing.--Jusjih 03:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:GFDL

As above. Rod (A. Smith) 00:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted --EncycloPetey 15:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Language icons

... and its member {{de icon}}. Only one entry ((deprecated template usage) άγγελος) uses this 'pedia meme. As we cite more references, it may be helpful to indicate when such sources are not English. Regardless, calling {{languageicon|de|German}} directly works as expected, so I don't see the point in having language-specific templates like {{de icon}}, and thus nor in having a category for such templates. Rod (A. Smith) 00:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Without objection, so ordered. Deleted. -- Visviva 11:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Protologism

This category is empty and redundant with Category:Protologisms. Rod (A. Smith) 01:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted -- EncycloPetey 03:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Unconfirmed

Unused alternative to WT:RFV? Rod (A. Smith) 01:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted --EncycloPetey 15:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Pelena

Supposedly a word in the Solomon Islands. There is a company named Pelena Ltd. in the Solomon Islands. Pelena is also Polynesian for "bread".. but it doesn't say bread. Goldenrowley 02:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted; BTW, "Polynesian" isn't a language. --EncycloPetey 16:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Odiana

Upon searching Google, and Dictionaries, can't support this definition coming from World War II. Lacks sources and attestation. Goldenrowley 02:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Visviva 05:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:fr-noun-reg-aux

Deprecated template --Rural Legend 13:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Two more to delete

and redirect template:fr-noun-l. Circeus 17:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Has been deprecated. --Keene 14:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

deleted main template and redirect --Williamsayers79 15:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:fr-noun-reg-x‎

As above --Rural Legend 13:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 11:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:fr-noun-irreg

As aobve --Rural Legend 13:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 12:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Entry into service

I suggest this should go. This is just the sum of parts, what the words mean and what I'd say about entering into service (of any kind). Goldenrowley 02:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep if accurate: the definition given doesn't seem sum-of-parts to me (since I wouldn't expect "entry into service" to refer to a date). Delete otherwise. —Ruakh_TALK 02:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it depends on how it's used. (I'm assuming it's accurate.) If you say "its entry into service was January of 2007" or "its entry into service was on my birthday", that doesn't mean it's a set phrase with an unexpected meaning: that's what you'd say even if "entry into service" doesn't mean only a specific date. If, otoh, there is some sort of sentence it's commonly used in — perhaps "its entry into service was my birthday" or "its entry into service was a national holiday" [because it was July 4th] — then I'd say "keep".—msh210℠ 17:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

DELETE. Looking over how its used in military text only the word entry means entry and the word service means (military) service, no more or less: The top examples for ["entry into service" military] at Google books are:

• Our Servicemen and Economic Security by Robert Henry Skilton - Soldiers - 1943 - 213 pages:

  Naturally, governmental efforts concerned with problems in adjustment upon entry into service are much easier to define ...

• Employers Guide to Military Leave Compliance - Page 207 by Dean L. Silverberg, Tracey A. Cullen - Law - 2006 - 233 pages:

  ... employment held by the employee at the time of entry into service...

• United states code service - Page 388 by Bancroft-Whitney Company, Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company - Law - 1981:

  There is no requirement that religious belief upon which conscientious objection is based must manifest itself only subsequent to entry into service...

• Employers Guide to Military Leave Compliance - Page 206 by Dean L. Silverberg, Tracey A. Cullen - Law - 2006:

  In no case shall the employee be discharged from his position or employment because of his entry into service'. NJ. STAT. ANN. §38:23-4. ...

Goldenrowley 06:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:books of the bible

This template places the books of the Bible in a set order, which causes problems because there is more than one order (varying between the Hebrew and many Christian canons). This template has been replaced by {{book of the Bible}} see eg Samuel. —Saltmarsh^Talk 15:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted —Saltmarsh^Talk 07:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:fr-noun-mf

Redundant template, replaced by Template:fr-noun--Rural Legend 10:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 12:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

category:American Sign Language

Per the discussion on Old Church Slavonic, above, this category should be moved to category:American Sign Language language. I'd do it myself, but the page, for some reason, didn't have a move button, so I guess it needs an admin.—msh210℠ 06:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the necessity for having "language" twice. Kappa 07:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't either; I'm just recommending the move because that seemed to be the decision in another similar case. See the discussion above.—msh210℠ 07:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that the name of the language should be American Sign. We don't go around using Finnish language as a header or such. Then the category name is "American Sign language" (note the lc language), like all the other languages. Robert Ullmann 09:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

But the name of the language isn't "American Sign". No one calls it that. It's "American Sign Language". Per the discussion on Old Church Slavonic, the category should then be "American Sign Language language".—msh210℠ 07:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"American Sign Language language" sounds retarded. The "language" is already included, sign language being a kind of language. "American Sign Language" isn't exactly the name of the language. American + sign language. Just like French + Sign Language, Finnish + Sign Language, Russian + Sign Language, and all the rest of these — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 20:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree it sounds retarded; I'm trying only to conform the category to what seems to be the policy on these categories. But "American Sign Language" is the name of the language. (It's called that because it's an American sign language, certainly. But that doesn't change that it's the name of the language.) If it were merely the American sign language, not American Sign Language, then one could just as well (and perhaps even should) call it "the United States sign language" — but no one does. No, "American Sign Language" is its name.—msh210℠ 06:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"American Sign language" and "American Sign Language language" both look illiterate. (I've nothing against the illiterate, but I don't think that's the image we're going for.) If it's essential that all such category names end in "language", then I guess the non-ideal "American sign language" is our only option. —Ruakh_TALK 22:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether that's our only option (I hope not!), but I emphatically agree that it's non-ideal, for reasons outlined in my comment, above, stamped with same date and time as this one.—msh210℠ 06:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Both "American Sign Language language" and "Old Church Slavonic language" look illiterate to me. Most languages may be referred to either with or without the addition of "language"...however, some languages, such as American Sign Language (Language capitalized), always contain the word "language" (and it should not be repeated), while a few others (e.g., Old Church Slavonic) do not admit the word "language" at all. I note that Wikipedia agrees with this logic and most language articles are styled like w:Spanish language, w:Burmese language (because these words also refer to other things besides language, such as culture and food), but w:Old Church Slavonic and w:American Sign Language (because these terms only mean language and are not used for things like culture or food). —Stephen 20:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the way we have our categories named, it looks like Adjective + noun, the noun generally being "language". "Finnish language", Finnish acting as an adjective, describing the noun "language". Like I said above, "sign language" is the noun being modified by the adjective "American". "Old Church Slavonic language" does look strange to me, though. Oh well. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 22:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, "Old Church Slavonic language" gets plenty of straightforward Google hits, including in fairly reputable sources like the Britannica; and while Wikipedia does have Old Church Slavonic it also has Category:Old Church Slavonic language. (Granted, "American Sign Language language" also gets plenty of Google hits, but few if any are using it as a constituent.) —Ruakh_TALK 22:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are some constructions that call for the word "language" to be included...e.g., as regards the Old Church Slavonic language. It would be illiterate to write that without the word "language". But as a simple title, Old Church Slavonic is the form that is used, and I can’t easily imagine anyone writing it with "language". —Stephen 01:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above most languages can be referred to as "X language" because X is an adjective (pertaining to the culture of the X people) as well as a noun (the language spoken by the X people). However, in the case of "American Sign Language", X is only a noun and thus needs no further clarification. Not only would be grammatically clumsy, if not wrong, to juxtapose the two nouns in this way, it looks ugly too. The reason for adding "language" to the end is to make it clear that the category is not referring to other aspects of the culture - for example French stick is not in Category:French language but probably would be in Category:French. (I am not sure where Old Church Slavonic stands, it is certainly a harder case than this one, but I feel that it could be because this is the "Old Church version of Slavonic", or the "Old Church - Slavonic language".) Incidentally, it looks to me as though most of the small number of google hits for "American Sign Langauge language" (that have no punctuation between the two "language"s) are on CMSs that are programmed to add "language" every time they spin out a new page. Conrad.Irwin 01:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:es:-ir(exigir)

Per Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2007/August#Redundancy in Category:Spanish conjugation templates, I'd like to get rid of this duplicate spanish conjugation template. Any verb that conjugates this way should use {{es-conj-gir}}) which is harder to accidentally misuse.--Bequw 18:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted unused template. —Stephen 22:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

template:es:-ir(zurcir)

Another unused, duplicate, spanish conjugation template. Used instead is the harder-to-mess-up {{es-conj-cir}}.--Bequw 22:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:es:-ar(chamuscar)

Unused, duplicate, non-generic spanish conjugation template. Article entry actually uses the generic {{es-conj-car}}. --Bequw 22:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:es:-ir(escribir)

Another unused, duplicate, spanish conjugation template. Used instead is the more general {{es-conj-ir}} .--Bequw 22:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:es:-ir(abrir)

Another unused, duplicate, spanish conjugation template. Used instead is the more general {{es-conj-ir}}.--Bequw 22:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted unused templates. —Stephen 23:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:es:-ar(puntuar)

Another unused, duplicate, spanish conjugation template. Used instead is the common {{es-conj-uar}}.--Bequw 23:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:es:-ar(prohijar)

Another unused, duplicate, spanish conjugation template. Used instead is the common {{es-conj-i-ar}}.--Bequw 23:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:es:-ar(cruzar)

Another unused, duplicate, spanish conjugation template. Replaced by the simpler & more general {{es-conj-zar}}.--Bequw 23:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:es:-ar(avergonzar)

Another unused, duplicate, spanish conjugation template. Used instead is the simpler {{es-conj-zar (go-güe)}}.--Bequw 23:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

template:es:-ar(apagar)

Another unused, duplicate, spanish conjugation template. Used instead is the more general {{es-conj-gar}}.--Bequw 23:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:es:-ar(acostar)

Another unused, duplicate, spanish conjugation template. Used instead is the more general {{es-conj-ar (o-ue)}}.--Bequw 23:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:·

This Transwikied template doesn't really do very much, and given how hard it is to type it's name, people may as well use &bull; instead, which gives (on this computer anyway) an almost identical result. (I can't put {{rfd}} on it because it is protected :( ) Conrad.Irwin 23:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have been the final creation of a user who hasn't edited since, so it's probably a safe delete. --EncycloPetey 04:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 11:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:/doc

The malnamed (even by 'pedia standards) documentation for {{·}} should be deleted even if the template isn't. Conrad.Irwin 23:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Appendix:Film crew

In its present form is useless, possible a glossary of terms in the acting profession could be useful, but I am not sure this is the best way to get started; w:Film crew is much better. Conrad.Irwin 23:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:es-conj-arse

Another unused, duplicate, spanish conjugation template. Used instead is the generic {{es-conj-ar}} (pass in ref_stem=XXXX to make it show reflexive conjugations).--Bequw 23:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Build_the_web

Copied verbatim from Wikipedia in 2005 and then untouched. The concepts it describes are interesting, but I feel that they are mainly irrelevant to Wiktionary. Conrad.Irwin 23:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nomination.—msh210℠ 17:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Maybe label as {{inactive}} or {{archived}}, but this probably isn't, and never was, important enough to merit keeping for historical purposes. --Keene 17:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 12:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:French reflexive verbs

Wiktionary doesn't include reflexive verbs --Tricky 20:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep We have Category:English transitive verbs for example. And while I can't ever see myself using it someone else might. I am not sure what you mean by Wiktionary doesn't include reflexive verbs - they are there! Conrad.Irwin 22:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:needs romaji

I am not sure when this template would be used, or why it has its name. It hasn't been edited since 2005. Conrad.Irwin 22:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Presumably it was a request for the romaji to be added to a Japanese entry. It doesn't seem to be included in any articles right now, but is there are alternative template requesting attention for Japanese entries? --EncycloPetey 04:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the current way of requesting attention for language specific articles? Conrad.Irwin 01:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

{{ja-attention}}, although right now that's been flooded by an IP Cynewulf 01:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:jōyō

The categories it adds things too don't exist, no activity since 2005. Conrad.Irwin 23:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 12:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

{{es-verb-arse}}

Redundant, unused template. Use the common {{es-verb-ar}} with the parameter ref=y to make a reflexive line.--Bequw 15:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted unused template. —Stephen 20:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Spanish elements

Empty. Now using Category:es:Chemical elements.

Deleted. —Stephen 12:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

WS: pages

Special:Allpages/WS: lists forty-nine pages starting with "WS:". Without going through all of them, I suspect that (a) they have very little whatlinkshere except archives, and most have none; (b) they are all duplicated by some WT: page; and (c) no one uses them (by typing WS:... into his browser) any longer. We should delete them (although redirects are cheap) in order to prevent their showing up as special:randompages (since they're in the 0th namespace).—msh210℠ 06:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphan and delete all. No point creating needless redlinks, even in archives. —Ruakh_TALK 06:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems they've been orphaned and deleted. (Neither by me.)—msh210℠ 22:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:nan:Fundamental

This and its child categories (Category:nan-cn:Fundamental and Category:nan-tw:Fundamental) are empty and do not follow our category naming conventions. Rod (A. Smith) 02:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

Most of Special:Broken redirects

Most of these are user pages that have a redirect to another Wiki. This doesn't work. Should we delete them, or edit them all to some sort of "see also". SemperBlotto 08:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Users add these even when they know perfectly well that they don't "work", because they display the link very helpfully. Should be fixed to use {{softredirect}} which someone sporked from Commons. Robert Ullmann 12:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Which I renamed {{user redirect}} and set it up so it can be used by {{User Commons}} and {{User Wikipedia}} which people from other projects might expect to see (and had been added). Robert Ullmann 14:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I go through Special:BrokenRedirects and Special:DoubleRedirects fairly irregularly, clearing them out. (Confer: WT:DW.) Help with those tasks is always appreciated. Deletion is preferable to {{softredirect}}, usually. --Connel MacKenzie 16:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:sl:Verbs

Wrong form of Category:Slovene verbs — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 23:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Jyril 00:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:sl:Prepositions

As above. Category:Slovene prepositions — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 23:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:style/yid

Didn't we go through this before?

Should be {{Hebr}} or if something different is needed for Yiddish, {{yi-Hebr}}. Robert Ullmann 08:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted bad entry name, only used on one User: page, should not be in Template: space Robert Ullmann 14:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:style/IPA

I thought we did this too. Redundant, we have IPAchar. Robert Ullmann 08:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted - recently created and apparently never used excpet on the creator's user page. --EncycloPetey 21:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

kutka incorrect

It does not explain the word's actual use and meaning, instead takes a simple wordplay and presents that as the definition.

It says that it is an archaic plural of kuka, which is what it is. Just go to kuka to see the meaning and declension, etc. —Stephen 22:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Finnish does not have plural form of kuka (see the etymology of the word). The plural form 'ketkä' is based on 'ken' (the archaic form of kuka).

The word 'kutka' means, roughly, an annoying itch or rash (according to "The Dictionary of Modern Finnish"). You can artificially derive kutka from kuka, but it does not make it the plural form of kuka, only an artificial construct.

Etymology: The use of 'kutka' as the plural for 'kuka' is "an invention" of a finnish humorist and columnist Seppo Ahti who co-wrote several books titled "Kutka <year>" in the late 80's and early 90's. These books were intended as parodies of popular annually published books titled 'Mitä Missä Milloin <year>' (What, Where, When). The parody name was based on the simple idea that the name of the year book was missing the obvious Who (kuka) and the "plural form" presented a clever word play. This is hardly worth being the sole, and very incorrect, explanation for the word.

I checked the authors other contributions and most of them seem to fall to the category of "grammatically correct artificial constructs"

Category:Classic 1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue

I'm requesting that all entries in this category be deleted. Here's why:

• This is a slang dictionary - the words in here are (or were) considered slang in 1811. I think that no slang dictionary should be used as a resource for entries. The fact that this is old enough to be public domain should be irrelevant.
• I'd like the information to kept, but maybe it would be better to transwiki this to Wikisource, or put the entries into an appendix.
• All of the individual entries I've looked at have no mention in gbc, so would fail CFI anwyway. --Keene 19:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep; you didn't look at the entries. A number of these have citations, such as (deprecated template usage) all-a-mort, which is cited from Shakespeare. We don't delete things just because they have no gbc mention; any book can be used to meet the requirements of CFI, even if Google doesn't have an electronic copy. --EncycloPetey 01:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

... wait, the contents? Maybe they were wrong about some of them (which is a matter for RFV), but deleting all of them simply because they're old and slang is unacceptable. We can't just decide that history started 10 years ago. Cynewulf 01:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep the words, I don't feel strongly about the category, edit {{1811}} to read (obsolete,slang) and ensure that{{R:Vulgar 1811}} is at the bottom of each page. Just because these words are obsolete doesn't mean they shouldn't be documented, while Urbandictionary is not a reliable source, a printed dictionary should be. A quick read of the Gutenberg copy reveals much of interest (IMO). Conrad.Irwin 01:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see that my original post may be a bit excessive. Maybe if the template said (obsolete, slang) with a link to something like Wiktionary:Classic 1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue entries it would be better. --Keene 17:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:hy:Body

Proper cat Category:hy:Anatomy, just got done moving everything. — [ ric | opiaterein ] — 19:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 23:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

category:Spanish verb forms ending in -ar

Unused. Used one is [[Category:Spanish forms of verbs ending in -ar]]. --Bequw 18:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 23:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Transwiki:Military reserve

Changed tag from speedy. I think the proper noun referring to the semi-active military component should probably have an entry, but not sure where. It doesn't seem to be covered by reserve or reserves currently. --Connel MacKenzie 23:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Worth thinking about, but the explanation seems encyclopedic, depending on particular force concepts. This is an example of what I mean by "theory-laden" definitions. It seems like some kind of "official" definition, or a definition by a military theorist, rather than one that would be used in ordinary discourse, even among soldiers. It reminds me of the official definition of a second in terms of the vibrations of an isotope of cesium (or whatever it actually is). The ordinary language version is more like one sixtieth of a minute, which is one sixtieth of an hour, which is one twenty-fourth of a day, which is measured from noon to noon. Or actually more like: what my watch says is a second. I'll look at g.b.c. anyway. DCDuring

Also, see USAR, the initialism for the United States Army Reserve. The US nomenclature, I think, is the "Reserve Components", with consist of the "National Guard" and the "Military Reserve", but the actual entities are organizations connected with the service branches. DCDuring 01:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[[Category:Missing-gloss]]

Seems to be a temporary category used on by Connel MacKenzie in September in the conversion from {{top}} to {{trans-top}} before that template began auto adding [[Category:Translation table header lacks gloss]]. There were just few entries left, so I cleaned it out. --Bequw 15:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted as no longer in use, see User_talk:Connel_MacKenzie#Category:Missing-gloss for additional context. -- Visviva 04:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Fauna of Estonia & Category:Mammals of Estonia

Self explanatory? Empty anyway. Also we have Category:et:Animals and Category:et:Mammals. Is that what they meant? — [ ric ] opiaterein — 00:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted; Perhaps the user means "English names of mammals found in Estonia". --EncycloPetey 00:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that, too, but we don't have categories for country-specific flora and fauna, do we? — [ ric ] opiaterein — 18:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Those sound like Transwikied categories from Wikipedia (cf. w:Category:Fauna of Estonia and w:Category:Mammals of Estonia). It looks like they mean something like what EP suggests. Mike Dillon 01:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:simile

While Category:Similes feels appropriate as a subset of Category:Idioms, saying "this is a simile" in a context tag is as appropriate as saying "this is a prepositional phrase". A simile being primarily a syntactical element, the template is inappropriate, and everything marked with it would be better off marked with {{idiom}}. Circeus 07:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

True for the context tag, yes. However, we would want the category still included explicitly at the bottom of the page. --EncycloPetey 14:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps change it to (''idiom'')[[Category:English similes]], this way it is tagged as idiom and is in simile cat? It is a little experimental anyway--Keene 17:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind that, but this should be done asap (if we do it) to simplify cleanup. Circeus 02:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thus changed, RFD tag removed. --Keene 17:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Catalan noun forms

Catalan nouns don't have forms... just plurals. — [ ric ] opiaterein — 18:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 21:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't they have feminines (and these feminine plurals)? Circeus 01:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There are some that have masculine and feminine forms, but I really don't think that feminine forms of a few nouns (mostly stuff like occupations and nationalities) need their own category. They're fine in Category:Catalan nouns. — [ ric ] opiaterein — 01:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I found that "French plurals" didn't cut it for that language because plurals included pronouns and adjectives too, so noun and adjective forms (3 forms for most adjectives) are lumped into their separate categories without extra subdivisions, so that the base categories contain only lemmas. Hopefully it'll work out. Circeus 01:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This category should not have been deleted. The plurals of nouns belong in this category, since "Catalan plurals" would include adjectives and pronouns. Compare Category:Spanish noun forms, Category:French noun forms, Category:Latin noun forms, etc. --EncycloPetey 05:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

'Plurals' categories I think should be for nouns. 'Adjective forms' should be for 'plural adjectives'. I don't think that Catalan pronouns (except personal ones) have plurals, either.

Following that way, with noun forms for languages whose nouns don't decline, is a bit messy. Using Italian as an example, if "americana" is considered a noun form, then so is "americane", which is the plural. So should americane be treated as a noun form or a plural? Or both? We don't need noun form categories for most Romance languages. Adjective form yeah, definitely. But "plurals" works just fine for plural nouns. English has plural pronouns, but they aren't included in the English plurals category. — [ ric ] opiaterein — 20:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that the {{plural of}} template doesn't allow you to specify the part of speech to get a specific category form. If we're going to use {{plural of}}, it's either got to be fixed (assuming we agree on a fixed set of category names) or we have to let Cat:Xxx plurals exist as non-specific for the POS, and use more specific terms for the individual POS categories. --EncycloPetey 21:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Xx plurals (nominative plural nouns)

Xx noun forms (all non-nominative forms of nouns)

Xx adjective forms (all non-lemma forms of adjectives)

That's how I do it and I see nothing glaringly wrong with it. Now if Xx plurals was called Xx plural forms, then yeah. But when I think "plurals" I think of plural nouns, not plural adjectives or anything else. — [ ric ] opiaterein — 18:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki:Romanian language/Swadesh list

Moved to Appendix:Romanian Swadesh list — [ ric ] opiaterein — 19:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Help:Email notification and update marker

This page leads to a meta-wiki page which leads to a mediawiki page which is no longer there. —Saltmarsh^Talk 07:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:WP

Not yet orphaned. --Connel MacKenzie 17:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What is to be used in its place? {{PL:pedia}} is very different (though I don't like the floating boxes very much). Conrad.Irwin 10:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Conrad, it is a redirect to {{wikipedia}}. It is about getting rid of the redirect. Robert Ullmann 10:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that makes more sense :), sorry for being a fool - again. Conrad.Irwin 10:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Scripps winning words

While I see no problem having this information in Wiktionary, I doubt that categorising the words is the best option. I've copied the contents to Appendix:Scripps winning words. It could be misleading to tag words into this category. --Keene 16:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a category for "copyright questions" that at least explains what aspects of copying a list like this could somehow not be a copyright violation. Does this list include only the words that ended the spelling bee, or lots of others? --Connel MacKenzie 16:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, only those words which finished the contest. The list is already visible in Wikipedia on this page, with links back to the words here. --Keene 12:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete, not an intrinsic property of the words and therefore not appropriate for a category. -- Visviva 05:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Spanish:Conjugated verb forms

=Category:Spanish verb forms. Needs to be emptied, orphaned, etc. — [ ric ] opiaterein — 23:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a remnant of the old TheDaveBot automated verb form articles which has been overtaken by the new templates, categories, and other conventions. Basically, there's no point in getting rid of it until we complete the whole transition anyway (as it's on one of the templates currently used on tens of thousands of articles which is going to be orphaned too). This is a project I should probably get back to. Dmcdevit·t 02:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:head

An old, unused redirect to {{infl}} Conrad.Irwin 02:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't an old redirect. This template was created to reserve the space for use in languages that are not inflected. --EncycloPetey 23:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

template:proverb

Proverbs are put up as POS headers. These entries also needs reformatting. Circeus 01:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ready for deletion. Circeus 16:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 17:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:goodtimezone

This template seemingly decides whether to wish the user good morning, good evening etc. depending on the time of day. Does anyone use this template? --Keene 00:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Conrad.Irwin 16:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:PicLink

Is this useful in away way? Protected page, so brought here for discussion. --Keene 01:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that we've moved almost all images to Commons (and don't want new images uploaded), I can't imagine a situation in which this template would be useful. --EncycloPetey 02:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We used to have many pictures here? Why did we get rid of them all? And when? --Keene 02:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We never had many. We made a push this past year to remove the 120 or so remaining images. Frankly, we're not set up to manage image copyright issues, which is better left to the folks on Commons. --EncycloPetey 02:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

deleted --EncycloPetey 17:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:color

Not a context. DAVilla 05:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but it's useful anyway. Keep, and perhaps consider retooling the underlying templates so that not all are treated as context labels. -- Visviva 06:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The context is "color theory" or "art", but "color theory" is too pretentious-sounding, and "art" is too nonspecific. Saying "color" makes the sense immediately clear. --EncycloPetey 06:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:H-langs:Minor edit

Unused Template, only edit by creator. Conrad.Irwin 21:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC) And all its other friends, copied from the meta help pages.

