text:
Wiktionary:Votes/2017-07/Rename categories

Rename categories
Voting on:
 * 1) Editing a portion of Categorization with revised rules as described below.
 * 2) Renaming all categories that are managed by, by using names that follow the revised rules.
 * 3) Disallowing any categories whose names use language codes (such as Category:map-pro:Dogs).

This is a large project, so this vote will start in two four weeks and then it will end in two months.

Labels and categories affected by this project as of July 24, 2017:
 * 2,578 labels stored in subpages of Module:category tree/topic cat/data.
 * 74,087 categories that are temporarily categorized in Category:topic cat (the category will be deleted at some point).

Remove this text from the introduction of Categorization:

All topical categories begin with a capital letter: there is "Category:Foods" rather than "Category:foods". However, the language-specific prefix such as "fr" in "Category:fr:Foods" is in lowercase.

Remove this whole section from Categorization: Where useful, words are categorized by topic such as "Animals" or "Chemistry". The root of topical categories is Category:All topics. This root category contains only some major subcategories, such as Category:Communication or Category:Sciences; further categories on a more fine-grained level such as Category:Horses are located somewhere else, deeper in the subcategory tree. There is also Category:List of topics, which lists all topics alphabetically no matter where in the category tree they are located.
 * Topic

Each name of a topical category refers to the objects or meanings referred to by words that are members of the category; the name does not refer to the member words themselves. Thus, there is "Category:Chemistry" rather than "Category:Chemical terminology" or "Category:Chemical terms", or there is "Category:Animals" rather than "Category:Animal names". In other words, the names of topical categories denote what the terms are about, not what they are.

Each name of a topical category has a prefix that indicates the language of the terms belonging to the category. Thus, the English category for horses is Category:en:Horses, while the Japanese one is Category:ja:Horses. The prefix consists of the language code followed by a colon.

Names and subcategory structures of categories should be matched between languages. Thus, if Category:Horses is a subcategory of Category:Equids, then also Category:en:Horses should be a subcategory of Category:en:Equids. If there exists the category Category:fr:Cryptozoology, there should also exists the category Category:Cryptozoology.

The subcategory structure of topical categories is technically maintained in "topic cat parents", such as Template:topic cat parents/Social sciences. This subpage tells the template what the parents of the topical category are, regardless of the language. This technique ensures consistent categorization across languages, guaranteeing the matching mentioned in the previous paragraph.

"Names" are proper nouns, and are categorized by part of speech: Category:Japanese proper nouns

Add this section in Categorization and rename categories accordingly:
 * Semantic categories

Semantic categories are about the terms' referents rather than the terms themselves. Their names must describe exactly what the categories contain, as normal English text. Use any of these five types of category names:
 * [language] [...]s
 * (Category:English demonyms, Category:English ethnonyms...)
 * [language] names of [...]
 * (Category:English names of mountains, Category:English names of fairy tales, Category:English names of individuals...)
 * [language] terms for [...]
 * (Category:English terms for types of coins, Category:English terms for dog breeds, Category:English terms for senses...)
 * [language] terms relating to [...]
 * (Category:English terms relating to dogs, Category:English terms relating to chess, Category:English terms relating to hair...)
 * [language] technical terms of [...]
 * (Category:English technical terms of anatomy, Category:English technical terms of medicine...)

Don't add etymological derivations in the "[language] terms relating to [...]" categories, unless their meaning also relates to the thing in question. Examples:
 * Don't add dog in the manger in Category:English terms relating to dogs. It should, however, be in the "Derived terms" section of dog.
 * Don't add I'll be a monkey's uncle in Category:English terms relating to monkeys. It should, however, be in the "Derived terms" section of monkey.

Regulations concerning place name categories:
 * Use this naming format for place names: [language] names of [...] [in/of] [...]. Use "towns", "cities", "counties" or another type of place name as applicable.
 * (Category:English names of counties in Kansas, USA, Category:English names of municipalities in São Paulo, Brazil...)
 * Always mention the country name where applicable.
 * When the country is "United States of America", use "USA".
 * The use of "in" or "of" before the country name should reflect existing consensus.
 * Always mention the name of major subdivisions ("Kansas, USA" instead of just "USA"), where applicable.

All semantic categories start with the language name, and are placed in a category with same title, except without the language and with "by language" included at the end. This way, all different-language versions of the same category are kept together. Examples:
 * Category:Terms relating to chess by language
 * Category:English terms relating to chess
 * Category:French terms relating to chess
 * Category:Portuguese terms relating to chess
 * Category:Technical terms of anatomy by language
 * Category:English technical terms of anatomy
 * Category:French technical terms of anatomy
 * Category:Portuguese technical terms of anatomy by language
 * Category:Names of counties in Kansas, USA by language
 * Category:English names of counties in Kansas, USA
 * Category:French names of counties in Kansas, USA
 * Category:Portuguese names of counties in Kansas, USA

(Note: The new policy text ends here. All content below is just for voting purposes, including a comparison between old and new category names, and the voting rationale below.)

Comparison between old and new names:
 * 1) [language] [...]s
 * 2) * Category:en:Demonyms → Category:English demonyms
 * 3) * Category:en:Ethnonyms → Category:English ethnonyms
 * 4) * Category:en:Names → Category:English names (both categories exist, and may be merged)
 * 5) * Category:en:Couple nicknames → Category:English couple nicknames
 * 6) [language] names of [...]
 * 7) * Category:en:Gods → Category:English names of gods
 * 8) ** