Visit the forum if you have a language query!

Dictionary:Requests for deletion/Others

Definition from Dictionary, a free dictionary
I can't be bitter. No one has a contract on life.
David M. Heath
Jump to: navigation, search
Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | Archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for verification
add new | history | archives | Index

Verification and GENERAL DELETION nominations and discussion.

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

Deletion for policy problems; request listings, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Special page deletion requests, questions and discussions.

{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-cjkv}} - {{rfcc}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} - {{rfr}}

All Dictionary: 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.


January 2007

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.-- 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 [[1]] for my argument.--Richardb 11:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Has been added to since RFD started. Good base point. --Keene 21:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, bureaucratic gunk, not useful. -- Visviva 02:41, 22 January 2008 (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 [[2]] for my argument.--Richardb 11:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, useless. -- Visviva 02:42, 22 January 2008 (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 [[3]] for my argument.--Richardb 11:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Dictionary: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 [[4]] for my argument.--Richardb 11:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Agree with Connel; delete this and all the other bureaucracy listed above. Dmcdevit·t 23:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

May 2007

Category:Estonian topic templates

Should use context labels with lang=et DAVilla 02:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaning these may take some doing. Perhaps the members should be listed separately and bot-corrected? --Connel MacKenzie 20:42, 30 January 2008 (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)

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:

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)
Should already have been archived. Conrad.Irwin 21:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

August 2007

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)
I don't doubt that someone will find the information useful - I do doubt they'd look in a dictionary to find it. Even if they do, they should be politely referred to our encyclopedic sister project. --Connel MacKenzie 22:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete If someone wants to find out what language they speak in the U.S. Virgin Islands, they can look at the Wikipedia article on the U.S. Virgin Islands. This is useless. Kevin Rector 07:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Not dictionary material. Conrad.Irwin 21:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Note: this is a category, not an entry. Since dictionaries usually have no categories at all, are you advocating that we do away with categories altogether? Would you apply the same criterion to Category:Languages of French Polynesia? It is important for users interested in linguistics to see where a language is found, what languages are present, and which languages occur together in a region. --EncycloPetey 00:10, 3 June 2008 (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 it:Fido 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)

I don't know if a category for these would be as useful as an appendix. — [ ric ] opiaterein — 15:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


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)


Should this category be deleted or should it be added to the main glossaries (Appendix:Glossary and Dictionary: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)
Seems like a useful subclass of appendices. -- Visviva 04:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems like the handful that have been added should be moved to some other category. The overlap with transwikis is misleading. --Connel MacKenzie 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:cite news

Totally incompatible with Dictionary: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)

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)
  • Keep, nothing wrong with footnotes in appendices. -- Visviva 04:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, for the times when we need references, we have &ltref> [1] there is no need here for the other variations that just muddy the waters. Conrad.Irwin 22:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)



[{{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:ref label

Template:note label

[{{ref label}} & {{note label}}]

The same argument as the above applies here. Jimp 17:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

September 2007

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)

Language-specific script templates


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)

Moved to {{ks-Arab}}. --Dijan 03:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


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)
Moved to {{ku-Arab}}. --Dijan 03:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


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)
Moved to {{sd-Arab}}. --Dijan 03:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


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)


... 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: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 Dictionary:Beer parlour archive/October 06#Vulgar slang. DAVilla 16:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Might as well keep as a redirect. Or deprecate and delete. --Keene 11:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


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. -- 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)
Keep until the current Wikisaurus effort makes some determination about the utility of the template. DCDuring TALK 22:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


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)
I think User:AutoFormat is slowly dealing with these. --Keene 11:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

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) 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 in Dictionary notes sections (I don’t think that the style would be very suitable for a reference). Even if 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)

November 2007

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 Dictionary: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 Dictionary: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 Dictionary: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 Dictionary: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. —RuakhTALK 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)

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)


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 Dictionary: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 Dictionary: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: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. —RuakhTALK 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.) —RuakhTALK 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)

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)

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: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)


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 qualifier labels 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)

January 2008

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)


Dictionary: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 Dictionary: 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 Dictionary: 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 Dictionary:Stub, redirect to "find & fix." For Dictionary: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)

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 --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)

Kept, I guess. Striking this section.—msh210 18:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:English misnomers

Cannot possibly conform to NPOV. --Ptcamn 19:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Is a light year a year? DAVilla 22:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
No, and nor is it a misnomer. The term "misnomer" means that the label was misapplied or is misleading, not simply that one interpretation of the term might be misunderstood. The problem is restricting inclusion so that the category is meaningful. Otherwise, it is simply an over-expansion of a list of idiomatic terms with no boundaries for including terms. Consider: is a cowboy a boy? Most flatware isn't actually flat, but it is flatter than bowls and other crockery. So, is it a misnomer or not? Is red cedar a misnomer because it is not in the modern genus Cedrus, or simply the result of an older and more broadly applied concept of what a "cedar" is? It is possible to make almost anything a misnomer by choosing the right POV. --EncycloPetey 18:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary:List of protologisms by topic/third person singular gender neutral pronouns

What is that doing there? This is a copy of the Wikipedia appendix, without attribution, isn't it? --Connel MacKenzie 00:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


This seems a bit too specific to fall within the scope of a dictionary? Conrad.Irwin 17:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but maybe not. I'm not too keen on the macrons in the name, since this presumably the English words category for this, but I can see the reasoning behind having the category. The Bhagavad-gītā comprise the primary Hindu sacred scriptures, and the category could function like Category:Bible to include names of religious figures and such. I'm not familiar enough with the text to make a guess as to how useful the category would actually be. --EncycloPetey 23:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Old Webster pages in the wrong namespace

I think I've sorted out the problem of the nasty webster1913 pages - See what I've done with Dictionary:Webster 1913, and I've moved the 1913 dictionary's pages to the appendix namespace, so the below pages can probably be deleted now:--Keene 21:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why did you move them the wrong way? The pseudo-prefix "Webster 1913:" is perfect for temporary stuff destined for the main namespace. As each is broken into a separate NS:0 entry, it is removed from the pseudo-NS page. But remains search-able throughout. The Appendix: is completely inappropriate, as would be "Dictionary:Webster..." --Connel MacKenzie 22:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I know that having the entries in 0 namespace as a pseudo-prefix made them searchable, but it has been "temporary stuff destined for the main namespace" for ages. As far as I can tell, word lists like this one belong in appendix form. I'm not sure about the history of the Webster pages, but am confused why only a couple of dozen of these webster1913 pages are around - it seemed best to me to put them as an appendix. Not ideal, but should be a step in the right direction. But I'm open to reconsider. --Keene 00:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Having them in NS:0 allows the existing project pages (those do exist somewhere, right?) point to the correct location. Not many people work on these pages, but I don't see how moving them helps accomplish that. Nor do I see the utility of moving them to an inappropriate namespace. --Connel MacKenzie 20:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:cite meta

I like the new book reference template okay, especially since it's designed with Wikipedia compatability in mind, but I don't think the passage should be one of the parameters. In particular it makes indentation tricky. The indentation has always been left out of these templates by default. DAVilla 21:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why this is on RFD? You can control indentation of the passage through "indent2" if you feel the need. And I believe it is possible to omit the passage entirely and display it by hand if you wish. That would of course eliminate any of the potential benefits which would be enjoyed if this template were actually to catch on (perhaps unlikely) and it were possible to use a CSS class to define display preferences for quotes or allow downstream filtering. -- Visviva 01:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually I guess I'm neutral. I really think this is the best approach (laying the groundwork for users to be able to hide citations by default); however, it will only be meaningful if it is adopted across the board and that currently seems unlikely. -- Visviva 12:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The fact that I'm always doing things like this (and I don't think I'm the only one) makes me think that automating indentation is a Good Thing. -- Visviva 05:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Category:Words with alpha privatives

This seems like a useless and untenable category. It still has entries in it, which obviously need to be changed before the cat. is deleted. If no one has any objections to this, I'll empty and delete it. Atelaes 03:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this has some merit, for words formed in English through the addition of a privative a- or an-, but most of the entries currently in it don't belong... Some are not alpha-privative at all (aphesis), and many are simply the descendants of a Greek word which happened to be formed from an alpha-privative (amnesty). It does seem valid to have a category for words like apolitical, asexual, achromatic et al., although this should of course be at Category:English words with alpha privatives. -- Visviva 04:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
So, you're saying the category should be used for words in which the a- prefix (specifically the negating a-) was added as an English prefix (as opposed to a Greek prefix)? Atelaes 19:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
That would be my inclination, yes; it would probably be useful to have a Category:Greek words with alpha privatives et al. as well. In general I think we would do well to use etymology/morphology categories more aggressively. -- Visviva 03:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I must admit I'm opposed to such etymology cats myself. It just seems like clutter to me. It would be better to simply use the "Descendants" line as well as "What links here". Does anyone else have any opinions on the matter to break this stalemate? Atelaes 03:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think such a list might be useful, but don't see this as something for which a category works well. This would be better if converted to Appendix:English words with alpha privatives. That way, the addition or removal of items could be monitored and discussed. --EncycloPetey 18:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

But compiling such a list would be rather difficult. This is ultimately a property of the words thus formed, and as such it seems likely to be better served by a category structure. If a word is incorrectly placed in this category due to a bad or absent etymology, that will eventually be fixed as the entry is improved; on the other hand, if a word is incorrectly placed in the appendix, there is a good chance that no one working on the entry will notice. In my experience such appendices tend to get less oversight than categories, and are often simply forgotten after the initial burst of activity at creation. -- Visviva 05:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki:Various terms used for Germans

All content that might be usable seems to exist in main namespace entries. Entry title itself is too narrow not to be offensive/POV. --Connel MacKenzie 18:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Although there are entries for some of the terms, some are not entries and the portions that contain thoughts on the etymologies and usage of the terms are not incorporated into the entries that do exist. This seems like a potential hot potato that WP passed to us on the grounds that it had to do with words and that we won't incorporate into entries on the grounds that it would be too encyclopedic. Someone needs to have some courage and accept the hot potatoes. Wiktionary seems to do a better job than WP of being descriptive of word use. I think we should step up (step up to the plate). It would be an excellent idea to take the name of any particular target group out of the page name and to make other efforts to accommodate this. This seems like material for Appendix namespace. Is there similar material already there? Where? If not, any thoughts about a name for the page that would contain it? DCDuring TALK 19:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Say what? Look again, please at my first sentence. Anything that can be had from this, already exists in real entries. This only exists to try to be offensive. It is not a useful collection of anything and does not merit an appendix entry. --Connel MacKenzie 14:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, this is a poor choice for an appendix. However, I disagree with Connel's assessment that all the usable content has been incorporated into proper entries. Atelaes 16:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You're talking about the one that is (now) a redlink? Fix that one then, if you think it is useful. --
Could we call i`t something like Appendix:Ethnonyms/German? -- Visviva 07:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
That is not a useful appendix, it is only POV-bait. --Connel MacKenzie 07:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not like this page & would like to see it be deleted, but synonyms can be put on the Germans (plural) page under a "synonyms" section. Goldenrowley 06:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)... or translations. while anything etymological belongs on the word page - note these words for Germans merit extra "usage" comments. Goldenrowley 06:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me, that anything that could be salvaged from this, already has been. --Connel MacKenzie 06:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


note this is a redirect to Template:checktrans-top as people have used both names

I thought this was nice at first, but seems to be causing things to fall through the cracks. Orphan and delete. --Connel MacKenzie 14:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep; before, the TTBC section was the only one visiable, so anon users would add new translations to that section exclusively. If we go back to that system, without fixing the problems with collapsible Translations boxes, then we are merely bringing that problem back. I'd rather tsee some solution implemented that solves both problems, rather than just favoring one problem over another. --EncycloPetey 18:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. How exactly does it cause things to fall through the cracks? — [ ric ] opiaterein — 21:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep (either/both names) with the L5 header and uncollapsed ttbc list, anyone who doesn't understand the collapsing will add to the ttbc section. There is another related problem in that some users think they should add new translations to the ttbc section, thinking they must be checked by someone else before going in the "real" section(s). For now at least, this does away with the extra L5 header we don't really need. Robert Ullmann 14:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, does Autoformat check that everything listed in these tables are marked with {{ttbc|language name}}? DAVilla 21:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

AutoFormat does not touch these at all. I generate User:Connel MacKenzie/checktrans with each XML dump and use JS to get the individual lines {{ttbc}}'d. The template {{ttbc-top}} fucks up the list generation, while confounding the JS at the same time. (Nevermind the fact that a couple "well meaning" contributors have completely destroyed my ability to keep up with that list, by adding completely bogus secondary meanings that fail RFV or RFD every time and deciding that the translations - that rightfully belong only to the original definitions - should be TTBC'd across their new bogus definitions.) What started as an operose task when people complied (due to the inherent automation-resistant variance) has essentially become impossible. This particular template is a confounding factor. --Connel MacKenzie 07:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been changed to use {{checktrans-top}} and {{rfc-auto}}, AF will convert ttbc-* to checktranss-*. AF also removes the L5 header if followed by {checktrans}. Robert Ullmann 12:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


Appears to be used only in Appendix:Japanese Swadesh list. Can it be safely replaced with something else ({{Jpan}}?) and deleted? --Ivan Štambuk 14:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki:Prison cell

Um, a cell of a prison?—msh210 18:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, w:prison cell defines it as a cell in a prison or police station. Seems to pass the lemming test, since WordNet has an entry for it (and its synonyms). -- Visviva 01:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Latin conjugation tables 1

Several folks have been cleaning up the Latin verb entries. We have nearly finished the first conjugation verbs. The following templates are the old blocky conjugation tables that have been deprecated and are no longer linked from any entries.

Other conjugation patterns to follow suit soon. --EncycloPetey 04:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Huzzah! and delete. -- Visviva 04:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I second that "huzzah". Deleted -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I wonder though, why these were listed on RFDO. It seems like, if the Latin folks have worked this out (which I'm assuming you have), the rest of us really have no valid opinion other than, "if you say so." If I don't like a grc template, and nothing's linking to it, and I've made any requisite discussion with other grc folks, I simply delete it, because what does anyone else care? The only reason I can think of to put them here is simply to brag about the fine work that's currently being done by him and Harris. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I debated that and decided it would be better to have a "discussion" that can be archived. That way we have a record of our progress and changes, and also a way to alert people to activity going on that might interest them, and thereby draw in additional contributors who might help. --EncycloPetey 03:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, that gets all the 1st-conjugation Latin verbs. Now we can start on the other three conjugation patterns... >O --EncycloPetey 05:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Maroon Spirit language

Also, the noun and verb subcats (which have both been emptied). Maroon Spirit language is a difficult quandary, as it is appears to be a real language, however, it does not have an ISO code. What I have done is reclassified these words under Category:Jamaican Creole language, with "Maroon Spirit language" as a context tag. However, while it is a Jamaican creole, it appears to not be a dialect of the language known as "Jamaican Creole language", but rather a closely related distinct language. But, since SIL has no ISO code for it, and I think our reliance on SIL is an excellent policy, I think this is the best compromise. If anyone has any other thoughts, feel free to give them. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many languages that have no ISO code, so I wouldn't use that as a strong point for deciding what to do here. I've been cleaning up the language categories, and frankly, this is one I have no idea what to do with. --EncycloPetey 02:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I think a context tag could work, as a stopgap, if we assume that the ISO 693-3 folks just happened to leave this one out. However, in general we need to be careful about this sort of language, which is (apparently) never written down and has (apparently) received only minimal academic attention. Anything "known" about this language or the meaning of its words could easily turn out to be false. Per CFI, in the absence of at least a mention of the specific word in a peer-reviewed scholarly work, I'm inclined to think these entries should simply be deleted.
Why was the category emptied before discussion had run its course? Are these entries still out there somewhere, uncategorized, or have they already been removed? -- Visviva 11:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Classifying this as a variety of Jamaican Creole is silly. One of the main reasons it's interesting is its distinctness from Jamaican Creole.
The main source on this language is an article in New West Indian Guide/Nieuwe West-Indische Gids, "the oldest scholary journal on the Caribbean". While it's true that there isn't much coverage of it, what exists has been cited by various other linguists who apparently regard it as reliable. (See Google Books.) --Ptcamn 05:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary:Votes/2007-07/Sister project links

Apparently superceded by Dictionary:Links. If there's anything here worth borrowing, grab it fast! DAVilla 03:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Bokmål nouns

Should be Category:Norwegian Bokmål nouns. --Connel MacKenzie 00:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This will hinge on the outcome of the discussion at Dictionary:Beer Parlour#Norwegian language classification. --EncycloPetey 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
No, if the language name is "Norwegian", this is wrong. If the language name is "Norwegian Bokmål", it is still wrong. It might be "Norwegian Bokmål nouns". Robert Ullmann 00:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
My point is that there is a discussion in the Beer PArlour about how to handle this language. Please see (and participate in) the discussion there. --EncycloPetey 00:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:English countable nouns

While I perfectly seem the use of the template, as of the mirror cat Category:English uncountable nouns, this particular category is fairly pointless given that nouns are countable by default in English. It'd make more sense in a language like Nahuatl, where the average word is usually uncountable. Circeus 15:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Without some fancy changes to {{countable}} to exclude categorisation for certain languages, then I'd say leave it alone, it's not hurting anyone and if we have Category:English uncountable nouns, then the above is almost expected.--Williamsayers79 18:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia-cruft. Conrad.Irwin 17:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Even though Wiktionary is much less likely to get major disputes as on Wikipedia, no one can guarantee that no major disputes will occur.--Jusjih 04:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't see any need for it. The action=edit page says it's protected, and links to the protection log, which says why it's protected. (It does link to the log, yes? It certainly should.)—msh210 17:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Armenian names

I keep finding wrongly worded categories. I hope this is the simplest way of deleting them. The title category is a mistake for Category:hy:Names. Here are some others, all empty:

Those seem correct to me. After all, these are names, not words about names. -- Visviva 17:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it should be Category:Armenian names, not Category:hy:Names. Category:Armenian names is restricted to Armenian names, while Category:hy:Names would include English and other names, but transliterated into Armenian. I don’t think we need to have a list of English names transliterated into Armenian. —Stephen 16:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a difficult situation. While I agree with much of what Visviva and Stephen have said, there are some serious problems they haven't noted. Firstly, the Category:Armenian names is not limited to names in the Armenian script. It could include Latinized forms of Armenian names found in other languages (such as English renderings). I am not sure what we would do with these entries otherwise. In any case, I personally think a category called "names" is too vague, since lots of things have names. "Names" is merely another way to say "proper noun", so really no category by that name should exist in any form for any language. So delete Category:Armenian names and delete Category:hy:Names. Neither category should exist.
I'm not sure how I feel about the "personal names" categories, and could see arguments either way. However, the terms "Hungarian first names" and "Hungarian last names" are clearly wrong. The Hungarian "first name" is the surname, and the Hungarian "last name" is the given name. If we choose the format "Category:Hungarian xxxx" for these, then they need to be renamed as Category:Hungarian given names and Category:Hungarian surnames. This happens in other languages as well, so I advocate that no categories should be named "first names" or "last names", because the categories could not be parallel if we did. However, I do notice that all the given names and surnames categories are currently named with ISO codes. --EncycloPetey 18:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Now you really make me nervous. There are about 6,000 given names listed in Category:Male given names and Category:Female given names, more than half of these in the non-English categories of the xx:(Fe)Male given names type. Who will move them if the categories are renamed? Even Daniel Polansky might refuse. I'm not discussing philosophy, I'm just trying to be practical. There should not be duplicates. The "Armenian names"-type categories don't make the intended language clear. See for example Category:German surnames. Half of the names are English surnames of German origin, half are German entries.
Has there ever been a discussion on transliterated given names? People do add them, see Category:Male given names from Arabic. We don't need transliterated forms of place names in any language, but since English given names (and possibly surnames) are "translated", i.e. transliterated into Mandarin or Japanese, surely there should be a category in the other language too. "Category:ja:Male given names from English"?
As to the parent category, it can be called "Names", or all the xx:Given name/Surname/Cities etc. categories could be grouped under Xxxxn proper nouns. That doesn't seem important to me. We really need a Beer Parlor discussion on given names ( or all names).Here are some other problems: a need for translingual entries, how to define the language of a name, what does "translating" a name really mean, the confusing subcategories that I never dare to use . --Makaokalani 11:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
All very true. This is a big reason I've tended to avoid "names" entries even though one of my hobbies is serious research into historical onomastics of medieval Central Europe. (I actually have a whole bookshelf of books related to this subject.) It just would drive me crazy trying to keep all the name entries that users contribute straight and organized. So, other than expanding some of the Biblical names entries, I've tended to stay out of the whole mess. --EncycloPetey 16:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that the xx: category naming is wrong. These words are names, not words about names. It is incorrect to put them in topic categories. (Once again, why is this so hard for people to understand?)