Template:H:title

Conrad.Irwin 00:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

All deleted--Williamsayers79 17:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:fairusein

Seeing as we don't have public image upload here anymore, I can't see what use this will be. Conrad.Irwin 00:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

'Deleted - already deprecated and orphaned long ago. --EncycloPetey 18:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

January 2008

Template:Aram.

Unnecessarily ambiguous duplicate of {{BAram.}} and {{JAram.}} Circeus 17:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

But necessary, since we don't always know which sort of Aramaic a word comes from. --EncycloPetey 17:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviations, Acronyms and Initialisms categories

• Category:cs:Abbreviations, Acronyms and Initialisms
• Category:es:Abbreviations, Acronyms and Initialisms
• Category:et:Abbreviations, Acronyms and Initialisms
• Category:fi:Abbreviations, Acronyms and Initialisms
• Category:fr:Abbreviations, Acronyms and Initialisms
• Category:it:Abbreviations, Acronyms and Initialisms
• Category:pt:Abbreviations, Acronyms and Initialisms
• Category:sv:Abbreviations, Acronyms and Initialisms

Need to be orphaned and moved to their correct capitalization like the main category Category:Abbreviations, acronyms, and initialisms. Dmcdevit·t 07:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. We have two parent categories, one that uses the serial comma (Category:Abbreviations, acronyms, and initialisms) and one that doesn't (Category:Abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms). Since none of the children use the serial comma, the parent shouldn't either. Many of the proper categories already existed, but were not found because they lack the serial comma. --EncycloPetey 19:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, actually, the serial comma category had been there for half a year. I didn't notice that Connel recently decided to empty it and replace it with one without the serial comma (which he called an "abomination"). Eek, Connel has non-American POV! Dmcdevit·t 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Part of the reason for that is that templates like {{abbreviation}} automatically add the categories, and all of them link the category name without the serial comma. --EncycloPetey 20:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Finnish inflection types/nouns/valmis

This is an orphaned page, which used to serve as a sample of a certain Finnish noun inflection. Later, it was noticed that the inflection was actually exactly the same as Wiktionary:Finnish inflection types/nouns/kauris, which is where this class of words now points to. See the discussion at the Finnish inflection talk page. Malhonen 08:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 18:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

template:smarter

• Moved from WT:BP --Williamsayers79 10:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

alderwoman has a {{smarter|alderman}} template. I've never seen this before. I don't think much of this 'smarter' message. Is this standard? For how long? RJFJR 00:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Only two entries include it — see Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:smarter — so I'd say not. (Previously, more entries included it, but I and a few other editors went through a while back and replaced most occurrences with less potentially-​condescending-​sounding sense labels and usage notes and whatnot. I guess we missed a few.) —Ruakh_TALK 00:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that this should be deleted, it isn't really a dictionary feature and it is very badly worded. Conrad.Irwin 01:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 10:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:r from misspelling

--Connel MacKenzie 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete.—msh210℠ 17:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 15:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:snooty form of

I like the idea of this, as it denotes a usage note, but this is too POV for Wiktionary, surely? --Keene 14:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Uncountable

From discussion on GP. Can we delete this and place content and template direct to Category:English uncountable nouns please? - Algrif 16:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Imitative Korean words

A bad duplicate of Category:ko:Onomatopoeia--Keene 01:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. Korean contains a large class of words (의태어) which are mimetic but in which physical attributes such as shape or texture, rather than sound, are imitated. -- Visviva 05:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

See also Category:ja:Onomatopoeia, which has gitaigo (the Japanese equivalent of the Korean uitae-eo Visiva mentions) as a subcategory. Kappa 01:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems wrong; at least it does not accord with the ordinary definition of "onomatopoeia." Suggest that the umbrella category should be foo:Mimesis, with subcategories for foo:Onomatopoeia and foo:Ideophones. -- Visviva 05:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Obsolete Korean words

Orphaned, contents moved to Category:ko:Obsolete. --Keene 01:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

deleted --Williamsayers79 15:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Gaelic derivations, {{Gael.}}

I think our policy here is that anything labelled "Gaelic" should either be specified as {{Ir.}} for Irish or {{Gd.}} for Scottish Gaelic..? Widsith 15:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's the same issue as {{Aram.}} above. plus tehre's the issue of derivations (if any?) predating the split between these languages.

Yes, and there is the possibility of having an English word derived from a Gaelic word, but it may not be known whether the origin is through Irish or Scottish Gaelic. We should clarify this in the introductory text to the article. --EncycloPetey 02:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:tidal wave/Quotations

I've moved the discussion to Citations talk:tidal wave. I heard somewhere about merging histories, for which adminship is required - can we do this? If not, this is just an orphaned talk page, although it has a history. --Keene 18:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. The complete history is now at Citations talk:tidal wave. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:stub

Wiktionary:Find or fix a stub

I can't think of a time when the {{stub}} can be applied usefully, if there is no definition then there is no page, if there is a definition then it is beyond the status of being a stub. We have more specific request templates for when specific sections are in need of attention. Conrad.Irwin 15:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is no definition there still may be a page, but should have # {{defn|(language)}} where the definition line should be.

There is also {{substub}} aka {{sectstub}}, but it doesn't break things out by language. {{stub}} isn't used anywhere.

The Wiktionary: pages above are completely obsolete (from WP). There is also {{rfdef}} used on a handful of pages. A mess. Robert Ullmann 15:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete the Wiktionary: pages: this isn't WP. I don't think we need {{stub}} either. We do need either {{defn}} or {{rfdef}}, although they seem to be duplicates. I say keep both, inasmuch as AutoFormat can hardly add {{rfdef}} (since it doesn't add templates that show up on the screen for users to see) and human editors will want to add {{rfdef}} so as to let other editors see that a definition is requested. I think.—msh210℠ 22:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

For Template:stub, delete. For Wiktionary:Stub, redirect to "find & fix." For Wiktionary:Find and fix a stub, rewrite it to be something meaningful. That is, the banner-thingamajig on WT:RFC lists one line at the bottom of the banner itself, that has different (common) cleanup things. Those should probably be described somewhere - that's as good a place as any. --Connel MacKenzie 22:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with rewriting find & fix to a meaningful cleanup guide (with a better title). Two thoughts about {{stub}}: 1. I'm fairly sure that I have read somewhere (perhaps on this very wiki) that the MediaWiki software requires a template called "Stub" in order for certain features to function properly. Is this no longer the case, or do we not need these features? (or am I simply confused?) 2. Given that many users come here from WP or projects modeled on WP, it is not a bad idea to have something here for them. Perhaps this could be redirected to {{rfc}}? -- Visviva 05:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:pronunciation

Ancient, and not ever used. --Keene 17:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 22:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, but should be orphaned first. --EncycloPetey 02:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts in the 0th namespace

WP:OP, WSP:, WC:, WP:, WN:, WP:, WQ:, WN:, WC:WC, COM:COM, WN:WN, WB:WB, WB:cuts, WSO:, WSO:WSO, WSP:, WP:AWB, WP:NPOVD, and WTT:AK. Most are interwiki; I think only WTT:AK, WP:NPOVD, and WP:AWB are not (but WTT:AK and WP:NPOVD have no whatlinkshere.)—msh210℠ 22:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I think most originated from 'pedia direct cross-project links. Some have already been accepted as needed (e.g. WP:AWB is in the edit summaries of thousands of entries.) All the rest...wait, these all have valid targets. These are all functioning linkages...redirects don't affect any statistics (except the count of redirects) so I'm really left wondering what the perceived danger of keeping them, is. They are inherently useful, but not hurting anything (not even stats.) So what exactly is the complaint? That we don't measure how often they are used? (Why is Wikiversity missing?) --Connel MacKenzie 22:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That they will show up on special:randompage.—msh210℠ 23:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Do they? That would be new; redirects used to be excluded from Special:Randompage (and certainly are excluded from http://tools.wikimedia.de/~cmackenzie/rnd-en-wikt.html.) --Connel MacKenzie 01:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If they are in fact excluded from special:randompage then there's no cause for concern AFAICT, so nevermind. Is there a way to confirm whether they are so excluded?—msh210℠ 18:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Vietnamese han tu

This should be "vi:Han characters" instead, right? --Connel MacKenzie 22:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why; we have Category:Korean hanja and Category:Japanese kanji. -- Visviva 03:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:mathsense

Unused. Nor likely to be, as we don't do that sort of thing.—msh210℠ 06:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

'Twas for a project I was gonna do. Check out the disaster which is normal. I envisioned all those math senses on a separate page. But people didn't like the idea. So for now the template's disposable. Language Lover 13:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The above is moved down from up the page in order to compare with the following.—msh210℠ 17:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

template:math preamble

Unused. Nor likely to be. Seems a counterpart to template:mathsense.—msh210℠ 17:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

{{fr-adj-2}}

Deprecated by {{fr-adj}}. --Keene 14:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

{{fr-adj-2}}

Deprecated by {{fr-adj}}. --Keene 14:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary:I want to transfer non-English definitions from noneng.wikipedia.org

Random-looking post from 50 months ago, which doesn't even have a reply. --Keene 21:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 17:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary:International & national trademarks

4-year-old discussion, is an archive from the beer parlour. --Keene 21:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Learners Wiktionary

40-month-old discussion, has nothing pf interest. --Keene 21:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary:translations

A badly-uncapitalised copy of Wiktionary:Translations. Previously RFD'd, but 13 months ago. --Keene 21:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Proto-Germanic

Stuff inside moved into properly named Category:Proto-Germanic language. --Ivan Štambuk 17:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 17:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:English misnomers

Cannot possibly conform to NPOV. --Ptcamn 19:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Lyc

--Connel MacKenzie 21:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete; This is an unused redirect. --EncycloPetey 23:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete; I've redirected this so that it matches 15924 code for Lycian script. I thought unused redirects are supposed to be speedydeleted? --Ivan Štambuk 16:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. —Stephen 18:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Brian0918/Hotlist

...and about a hundred sub-pages.

The "instructions" of this page say, in essence, "copy the OED." I don't know how long the wording has been that way. The original list was compiled from five different dictionaries (IIRC) but the current version outrageously suggests wholesale copying from the OED, using only the OED as a reference, under the guise of the auto-generated list being from possibly two dictionaries.