If a term IS something, it goes in "(language) something"

If a term is ABOUT something, it goes in "xx:something"

We have Category:Russian nouns because the entries ARE nouns. We have Category:ja:Horses because the entries are ABOUT horses (the actually beasts are hard to store in an SQL database, sort of Star Trek technology ;-)

Really, why is this so confusing that people perpetually try to do it WRONG? Robert Ullmann 10:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't the names categories be an exception? Because people will always get it wrong. "Armenian nouns" and "Armenian verbs" are obviously parts of the Armenian language, but "Armenian names" can be any language. A Frenchwoman can give her baby a cute Armenian name. Any name associated with Armenia in any language can be an Armenian name. Names are tricky, normal rules don't apply to them. Actually I'm amazed ( and happy ) that this dictionary accepts names at all.
I'm trying to clean up given name entries and I come across this language confusion all the time. Only the "xx:Names" categories seem unambiguous. And Category:hy:Names is a subcategory of Armenian proper nouns.Almost all name categories are of the xx:Names type. They were there already when I came here a year ago and I've put all my entries in those categories. Robert, you've given me lots of good advice, so why didn't you protest about it earlier?
What about Category:Cities then? Words ABOUT cities should be "skyscraper", "urban legend", but nobody is surprised to find "New York", "Paris" instead. Couldn't we use common sense in the naming of categories?--Makaokalani 15:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I have protested at various times; but there is so much confusion because people see one or two incorrectly named categories, and thing that is the way things are supposed to be. (The Chinese cats are still a source of much confusion.) Even if a French child is given an Armenian name, it is still an Armenian name, it doesn't become French (until done a lot ;-). "Cities" is words about cities. "New York" is the proper noun for the city, it is a word about the city. "Berenice" is a given name, it is not a name of a given name, it is the name itself. (C'est ne pas une pipe!) And notice that having "hy:Names" as a subcat of "Armenian proper nouns" is completely confusing the cat hierarchy; it should be "Armenian names", and in "Armenian proper nouns" and "Names by language". (Or perhaps we should always be using "... given names" and "... surnames" and not just "names"? Especially because "names" could be names of other things, and this is all about people's names, right?)
Consider this: we could easily have a L3 POS header "Given name" (we don't, but it would fit the pattern). But we would never have "City" as an L3 POS header. The word "New York" is not the city. The word "Berenice" is the given name.
Yes, it is a large mess to clean up; the templates will make it easier (or would, if someone hadn't absurdly included the ":" in the parameter, but that is bot-work). But please let us not go in the wrong direction; it will only become a larger job to eventually fix. Robert Ullmann 16:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Also note that {{given name}} was created and set up wrongly only a few months after the xx:Topic system was worked out, as separate from the POS-etc categories; and I had only been here a few weeks and didn't notice at the time ;-) Robert Ullmann 16:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there a discussion or consensus on the change you are proposing? By my count, you would have to rename over 120 subcategories in the Given name/Male given name/Female given name categories, and 20 in surnames. The names of 9 English surname subcategories should be changed too. At the present, Category:Irish surnames means "English surnames used in Ireland". Murphy is actually defined as an Irish surname. That's an endless source of misunderstanding. We will have to keep removing Murphys and Kellys from the "Irish (=Gaelic) surnames" category. What about Category:American surnames, Category:Jewish surnames? Can parts of speech have nationality and religion? And then somebody creates a language subcategory "German Jewish surnames", and since many English Jewish surnames derive from German, they will be placed there.
This isn't a matter of principle to me. I'm just pointing out the practical problems. How soon do you think the names could be fixed? Will the template change too? Is the English template {given name(fe)male} still acceptable? I finally started cleaning up English given name entries two weeks ago but now I'll have to stop until the categories are fixed. What should I do in the meantime - is it more harm than good to create new entries with the old templates?
So place names are topics, but given names and surnames are parts of speech? There is a method in this madness: people walk around and die, but places can be tagged and defined. In that case deleting the "Armenian names/hy:Names" type parent categories from all languages is a brilliant idea. But somebody has to empty them first, see Category:Russian names.--Makaokalani 14:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
p.s. Now I forgot the French baby. If a name is written in Roman script and pronounced and inflected in French it cannot be Armenian. But the Mommy believes it is, and makes an entry to help us, in the Category:Armenian names, and we have to clean it up. --Makaokalani 14:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Category:Romanian alphabet

Category:Ukrainian alphabet


I don't see much use for this category - all the subcategories e.g. Category:Jargon:Marketing and others are also unnecessary duplicates of e.g. Category:Marketing. Putting things in {{context}} shouldn't need the jargon tags IMHO Keene 21:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've already deleted Category:Jargon:Scale modeling (the most deletable category there, with just one entry in it (a user subpage). Keene 21:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • As a side note, is there any use having even {{jargon}}, which some could argue is a duplicate of {{context}}? Keene 21:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete; this duplicates what the standard categories are designed for. And, yes, {{jargon}} duplicates the function of {{context}}. --EncycloPetey 21:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep - maybe we can change its function to include things like legalese, governmentese and other -ese jargons? --Jackofclubs 07:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean that those words should be categorized in this category?—msh210 16:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this is a possible solution. --Jackofclubs 09:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Arabic numerals

Digits yes, numbers no. Most of these should be deleted. All sum of parts.

Note that some have a reason of existence, such as 180 and 1337, and possibly 911 and 112. H. (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of an Arabic numeral is the ten numerals 0 through 9. A number such as 25 is not an Arabic numeral, but a number composed of the Arabic numerals 2 and 5. —Stephen 14:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Terminology will vary depending on the context and background of the author, but I agree that it's highly unusual to call multi-digit numerical representations "numerals". Most authors seem to apply the term numeral either to individual digits or to written words. --EncycloPetey 17:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought that the categories in the general format Language numerals etc. were for parts of speech in that language which are numerals e.g. cardinal numbers and ordinal numbers.--Williamsayers79 18:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes and no. We've never agreed on any standard (and the last discussion was inconclusive). So, the words in Arabic that represent numerical concepts could be in Category:Arabic numerals or in Category:Arabic numbers, depending on who set up and populated the category. The same is true for all other languages. --EncycloPetey 12:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
What about the other ones, that aren't categorized there? (ie 51). 13:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Template:possessive determiner

This template is unused, as should be the case since there are no possessive determiners in English. Such words as my, his, etc. are pronouns. Nevertheless, its existence will likely tempt somebody to include it somewhere. Best to get rid of it.--Brett 15:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a few in English, but rarely used these days. Consider "Mine eyes have seen...", which are the opening words of the well-known (in the US) "Battle Hymn of the Republic". The word mine functions as a possessive determiner, since it may precede a noun or stand alone as a pronoun. That doesn't mean we should keep this template, but it is worth pointing out. Please note that a lack of use for a template in one language does not mean it should be deleted. --EncycloPetey 17:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
mine is simply a variant of my (actually the other way 'round). They're both pronouns though. As for deletion, though, I suppose you're right. Rather than delete it, the tag for English determiner should be removed.--Brett 01:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Korean false cognates

Created by Rodasmith to be placed on talk pages created by our very dear KYPark.

Since Korean is a language isolate (sometimes placed in "Macro-Altaic" scheme with Japanese, but the whole Altaic thing is highly dubious anyway), comparing any Korean word (either native Korean or borrowing) with that of any other language is always a false cognate.

As can be seen on the talk pages of entries this template ended up: Talk:매다, Talk:띠앗, Talk:마니다, Kypark is concerned only with IE languages, even the extinct/reconstructed ones like Oscan, Gothic, Old High German and Proto-Germanic, which are of next-to-none educational value to casual reader, this whole thing cannot be understood as nothing less than Kypark's intention of subtle promoting IE-Korean relatedness. --Ivan Štambuk 19:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I support our efforts to keep misleading comparisons out of etymologies, but false cognates are potentially useful to language learners. Applying the label "false cognates" and relegating them to the talk pages seems to be something of a compromise: KYPark can continue to provide this potentially useful memory aid without making misleading etymology claims. If there is a better place for the memory aids, a better label to apply, a better name for the template, or better wording for it, please suggest them, but let's not just delete potentially useful data. Rod (A. Smith) 19:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Abstain As far as I can see the arguments are 'harmlesss and not useful, which both amount to the same thing. Let's stop wasting puff over the issue and just get on. Conrad.Irwin 20:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I cannot imagine profile of a person who would be interested in mnemonics on Korean and Oscan, OHG and Gothic. I sincerely doubt that these are intended as "mnemonics" in the first place - that's how you labeled them, and that's the term that came up after Kypark was asked what does he mean when he says that e.g. Korean and French word "share the same roman syllable". Somehow I don't think he had pure mnemonics in mind. I find it very hard to see any potential usefulness of these kind of lists.
However, I wouldn't mind seeing Kypark channeling his effort exclusively on one appendix page, safely outside the main namespace, with a big detailed warning message that would forbid potential misinterpretation of it's content. --Ivan Štambuk 20:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
These weird etymological claims remind me of a pesky Russian contributor that we had here a few years ago. He kept trying to add things like бери, бери (take! take!) to bribery and so forth. He put considerable effort into this and and tried hard to convince us to allow him to "convert" English Wiktionary to his so-called "multilingual associations". After the revert wars finally stopped, it took me another two years to root all of that stuff out. I still run across some of them on Russian Wikitionary.
I agree with Ivan, if Kypark insists on expressing his eccentric views on language here, it should be restricted to a single appendix page with a clear explanation to keep people from misinterpreting it. There are still a lot of Korean pages here that contain his "evidence" that Korean is an Indo-European language, and I think it will take quite some years to find and repair them all. —Stephen 20:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Harmless, because the text of the template, both as transcluded and as noincluded, states very clearly that this nonstandard (substandard) linguistics. (This is not a vote, if anyone's counting.) I'd change the wording from "WT:ELE does not admit a ===False cognates=== section, so they are listed here instead, on the talk page" to "Because this is balderdash and poppycock, WT:ELE doesn't admit it to the entry, so it's here on the talk page instead" or some such. (Incidentally, there's a fascinating book called The Word, by Mozeson, full of false cognates, presented as cognates, between ancient Hebrew and English. Sample page.)—msh210 21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Category:User sh

Template:User sh

Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage officially died with communist Yugoslavia and sh ISO code is now deprecated. With bs/hr/sr babelboxen available, I see no reason for keeping this other than for insultive/propaganda purposes. --Ivan Štambuk 18:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep as long as Dijan (talkcontribs) has it: I don't believe his intent is to insult or propagate. —RuakhTALK 21:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Strongly keep - existence of languages is independent of political develeopments and the different scrypts are NOT a reason for deletion - exempli gratia chines emigrants before 1956 still use Traditional characters, but their language is not different from the language in the People's Republic of China. Tajik in Tajikistan is written wih Cyrillic script, in Afghanistan with Arabic, but the language is one. Summa summarum, there are exactly three South Slavic languages - Serbocroatian(Hrvatskosrpski), Bulgarian and Slovenian and other statements are but a POV. Take a look at this issue from the XIX century, it is interesting and discloses a similar separatism, which is now prevailing, as is beginning to prevail the negation of the Serbocroation language, but there are always sensible linguists opposed to such developments. Bogorm 21:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Bogorm, so-called "Serbo-Croatian" is nothing but a political label that in practice meant nothing. Most modern Croat historians would argue that "Yugoslavism" that brought us the "common language" was nothing but the most elaborate and refined phase of Greater Serbianism. I can guarantee you that no Serbian speaker can write literate Croatian. Do you find it funny that today people who claim to speak "natively Serbo-Croatian" here and on WP have but -3 and -4 profficiency in Croatian listed in their Babel boxes? This "separatism" you speak of is bizarre, Croat writers were caling their mother tongue Croatian centuries before communist brought us the SC thingie, and Serbs continued to have in the constitution "SC" listed as an official language up until 1997 in unsuccessful Yugoslavia #5 even after Bosnia and Croatia declared independence. In practice people who claim to be speakers of "SC" are in 99% cases Serbs or Serbophiles who use it as a political manifest with a very precise meaning, especailly when they couple it with hr/sr babelboxen (why chose them at all when hr=sr=sh?). Believe it or not, the notion of "SC" is offensive nowadays to most Bosniaks and Croats, and it would be to you to if you were more educated in language policy, propaganda machinery and fabricating history that was essential ingredient of Yugoslav politics (always at the expense of someone others heritage..). Also, a common myth you mention - there is no "linguistics justification" for SC either; as a standard language it's dead (it never really existed because two "varieties" of Eastern and Western that were recognized roughly correspond to modern notion of standard Croatian and Serbian, post-90s changes aside), and the notion of "SC" as a "collection of dialects" is completely arbitrary as the whole South Slavic area forms a dialect continuum (i.e. Čakavian+Kajkavian+Štokvian+Torlakian do not constitute a "genetic node", and neither does the South Slavic branch either as it's just a geographical designation, just like West and East Slavic too). The whole thing is a bit more complicated than b/w picture you boil it down to. Once again, saying that one speaks "SC" is nothing but a political manifest, by modern conceptions anachronistic, obsolete and potentially offending to some. Why insist on it when alternatives are available? --Ivan Štambuk 22:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I am well aware of the ruses of the Serbs in the past, I am interested in Balcan history. Take for example the so called Macedonian language, which was fabricated by the Comintern and taken by Tito Yugoslavia as a way to lacerate 1,5 million ethnic Bulgarians and to declare them Macedonians and their dialect Macedonian. The opposite about the majority of the inhabitants of Kosovo and Metochia - they now consider themselves unwillingly Kososvars, but are furtively wishing to join a "Great Albania" - that are only two examples of why separatism is ineffably pernicious. I know very well that Croatian national identity is not from some decades as Macedonian, I am well aware that Serbs and Croatians are different nations, but if they are different in religion, why make it more complicated and declare difference in languages(cf. Farsi/Dari - Shiites/Sunites)? I am not a Serbophile, but now when Kosovo and Metochia is lacerated from Serbia, one does not have to feel Schadenfreude and to sacrifice further the vague vestiges of the unity of South Slavic people(I mean, obliterating gradually the sense of belonging to a communion in the people's minds after the political turmoils 1992-present). I fully acknowledge the old Russian view about Bosnia exempli gratia (in БСЭ) - that the population of Bosnia comprises Croatians, Serbs and Serbs-Muslimes, id est no Bosnians (yet). And after the fabrication in the case of Macedonia to invent some "Bosnians" and "Kosovars" for two decades is lamentable. I hope we are on one opinion in this matter and you understand why I am embracing the unity of South Slavic people without being a Serbophile. Bogorm 23:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You are very deluded to say that Bosniaks are "Serb Muslims" or that Tito "invented" Macedonian nation/language. This former statement looks like it's copied from some Serb nationalist handbook, for you see today every single neutral source on Balkans acknowledges Bosniaks as being descendants of Slavs being neither Croats nor Serbs. Kosovars have every right to secede from ex-Serbia and favour Greater Albania after ethnic cleansing and failed attempt of genocide by Milošević and his death squads, as was sacked by NATO bombs (too bad there was no NATO to aid Srebrenica or Vukovar). All attempts of "unity" of South Slavic people have brought nothing but misery as end results; what makes you thing that another Yugoslavia won't end up being dominated military and culturally by "heavenly people", at the expense of other less numerable ethnicities? You know, there were always "Ustasha words" in Yugoslavia, never "Chetnik words", people went to prison for writing Croatian "umirovljeni časnik" instead of Serbian "penzionisani oficir", never the other way around. It's absurd to see in the 21st century how the same demagogy of "unity" is being misused to justify opression both historically and nowadays (think of Georgia and Tibet, Russia is "defending" it's citizens by de facto comitting ethnic cleansing..).
Anyhow this is getting too political. You crystally clear state, in somewhat fascist view denying self-determination to Bosniaks and Kosovars, that your support of "SC" template is purely a token of political aspiration to some forsaken times that are furtunatelly never coming back, nothing else. You know, once upon a time there was also a "Czechoslovakian language", but no one remembers it today.. :) --Ivan Štambuk 23:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
"Serbian nationalistic books" - this was completely deprived of any sense, since I told you that the Macedinian language is considered by numerous linguists a dialect of Bulgarian, so as you see, Serbia has not inflicted only forcible unification, but forsible separatism too. "too bad there was no NATO to aid Srebrenica or Vukovar" - this statement is highly reproachable and I would retort "too bad that Russia did not send a military force in 1999 to crush the invasion of a sovereign Slavic state and prevent the laceration of Slavic land". "think of Georgia and Tibet, Russia is "defending" it's citizens by de facto comitting ethnic cleansing" - Russia is retaliating an atrocious genocide (the notion of genocide is not mine - here) committed by Georgian forces, in which 2000 Ossetians were ruthlessly slaughtered. Vitaly Chrukin has said that no decent man will henceforth be able to negotiate with M. S. after the destruction of Tskhinvali by him(quote) China is defending its citizens from a pogrom instigated by Tibetan ultranationalists, which was castigated by Dalai Lama himself because of the killing of innocent Han people in Lhasa. You crystally clear deny, in some fascist view, the right to retaliate the flagrantly committed suicide in Tshinvali and your POV reminds me of what the Russian prime minister has said: "after the extermination in Iraq of Shia villages the perpetrator is called villain and criminal, but when 10 Ossetian villages are obliterated, the perpetrator is defended."
There has never been Czechoslovakian language not even according to the socialist camp (there are articles in БСЭ about сербохорватский язык, чехский язык, словацкий язык) and this statement is a figment of yours.
"some forsaken times that are furtunatelly never coming back" - if you are so sure, take a look at this and this articles.
Given the profound differences between your POV position concerning the war of 1999 and the South Ossetian war, and my stance, I think the best both of us could do is to cease disputing further and deviating towards tricky contemporary questions, because no consent is going to be reached and to deliver this quesstion to the competence of other more neutral users (not Slavic and not residing in any NATO member state - for example Chinese or Indian or other), since otherwise the deletion or conservation is bound to be committed under a POV. Bogorm 08:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


Unnecessary now that they comprise a namespace. (Most of the depopulation will be easy, throgh editing {{citation}}.)—msh210 19:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

But them they would lack categories and show up on the list of uncategorized pages. The category needs to be present to keep that list from clogging up, even if the category seems otherwise superfluous. In any case, it could eventually end up with language specific subcategories as use of the Citations: namespace grows. --EncycloPetey 00:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think special:uncategorizedpages has non-main-namespace pages anyway. Can anyone confirm? And as far as language-specific categories, I agree, but category:Citations can be merely a container for the language-specific categories; can't we orphan it of individual pages?—msh210 19:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not it is deleted, it would be good to add a link in {{citations}} to Dictionary:Citations so people can find documentation on the format of those pages easily. Right not it's a three step process; clicking on the Category link, from there to Dictionary:Quotations, and from there to Dictionary:Citations. Better if it was simplified. (really, User:JesseW) 21:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


This template is not a context template (it's etymological "information"), is used in only three words, and provide no useful information (etymology goes under that header) or categorization. Circeus 18:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphan (textifying and moving the info to the etymology section) and delete.—msh210 18:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:English buzzwords