The original list was tolerated (in user namespace) foolishly, but the most recent iteration seems to be far beyond excusable. Once the original list was done, the intent was to eliminate this eyesore and potential Wiktionary-killer from even there. While we collectively may have been negligent about cleaning it up, the new "take-it-to-a-new-level" of copyright disregard is too much to ignore.

Case in point: "As an example, glittous, (-is means that there are at least two different spellings, glittous and glittis. It is easiest to simply check the OED entry for these to determine what the different spellings are (by reading the historical examples)." First of all, that identifies "glittious" as the alternate spelling, not the misspelling "glittis." But more importantly, it directs newcomers (to that list) to conspire criminally.

Let's get these out of here. --Connel MacKenzie 01:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A bit dramatic that, don't you think? directs newcomers (to that list) to conspire criminally. lol. It's still a useful list to have, so we can see the gaps that need filling. It's only going to be deleted when we've all agreed that we've got in Wiktionary all the terms from that list that are Wiktionary-worthy. --Keene 17:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Useful" isn't a good defense against the charge of copyright violation. Kappa 18:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the problem with the list or with the "instructions"? Different remedies apply according to the answer. It seems to me that the "instructions" might merit a speedy delete. I find the list itself useful as a source of possible new entries that has a lower ratio of false leads than some of our other frequency lists. I believe that it also automatically removes blue links, which is somewhat satisfying. If it would cause trouble to WMF, by all means it too should be removed. If the "instructions" have, by their association with the list, poisoned the list or, worse the idea of such lists here, then we have more of a problem. DCDuring 18:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep the lists themselves and ask Brian0918 to rewrite (or delete portions of) instructions : I do not think that the lists raise copyright concerns (and believe this has been discussed and agreed in the past); however I agree that the current instructions suggest too strongly (although do not unequivocally assert) that OED text should be used as base for definitions. This is quite fixable. Brian0918 should be asked to modify the instructions. The whole "Guidelines" section could simply be deleted or, at a minimum, the following statements should be removed from that section:

• Only remove blue links from the list after all possible definitions (from OED and AHD) are present in the Wiktionary entry. A given word on this list may have several separate entries in OED, each of which has several different definitions.
• As an example, glittous, (-is means that there are at least two different spellings, glittous and glittis. It is easiest to simply check the OED entry for these to determine what the different spellings are (by reading the historical examples).

I too find the lists to be a valuable resource and think that Brian0918 deserves thanks for the service he has provided here. -- WikiPedant 18:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Note quite accurate: what was discussed in the past was a combination of six other dictionaries - their intersection. Reducing that to two, with plain notices that it isn't really two - just one - the OED for the newer, recently regenerated lists most positively was not discussed previously. It is only with a preposterous amount of "assuming good faith" that I can conceive of a way where the newcomer who updated the lists might somehow have possibly, maybe just maybe, thought what they were doing, while technically illegal, might de defensible in court. Maybe. --Connel MacKenzie 10:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep and fix instructions - obviously a claim that the list comes from the OED combined with an implied instruction to copy OED entries is problematic and must go. In any event, checking OED would not demonstrate that a suspect word meets our CFI. By the way, there are tons of blue links on those pages, so I don't think they're self scrubbing (can someone perhaps send a bot to pluck those blues away?). Cheers! bd2412 T 20:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, not self-scrubbing. I don't know why I thought they were, except for wishful thinking. DCDuring 22:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

On the bright side, we're much farther along than the page stats would suggest. bd2412 T 01:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I dropped a note to Brian about his hotlists. bd2412 T 03:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's rather useless, isn't it? When was the last time he was here? The red-flag is that it was a newcomer who updated all the lists in someone else's userspace, just as they were about to be deleted. The fact that he repopulated them from the OED is of very great concern here. Is there any guarantee that these are the intersection of them, rather than being from either/or one? This doesn't look like an intersection list; it looks more like a logical OR. The fact that it was all done surreptitiously without discussion should be grounds for an indef-block, messing around with this magnitude. --Connel MacKenzie 10:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Latin root mar

Delete empty category. —Stephen 18:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Greek root δερκ

Was supposed to mimic what "Descendants" header does now. --Ivan Štambuk 16:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted empty category. —Stephen 05:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Indo-European root *yu-

Same as above - was supposed to contain all lexemes of all languages derived from a specific root. That's supposed to be entered in the Descendants section of the appropriate PIE entry. --Ivan Štambuk 18:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sort of. We allow Appendices as well, so the information should be converted to an Appendix format, such as the ones Stephen has been doing for Old Church Slavonic. --EncycloPetey 05:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, User:Ivan Štambuk has done most of the work on Old Church Slavonic. —Stephen 17:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of articles that were (now there are none :) in those categories already had proper etymology "from Latin ...", "from Ancient Greek..", "from PIE"... which automagically already grouped them in appropriate "xx:Y derivations" category. Creating separate category for every root morpheme of every ancient language that was borrowed/inherited into (myriad of) others is a total overkill IMHO. It's just duplicating functionality of a Descendants section in a hard-to-maintain way. --Ivan Štambuk 18:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:English people

Incredibly miselading catgory. Firstly, people is not a part of speech; secondly, the "people" in the cat aren't English. 4 entries to be uncategorised. --Keene 00:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete; The included items should be moved to Category:People or one of its subcategories.