Should this be a "Fooian stuff" cat or a "fo:Stuff"? I have no idea whatsoever where that info is hidden. In any case, stuff is currently split between this and Category:Buzzwords and there's Category:is:Buzzwords, so some decision needs to be taken, if only so {{buzzword}} can be made to work properly. Circeus 18:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Is "buzzword" useful as part of any category, label, or template? It doesn't seem so to me. It just looks like a pejorative label. Does it mean neologism? Does it mean "cant" (def. 2)? DCDuring TALK 18:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm nominating mostly to get a definition regarding category format. I wouldn't oppose deletion of both categories and template (which appears mostly unused) either. Wikipedia is better at discussion such concepts and what they migh encompass anyway. Circeus 19:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete DCDuring TALK 15:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


And associated Category:Cant. From cant, does this mean {{jargon}}, "secret language" or simply {{slang}}? Also this is a very technical term that is a best unlikely to be understood by even fairly advanced foreign learners. Circeus 18:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's supposed to just mean cant#noun, meaning 1 or 2. Meaning 2 "secret language" is the more distinctive and useful sense. OTOH, I had a deifferent notion of what it meant until spending a lot time here. As with many other grammatical/linguistic terms, it would be more useful if there were a link (blue, black, or some not-too-obtrusive color) to a glossary or principal namespace entry or an appendix that offered a satisfactory definition. DCDuring TALK 18:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, all uses of the tag are from the Classic 1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue imports, which definitely outlines that the term is at best dated, at worst literary or outright archaic. Circeus 19:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I've noted that "cant" terms sometimes appear in etymologies. The applications of the label at present in Wiktionary may be dated. The term is useful even if dated. The phenomenon of secret criminal language is certainly not dated, though it may be hard to document the entries. It might be that we need to label these specific entries as "cant, dated: 18th century". DCDuring TALK 19:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought argot was a fairly well-accepted term for "criminal languages". Arguably {{context|criminal|_|slang}} should be able to do the trick? Given that slang is by definition more or less opaque to outsiders. Circeus 19:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I like that cant is brief, but I could accept any set of terms that did not contradict generally accepted meanings. It is, of course, extremely unhelpful that the terms argot, cant, jargon, and slang have overlapping definitions. Perhaps the best we can do is use slang with qualifiers. "Slang" in the most common sense is not limited to the "secret language" sense. "Slang" seems to be the term of choice in other dictionaries. DCDuring TALK 20:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Part of speech context labels

Part of some aborted template experiment. Whatever is done, the "context labels" category really ought to go from these... things. Circeus 03:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Not aborted, it is the result of discussion that was just never followed through on. These were intended for use on acronyms, initialisms, and the like which need to have the POS identified in addition to the Acronym / Initialism / etc. header that is normally given. For example, CD is an initialism, but one that behaves as a noun in English. The initialism IM, on the other hand, can be used as either a noun or a verb. This information is context information and is highly relevant for our work. --EncycloPetey 19:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


Less than a dozen uses and already garbled in scope, with stuff related to "space" in general, "spatial exploration" and "space prepositions". Keeping it is just a recipe for total confusion. Circeus 16:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone can produce a list of terms that could reasonably use this as a context template, I agree. --EncycloPetey 19:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the problem is not that the term cannot be used at all: both "space/spatial organization" and "space exploration" (or should that just be "astronomy"?) are legitimate categories to me. It's more that this template is too ambiguous to properly serve for either. Circeus 20:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Appendix:Bagpipe terms

The page has the same content as Appendix:Glossary of bagpipe terms, just differently formatted. --Daniel Polansky 09:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, delete. -- Gauss 23:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
redirect to Appendix:Glossary of bagpipe terms – redirects are cheap. --EivindJ 22:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


The page Wikisaurus:stingy is subsumed by Wikisaurus:miser, which is much more extensive, hence I nominate “stingy” for deletion.

Nbarth (email) (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete.msh210 22:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I look at primary meanings only. These are different entries, an adjective and a verb. Keep. DAVilla 08:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

July 2008


Is this a meaningful category? A vast majority of words can act as a metonym. Metonymy can be predicated about a particular occurrence of a word in a sentence, but hardly about the word standing alone, isn't it? --Daniel Polansky 13:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

True. I think we had a discussion about this before (somewhere). We came to much the same conclusion. Almost any noun can be used as a metonym: "A sad face appeared in the window." or "The front desk will assist you.", so metonymy does not make a useful category. --EncycloPetey 16:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment. There are some words that are so frequently used metonymically that it makes sense to include metonymic senses for them; crown is a good example of this, as in "property of the crown" or "succession to the crown". It might make sense to tag such senses, and if we do, it might make sense to categorize their entries. —RuakhTALK 20:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
We can already do this using {{figurative}}. --EncycloPetey 19:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
But that doesn't put it in any category. Using "what links here" on the template yields a list of entries that includes many types of "figuratives", not just metonymy. We would need a more specific context qualifier. We could call it, say, {{metonym}}.
To me the problem with the category is that it operates at the level of the entry, but concerns something that only makes sense at the definition level. This then requires some searching to find within Language, Ety, and PoS the definition(s) that actually demonstrated the metonymy. A context tag would at least mean that a user wouldn't have to actually read all the definitions to figure out what definition was the metonym. If we are going to rely on this method for normal users to actually find something, we would have to make the whole process a bit better documented.
  • Keep until replaced, that is, until {{metonym}} is created and each entry in the category has been inspected for placement of the metonym tag. DCDuring TALK 20:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


As far as I can tell, all words on that list are now in the Wiktionary, except those which are listed with bad capitalisation. Those links, however, are undesired. The list is from late 2005. -- Gauss 18:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, redlinked on that list are (U+2502 BOX DRAWINGS LIGHT VERTICAL of all things); ----; mètres; jusqu'en; px; various words with first letter capital; various words starting with l', s', n', qu', or d' (or the same with a fancy apostrophe); and nothing else.—msh210 19:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Since French uses roughly the same capitalization rules as English, ought we not investigate whether there is a reason those particular words are capitalized? Perhaps some are French proper nouns for which we should have entries. bd2412 T 04:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Our list is old, and many of those entries have been deleted since (like fr:Géographie). They appear to be old errors much like the capitalization errors that are still being cleared away here. --EncycloPetey 04:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me then that we're better off simply generating a new list to sit in this space. bd2412 T 05:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


We already have an entry for the word nucular. Everything on this page transwikied from Wikipedia is suitable for an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Angr 11:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep; on the contrary, the article is completely unsuited for Wikipedia and most of it can be converted to a comprehensive Wiktionary entry. Unless you're saying that usage examples, etymology, and lexical notes don't belong in a dictionary? LtPowers 16:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete - we already have an entry and the "new" content of the transwikied article is irrelevant for a dictionary. --EncycloPetey 18:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Do we need to RFD such cases? I mean, if someone is sure we have an entry with all the useful info that's in the transwikied article, can he simply {{delete}} or delete it, or does it need to be RFDed?—msh210 16:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This needed to be mined and still needs to be mined to supplement our entry. It has led me to edit our pronunciation section and add entries for nucule and nutlet, so far. DCDuring TALK 16:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki on protected template

On Template:w please add interwiki
Thanks. 10:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
We do not place iw links on templates, as it impairs system performance. --EncycloPetey 17:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Really? Er, okay, but just for my personal knowledge: how come Wikipedia has lots of interwikis on most templates without perfs problems? And is there a page somewhere with the discussions about this decision or where developers explained the hows and whys of this perf problem? I mean, I'm not challenging you or anything, but I'd like to understand and see if that's something that should be considered for other Wiktionary's and/or Wikipedia's. Thanks for any data or links you can share about this issue. 20:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
No, WP has the interwikis on "doc" subpages that are transcluded into the template page if you look directly at it. Likewise, we allow and encourage iwikis on our doc, which is on the talk page.
The "performance" reason is that every add/removal/change of an iwiki on a template causes every page that uses the template to be recomputed. This is not onerous, but it is utterly useless, and thus to be avoided. Feel free to link the talk pages. Robert Ullmann 00:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
(section struck, not a page delete request) Robert Ullmann 00:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense (I much prefer the /doc system, but that's not my call). I'll put the iw on Template talk:w then, and so I reckon reciprocal iw's should be directed towards [[en:Template talk:w]] too so that iw bots can work with it. Thanks. 14:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
P.S.: Note that iws are disabled on talk pages and displayed inlined so I had to make an Interwikis section. 14:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

Proto Etymon Templates

{{PA.}}, {{PG.}}, {{CG.}}, {{PIE.}}, {{PMP.}}, {{MP.}}, {{CMP.}}, {{PO.}}, {{CO.}}, {{PP.}}, {{CP.}}, {{PS.}}. All are proto-lang templates, or redirects to them. All have been cleared out (after much arduous and tedious editing), to use {{proto}} instead. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  • delete, well done for your hard work. Have you noted this on all the etymology help pages? Thryduulf 18:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I have not. I figured I'd wait and make sure no one had any issues with deleting these before I went and redid policy pages. Though, I don't know of any page which actually recommends using them. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete templates and update [[Dictionary:Etymology/language templates#Etymology language templates]]. —RuakhTALK 23:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Adding one which I missed: {{PBS.}} (cleaned and ready for termination). Dictionary:Etymology/language templates#Etymology language templates has been updated. Out of curiousity, what's up with the new style of encasing links with an extra set of brackets? Is it the new black? Should I tell my friends? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I decided that much as I distinguish uses and mentions of terms by using {{term}} for the latter, and much as I use {{temp}} when mentioning templates, it might make sense to use an extra pair of brackets when mentioning an entry, to make clear that I'm referring to the entry and neither using nor mentioning the term. I haven't decided yet whether I like the effect and want to stick with it (especially for project pages, as in this case), but if you'd like to join in and make it a fad, then the more, the merrier. :-)   —RuakhTALK 03:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, delete. Thanks! --Bequw¢τ 21:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned {{PIE.}} and deleted others. Did not delete {{PIE.}}, because two editors have used it in the past few days, and it probably shouldn't be deleted out from under them, so to speak. —RuakhTALK 18:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I know it's sort of bad form to keep adding to such a list, but....well I guess it's all part of the same discussion. If anyone would sleep better at night if this were on a new thread, please simply ask and I will do so. {{CT.}} and {{FU.}}. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Common Turkic does not sound convincing, sice there could emerge templates such as Prote-Baltoslavic, Proto-Altaic and so forth. Or Proto-manchu-tungusic - I do not know whether Finno-Ugric languages had already an alphabet in the X. century (and one could infer anything about origin based on scriptures), but the oldest Manchu-Tungusic language, the Jurchen has had its script from about the XII. century and I do not find XII. century "Proto" at all (compared to Proto-Germanic, which is far BC, exempli gratia) Bogorm 22:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Note Bogorm that these are nominated for deletion because other, more standard alternatives deprecate them, not because they "don't sound too convincing" by serious linguistics argument. Finno-Ugric and Balto-Slavic are indeed a matter of fact, whether some people like it or not (not unlike Altic though..). There are already Category:Proto-Balto-Slavic derivations, Category:Proto-Finno-Ugric derivations, Category:Proto-Turkic derivations etc. which are used for sorting etymologies. --Ivan Štambuk 22:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Pretty sure I'm one of the ones who used {{PIE.}}. Delete. I'm a little bit in love with {{proto}}. Medellia 15:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you're one. I'll leave a note on the talk-page of the other. —RuakhTALK 02:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


This is a regional dialect, not an L2 header language. It must not have a code template. Robert Ullmann 14:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Move to {{fr-CA}}, since (according to the correct region subtag is CA (Canada) rather than ca (Catalan/Valencian). (I might be swayed to vote delete, if you would be so kind as to explain why regional variants must not have code templates.) —RuakhTALK 14:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
(note that the IANA subtag registry has had so much junk dumped into it that it is not, if it ever was, useful; there is a reason we refer to the ISO standards)
Because then "fr-ca" passes all the checks for L2 language headers, language lines in translations tables, prefixes for topic cats, context etc. It effectively adds Canadian French to the L2 set. (and thence many, many others we do not want). We deleted {{tlh}} (Klingon) for precisely this reason. If {etyl} needs another parameter, fine. But with {fr-ca} (or -CA) you will see {{context|pejorative|lang=fr-ca}} used, and have to endlessly explain that that is supposed to be {{context|Canada|pejorative|lang=fr}} and all manner of similar problems. Robert Ullmann 15:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Those are good reasons, thanks for explaining. :-)   (Ordinarily I'd say we shouldn't delete this until a better solution is in place, but currently it's used in only one entry, [[Canadien]], and it doesn't seem to be needed there, as Canadien is the ordinary French word, and the OED Online gives the etymology as simply “[Fr., = Canadian.]”. So we won't need some complex purgatory between when we delete this template and when we solve the general problem.) —RuakhTALK 16:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The Canadian Oxford, which goes into more detail on Canadian English, says that Canadian comes from Canadian French. I suppose it's reasonable to accept that the word entered the English language in Quebec or New Brunswick rather than in Paris.
I'm fine with deleting this template, but I was going to wait until there was a solution proposed to replace it. There's an ongoing discussion at WT:BP#Replace all etymon templates with proto and etyl (oh, I guess R.U. replied here at Requests for Deletion, so I'll stop waiting), and I've posted a query at template talk:etyl#Regional language tagsMichael Z. 2008-08-12 22:29 z
Re: "I suppose it's reasonable to accept that the word entered the English language in Quebec or New Brunswick rather than in Paris.": Firstly, I'm not sure that's true; do Anglo-Canadians learn specifically Quebecker (or otherwise Canadian) French in school? I thought they learned a fairly neutral form of the language. Secondly, even if that is true, I don't really see how it's relevant; Canadien is a standard French word. Heck, even the very phrase “Canadian French Canadien”, taken alone, is misleading, because it implies that the term is a specifically Canadian word; there might be a good reason to use it anyway, e.g. if the term entered Canadian English from Canadian French back before it became standard French (which I strongly doubt), but without knowing what the reason might be, I don't think we should. (I don't mean to dismiss the CanOD's scholarship, but I don't think we should include claims from it without knowing what they mean.) —RuakhTALK 00:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Ignore my speculation then. I still don't see the sense in your argument.
The Canadian Oxford editors make use of Oxford's lexicographic database, and network of contributors to do more detailed research on Canadian English terms. Unless the OED entry has been updated since 2004 with information that contradicts the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, then it is logical to go by what the CanOD says.
“I don't think we should include claims from it without knowing what they mean”—Are you implying that we know what the OED's “claims” mean, that we should accept any of its scholarship? It sounds like you're completely dismissing this particular dictionary, the world's most authoritative source on Canadian English. Michael Z. 2008-08-13 22:18 z
Sorry, I don't mean to dismiss the CanOD, or any other dictionary. But lifting a claim that we don't understand — what does it mean that this standard and universal French word came from Canadian French, specifically? — should we start marking British loanwords as being from French French? — seems very iffy to me, especially when other dictionaries don't make the same claim. (I'd feel differently if the CanOD were public-domain, like the Webster's 1913 entries that we import, but I don't know, taking their claims this way feels kind of like theft to me.) —RuakhTALK 01:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
(Firstly, what we are indicating is that this English word, used mainly in Canada, came from Canadian French.)
A look at Category:Regional English, Category:Regional French, and Category:Canadian French tells me that Wiktionary is well invested into the concept of regional versions of languages.
The way I see it, Oxford has a copyright on the wording in their dictionary, but not on the facts they are conveying—this is probably uncontroversial. If we learned of such a fact from the CanOD, then they deserve credit via a citation in the “References” section—I think this is pretty standard academic practice, too. (I don't think we can easily or reliably determine whether it was their own primary or secondary research which first established such a fact.) This is no different than “lifting” the OED's claim that Canadien came from French. Michael Z. 2008-08-14 05:42 z
I fully agree with your first two paragraphs, and I'm not sure what I've said to suggest otherwise. I also agree with your third paragraph, in that it's not possible to copyright facts, but to me it still seems like theft to take a claim that we can't support because we don't even know what they mean by it. *shrug* At any rate, this whole discussion is an aside — if we agree that {{fr-ca}} is the wrong way to do it, and only one entry is using it, I don't see why we can't edit that entry for now and delete {{fr-ca}}, and re-edit that entry once we figure out what the right way is. —RuakhTALK 15:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I've removed it from the article, so it's okay to delete {{fr-ca}} and {{lang:fr-ca}}Michael Z. 2008-08-14 23:21 z
Keep There are enough terms (Quebecois, felquist, poutine, tuque etc.) to legitimize such an etymology template, whatever its name may end up being. Circeus 02:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
But {{fr-ca}} isn't an etymology template. Certainly etymologies need to be able to say "from Canadian French ____", but that doesn't mean we need a language-code template for Canadian French. —RuakhTALK 04:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Then what's the better way to represent this in Wiktionary? Michael Z. 2008-08-13 22:18 z
I don't know. :-)   My thought — and I'm not sold on this, so feel free to shoot it down — would something like {{etyl-fr-CA}}, so it's specifically an etymology template in the etyl- namespace, rather than a generic French language-code template in the fr- namespace. (It could then use an underlying {{etyl-variant}} template or something, which could parameters for all the sorts of things we need when we're specifying a specific language variant: language name for categorization, language variant name for display, Wikipedia article title for linking, etc.) —RuakhTALK 01:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, this section of Wiktionary might as well be written with hanzis. I just meant that the function it performs for etymology is useful, and should be preserved in some fashion. Circeus 02:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
What about adding a separate regional parameter to {{etyl}}, for something like {{etyl|fr|region=CA}}. This is for etymologies only, so it would only indicate locale, as indicated by a dictionary's etymology saying “Canadian French”, and not necessarily dialect. This wouldn't modify the language code (fr, not fr-CA), nor have any impact on L2 headers. The word would remain in, e.g., category:French derivations, and maybe also be added to a sub-category:Canadian French derivations.
Keep in mind that there may well be terms which come from Quebec French or New Brunswick French. Should these be treated likewise, but with a w:ISO 3166-2 country subdivision tag? (e.g., CA-QC or CA-NB. See w:ISO 3166-2:CA) What happens if a dictionary refers to a region without a subtag, like Brayon French (Brayons are French New Brunswickers from Madawaska)? Michael Z. 2008-08-14 05:42 z
I am keeping that in mind, which is why I don't want to try to overload {{etyl}} to support all the different possibilities, or if we do do that, I don't want that to go directly in every entry. (Imagine the headache for a user adding lots of etymologies from Quebecker French, having to type something like {{etyl|fr|region=CA-QC|wikipedia-article=Quebecois|category=Quebecois derivations}} on every one, and occasionally typo-ing. Surely something like {{etyl-fr-CA-QC}} would be better?) —RuakhTALK 15:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I would presume that {{etyl|fr|CA-QC}} or {{etyl|fr|CA|QC}} would refer to another template to automatically fill in the text and link, just as it already does. It's better to always use one template, and add an optional parameter as an “advanced feature”, than to add editing and maintenance headaches by creating a fleet of new templates.
Anyway, this bears discussion elsewhere. I'll think about this for a bit, and perhaps introduce a better proposal at the Beer Parlour. Michael Z. 2008-08-14 23:21 z

Dotted etymology templates

Per above, I'll be adding specific dotted etymology templates to this section as they are orphaned. First up to the plate is {{Maori.}} replaced with {{etyl|mi}}. Thryduulf 21:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete this and all that follow. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • {{Ayma.}}, superceded by {{etyl|ay}} although there were no actual uses. Thryduulf 21:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Also emptied: {{Af.}} (af), {{Akk.}} (akk) {{ARomani.}} (rme), {{Ary.}} (ary), {{Ayma.}} (ay), {{Ba.}}(eu), {{Dacian.}} (xdc), {{Ett.}} (ett), {{Fo.}} (fo), {{Geor.}} (ka), {{Mazan.}} (mzn), {{Tupi.}}, {{Zulu.}} (zu). Nadando 21:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Question: When you emptied {{Tupi.}}, what did you replace it with? This language has no ISO code. It looks as though you used sai, which means "South American Indigenous", so you need to go back and fix those. --EncycloPetey 16:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh sorry- I should have done more research before replacing them. Thanks for fixing my edits. Nadando 00:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • {{Bret.}} (br) and {{Cy.}} (cy) now also empty. Thryduulf
  • {{Tpi.}} (tpi) can also be added to the list. Thryduulf 20:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • {{Cz.}} (cs), {{Gd.}} (gd), {{Sum.}} (sux) likewise. Thryduulf 23:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • {{Tibetan.}} (bo), {{To.}} (to), {{TL.}} (tl) and {{Tpi.}} (tpi) are ready for the chop. Thryduulf 16:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • {{Bg.}} (bg)as well. Thryduulf 21:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • {{Beng.}} (bn)too - this one took some work! Thryduulf 23:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • {{Ukr.}} (uk), {{Thai.}} (th), {{Malayal.}} (mal) (ml), {{Tamil.}} (ta). Nadando 21:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • {{lat}} has been emptied- not dotted but it should be deleted since {{la}} is used. Nadando 02:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
    Delete for this one as well, although I think it should be on a new thread, as it's a different type of template (a type which I believe should also be deleted). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete. --Bequw¢τ 07:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there any Lang. templates that have an etyl equivalent listed at Dictionary:Etymology/language_templates#Etymology_language_templates but nonetheless cannot always be replaced with it? (Otherwise, this can be done by a bot that knows what to replace with what.)—msh210 21:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you want macrolanguages mentioned too? What did we decide about using ISO for macrolanguages? --EncycloPetey 21:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Er, I want anything mentioned that is a Foo. template that is listed on that page with a etyl|foo equivalent but which should not always be replaced by it. Macrolanguages too, if they meet that description.—msh210 21:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
That's my question: Do we want macrolanguages templated this way in the etymologies? --EncycloPetey 22:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see. You're saying that some would say that items in the table that meet the criteria of my question are all the macrolanguages. Well, in that case, do you know what items in that table are macrolanguages, please?—msh210 22:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Not all, I'm sure, but I can spot quite a few. However, it looks as if most of them have been recently marked, so I'll only mention those with etyl codes that have not been marked yet in the chart : Cariban {{car}} (group), Flemish {{vls}} (=Dutch dialect), Frankish {{frk}} (can mean any of several different languages), Greek {{el}} (problem because grc is often meant instead), Javanese {{jv}} (group), Low German {{nds}} (most uses of this in etymology mean "gml", not the modern language), Modern Greek {{ell}} (MediaWiki uses "el" for this). It's also arguable whether "Anglo-Norman" is a separate language or not, although I'm not the person to ask about that. --EncycloPetey 16:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The only problems I spotted offhand are (1) the table includes Provençal, but this is a synonym of Occitan and should be replaced with that language name, since the latter name is the one used on MediaWiki projects. (2) Modern Greek is listed as "ell", but "el" is the 2-letter code used here. "Greek" will be a problem because most words "from Greek" are actually from Ancient Greek (grc), so these will have to be checked manually. The listings for "Words from Modern Greek" ought to be merged into "Greek", since we don't use "Modern Greek" as the language name. --EncycloPetey 21:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Re (1): But then the table is correct, no? I can replace {{Pr.| with {{etyl|oc, no?—msh210 22:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the categories need to be dealt with also. --EncycloPetey 22:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I can see problems with macrolanguages or Greek, but surely straightforward languages like Latin should be easy to replace- {{L.}} to {{etyl|la}}. Nadando 22:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Bah, this has all been covered already! See Dictionary:Beer parlour#Replace all etymon templates with proto and etyl. We start with converting all the etymon language templates which have a straightforward ISO code to etyl (via bot). This allows us to see exactly what's left over. Anything that's left over is, by definition, some sort of issue which we need to resolve. Yes, some of the "languages" which have ISO codes aren't really languages, but rather macrolangs or some such, but for them, the switch to etyl is a lateral move. They do no more harm in that format. As for Greek, yes, those still have to be gone through by hand, a process which I have slowly been chipping away at for some time. This job is made no more difficult by switching to etyl. Will someone please go to the BP thread and answer my question at the end of the thread. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted the individual language etymology temps (leaving the macrolangs, Old Tupi, and Greek for further discussion). Next time posting these templates please list the language code used to replace it. I put in bold what should've been used. I spot check the ones I deleted for proper code usage but it's very hard to know what was substituted (so we avoid problems like with sai). --Bequw¢τ 06:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I've updated the etymology page to show those codes that "macrolanguages" and those that are "collective language" codes. EP's point about how we decide to use ISO codes for macrolanguages I think should be decided on a case by case basis. We use {{ar}} for Arabic but if one of the communities here argues that they should use and individual code under the macrolanguage I think we should accept that. --Bequw¢τ 07:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Note I've updated the list of replacements above, the replacement for {{Af.}} is {{etyl|xno}} (not {{etyl|af}} and the replacement for {{Malayal.}} is {{etyl|ml}} (not {{etyl|mal}}). you should probably check these are all correct in actual usage.
If you need to check any others, then this old revision of WT:ETY/TEMP is a good reference. Thryduulf 09:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we should be using the ml (the 639-1 code) instead of mal (the 639-3 code) but your other one is incorrect. The template up for deletion was {{Af.}} (Afrikaans, code af). I think you got it mixed up with {{AF.}} (Anglo-Norman, code xno). It was just a single capital letter change:) That's another reason why we should get rid of all these old ones. --Bequw¢τ 05:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Deprecated gender/number templates

{{mf}}, {{nf}}, {{nm}}, {{fm}}, {{fn}}, {{fp}}, {{f.}}, {{m.}}. All orphaned and deprecated since Oct 2007. --Bequw¢τ 10:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete.msh210 20:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC) No, they're not orphaned. Orphan and, after some time, delete.msh210 20:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I looked through, and all of them except {{mf}} are indeed orphaned. I suppose someone might have fixed them after your comment here. (N.B. {{fn}} was technically being transcluded in one of the appendices, but that was an error: the editor was trying to use Wikipedia's {{fn}}, or perhaps had copied and pasted the appendix from an article there. Either way, it didn't bear on our {{fn}} being deleted, and I've fixed the appendix now.) Anyway, I've now deleted all of them except {{mf}}, which still needs orphaning. —RuakhTALK 00:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
There were some non-NS:0 space pages that were using it. I changed the "relevant" references. If someone was talking explicitly about the template (like saying we need to delete it) I left it. deleted. --Bequw¢τ 04:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

more Articles → Entries

See Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Articles. Of these, Articles itself and Articles by language are correct (they have words like the); the rest should be changed to Entries..., except Articles to be merged, which should be changed to Pages....—msh210 20:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm, no responses. Does anyone think these should be deleted (moved)? If so, speak up, as this is RFD, and, even if I will do the work (which I may and may not[2]), I will not do it without some indication that that's what people want.—msh210 18:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete.RuakhTALK 20:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, also Baluchi articles which need Arabic script, Mazandarani articles which need Arabic script, Persian articles which need Arabic script, Urdu articles which need Arabic script, Hindi articles which need Devanagari script, Sanskrit articles which need Devanagari script, Yiddish articles which need Hebrew script, Punjabi articles which need Gurmukhi script, and Punjabi articles which need Shahmukhi script.—msh210 16:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Unless I've missed something, I've orphaned all the ones that should be "Entries...", created the new category pages, and added {{catred}}; they are deletable, although I think the catredlink should remain for a time to alert potential users of the old cats. I haven't done anything to Articles to be merged.—msh210 20:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles to be merged is now orphaned and catredded also.—msh210 16:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008


See w:Buyeo languages. This language is hypothetical and completely unknown from any records. As such, it does not belong in the main namespace, and should be treated the same as PIE. --EncycloPetey 05:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Not quite the same as PIE; it's more like Hunnic or some other such language, known only through names or the occasional offhand gloss. That said I would be happy to delete/appendicize this and its dubious Old Korean brethren, provided that we apply the same standard across the board. Basically, among the putative OKO "dialects," Baekje, Goguryeo, and Malgal are in the same boat as Buyeo; on the other hand Sillan does have a handful of extant texts (and there are also some Goryeo-period texts that are usually classified as Old Korean). I'm not aware of any other languages of this type currently in mainspace, and I don't think it's something we would want to encourage. -- Visviva 17:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


I believe that two letter templates are reserved for language codes (e.g. {{en}}), however {{fb}} is a redirect to the context template {{American football}}, for which it isn't even an obvious (to me) abbreviation. Thryduulf 14:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphan and, after some time, delete. Note that a previous (recent) discussion was closed unresolved.—msh210 16:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Two-letter codes are only reserved for ISO if such a code exists. There aren't going to be any new 2-letter codes, so we don't have to worry since fb isn't an ISO code. --EncycloPetey 16:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hyper-technically, the ISO policy is not to assign two letter codes for languages that have 3-letter codes, so that applications using both (us;-) can use the minimum length code and not encounter changes. It is possible for a new language not coded at all now to be assigned both a 2-letter and a 3-letter code. This did happen with Yi (ii/iii). But now is very unlikely.
However, {{fb}} is unused and unneeded: Delete as just that. Robert Ullmann 17:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Fyi, it's unused only because I've just orphaned it. (I took the liberty of doing so pending the result of this RFD, as there's nothing wrong with snapping redirects in any event.)—msh210 17:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Should we apply the same logic to the other lowercase 2-letter templates that aren't currently language codes? There's: {{bb}} (redirect to {{basketball}}), {{db}} (redirect to {{delete}}), {{ed}}, {{ib}} (redirect to {{italbrac}}), {{if}}, {{pf}} (redirect to {{pf.}}), {{tm}}, {{us}} (redirect to {{US}}), {{ws}}. --Bequw¢τ 23:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Meaning what? Consider them by the same criteria or take the same action? Some of those templates are potentially useful, although some seem unneeded and could be done away with. I think each template would need its own discussion, or else we end up in confusion. For the record, {{ib}}, {{if}}, {{tm}}, {{us}}, and {{ws}} seem to have some value to me. --EncycloPetey 05:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree {{bb}} should be treated the same as {{fb}}. As for {{ib}} - where I come accross this (and {{italbrac}}, {{i-c}}, {{italbrac-colon}}) I replace them with specific templates apropriate to where they are used (e.g. {{a}}, {{sense}}, {{qualifier}}) although there are a few uses where this isn't possible, principally outside the main namespace. I suggest that you start a separate discussion about each of them. Thryduulf 12:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:reward box

This, and very many templates for barnstars, all seem to be unused. I'm pretty sure that we don't emulate our friends in -pedia by awarding such things. SemperBlotto 16:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete (along with the ones in the list below) Conrad.Irwin 23:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Are these left over from the "patrolling admin" discussion? I didn't like the idea — and still don't — but thought it was fairly popular at the time. I'd want to know what DAVilla says about this request for deletion before I voice an opinion.—msh210 17:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't particularly see the point of deleting them, except to attempt to extirpate the very idea of such rewards. Nor would we have to keep them since they could be easily obtained from other wikis. DCDuring TALK 18:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete I much prefer a community where the journey is its own reward (and without all that wikilove nonsense, that kind of stuff does not belong on Wiktionary). I would also like to hear what DAVilla has to say in their defense. Inasmuch as I want to see them deleted, he put a lot of effort into making them, and deserves to at least plead in vain for their continued existence. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Atelaes. Wiktionary isn't LiveJournal; a thank-you note on someone's talk page is still possible and less patronising. Equinox 22:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it plainly obvious, no one cares to use them? It would have required an elaborate system of weights and pullies to make the reword box work. DAVilla 08:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Delete all.msh210 17:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
delete all of them. --Williamsayers79 09:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
They and their talk pages will disappear at about 1 in four minutes for the next couple of hours. Conrad.Irwin 21:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary:Make only links relevant to the context

To me this looks like a relic from a Wikipedia style page, mentioning linking dates and people. I don't think it is relevant to Wiktionary. --Jackofclubs 06:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete.msh210 17:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Almost all its assumptions are clearly related to Wikipedia; it is even said to not to wikify "plain English words". It is important to let users know when and where to make links, but this is already well explained at the FAQ. Daniel. 05:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
deleted --Williamsayers79 09:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Electronic games

Unused category redundant to Category:Video games. Also Category:cs:Electronic games for the same reason. CyberSkull 06:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

October 2008


The article claims the word was removed from the 8th edition of SAOL (published 1923). I don't know anywhere to access the 7th, which *should* include the word were the statement correct, but it does not occur in the 6th edition (found here) - strange for a word which is supposed to have been falling out of use something like a hundred years earlier. Hence I see no reason to trust the rest of the statements in the article. \Mike 18:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Appendix:Geographical index

There's not much information here and in its sub-pages. I reckon either using this page or Appendix:Place names to store it - probably Appendix:Place names cos it is already a bit more organised. --Borganised 11:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


It's time we orphaned and deleted this template. --EncycloPetey 18:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphan and delete.RuakhTALK 21:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Nonstandard Wiktionary format

I guess this page is mirrored somewhere else, currently only has one entry, from a long time ago. --Jackofclubs 11:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Long unused, should be deleted. Robert Ullmann 15:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned. --Bequw¢τ 09:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
... and deleted. --Bequw¢τ 04:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


This image is not used anywhere, and appears to be for demonstration purposes only. This, that and the other 09:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Portuguese gerunds

We already have the Category:Portuguese present participles. Also, "present participle" seems to be the usual term when referring to this specific Portuguese verb form in Wiktionary. Daniel. 00:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

delete. --Bequw¢τ 09:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki:Managerial Inbreeding

Seems very SoP to me. DCDuring TALK 15:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If it’s SoP, then I should have no problem deducing the meaning without looking. It appears to mean managers who have sex with other managers to produce little baby managers, so that all the managers are selected from the children of managers with managers and not from the bluecollar workers or other source outside the company. Did I guess right? —Stephen 19:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Figurative inbreeding? From MWOnline: 2. "confinement to a narrow range or a local or limited field of choice". DCDuring TALK 19:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Not familiar with figurative inbreeding. From this definition then, maybe it means that employees have few choices because of their overbearing managers. Or is it the managers that have few choices, due to something or other? If it means anything different from my original idea, I’m sure I will never guess what it is. —Stephen 20:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Category:Portuguese numbers

Orphaned and superfluous; all possible entries are in Category:pt:Cardinal numbers. Daniel. 02:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn’t Category:pt:Cardinal numbers and Category:pt:Ordinal numbers both point to Category:Portuguese numbers? Like Category:Cardinal numbers and Category:Ordinal numbers link to Category:Numbers. —Stephen 19:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that both Category:pt:Ordinal numbers and Category:pt:Cardinal numbers are better suited for the category Category:Portuguese numerals (and indirectly to the Category:Numerals by language). Daniel. 05:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
In my dialect of English, there are only ten numerals (0 through 9). All numbers are composed of these ten numerals. Ordinal numbers are often not written with numerals at all, but with letters of the alphabet (primeiro, segundo). Even cardinal numbers, especially those below twenty-one, are frequently written without any numerals. —Stephen 19:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
According to the Wiktionary entry for numeral, it is a "word or symbol representing a number". So, it makes sense that one, first, um, primeiro, and even roman V are numerals. Furthermore, if I am correct, the English words written "with letters of the alphabet" are determiners. Well, the POS "determiner" (determinante?) doesn't exist in Portuguese, and all the direct translations of these words are of other parts of speech: qual, quem are interrogative pronouns; onde, quando are interrogative adverbs; todo, cada are indefinite pronouns; os, as, uns, umas are articles; and finally, três, terceiro, triplo, tríplice, terço, ambos, a, b, c are numerals (even if most Portuguese ordinal numbers here are incorrectly labeled as "adjectives"). Then, I ask: If a language has its own set of grammatical rules, does it matter when labeling words? Daniel. 23:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Are you depending on written definitions that you have found? Don’t you have a native sense of what the word means? It isn’t technical, you should know without looking it up. Unless your dialect is very different from mine, a numeral refers to the symbols from which numbers are made. Hundred is a number, nine is a number, and 9 is a numeral that symbolizes a number (the number nine). The number one hundred is composed of the numerals 1 and two 0’s. —Stephen 00:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
When you worry about how should a word be classified into different groups by its uses and attributes, I think it is technical. After all, I am a native speaker of Portuguese, not English, so I could have been wrong when trying to handle these words in an English dictionary; but a word numeral exist in both languages, and I didn't ever hear such distinction in any of them, to say that "nine" can't be a numeral. Even the Wiktionary (and Wikipedia) definitions of number, cardinal numeral, etc. are different from that, could their autors lack a native sense too? Daniel. 01:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
So you believe that number and numeral mean precisely the same thing? A numeral is the symbol that represents a number. Numbers exist even in the absense of writing, even in the absense of language. But numerals are the symbols that we use to compose and express them. Numerals are a part of a written language. If I say "nine cats", it means that the number of cats is nine. It makes no sense to say that the numeral of cats is nine. But if I write it down, I can write "9 cats", using the numeral 9 to represent the real number nine.
There is nothing technical about numeral or number, but that is unrelated to part of speech. Numbers may appear as various parts of speech, especially as nouns and adjectives. But no matter the part of speech, a number is still a number. Ordinal numbers are almost always adjectives, though they can sometimes be nouns or adverbs. Cardinal numbers are sometimes adjectives, sometimes nouns, sometimes pronouns. The part of speech does not change the fact that they are numbers.
Someone has indeed made an entry for cardinal numeral, but I have never heard of that before. Perhaps it is British. I am an educated speaker of American English and as far as I’m concerned, the cardinal numerals are nothing other than the ten Arabic numerals 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Those are the cardinal numerals. The number ten is an cardinal number that is represented on paper by the cardinal numerals 1 and 0. —Stephen 02:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
It is unlikely that every editor that decided to place an entry at a subcategory of Numerals by language prefers or speaks only British English, or do not speak English at all; but the Wiktionary editors surely don't reach an agreement of why to use that category instead of Numbers. Statistically, the last is full of subcategories with words that use non-Latin scripts or non-Arabic numeral number systems, but even most of those are called "numerals". Could your dialect avoid the idea of other number systems in the world? Or maybe your word "numeral" has just only definition: a shorter way to say arabic numeral (and the other systems would be merely unnamed sets of symbols used to represent numbers)? Almost any idea can be unrelated to parts of speech or languages: a "fish" is only a noun after I (or a population of 1.8 billion English speakers) name that creature; then, I could define a related action: "to fish", and describe it as a verb. Numerals as I know are any symbol, group of symbols, word or even group of words (fifty-one?) used to represent the idea of quantity. Numbers are the idea of quantity. "The only numeral I can use to represent your cats is nine." would be a possible statement to use in place of your example. In Portuguese, a numeral can also be treated as a noun, when they are named or used to name people or things: minha filha desenhou um sete, um oito e um nove "my daughter drawed a seven, an eight and a nine", tenho um seis de copas "I have a six of hearts". And this is supported by English, as these words can be found at the independent part of speech "noun", both here at Wiktionary and in other sources. The main difference between Portuguese and English in this case, is that Portuguese has a separate part of speech called "numeral", for words that modify nouns, giving the attribute of quantity. Tenho vinte maçãs. "I have twenty apples." is undoubtely a Portuguese sentence using the numeral vinte. Daniel. 05:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This conversation really belongs in the Beer Parlour, as it concerns a yet undecided issue of policy. The category distinction between numbers and numerals has never really been settled, and should be, for the sake of uniformity. For my own experience as a native speaker of English, then only context I've ever used "numeral" is in the phrase "Roman numerals". In every other context, I would use "number". To be honest, I rather doubt that the average speaker has ever made a mental distinction between numeral and number, and thus common parlance probably doesn't really contain such a semantic distinction. That being said, I, like Daniel., looked up numeral and number in a dictionary (a few, if I remember correctly), and based on that moved the contents of Category:Ancient Greek numbers to Category:Ancient Greek numerals. In any case, this is an issue which merits community wide attention and discussion, and hopefully, resolution. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Appendix:Communes in Vaud

Encyclopedic? --Jackofclubs 18:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found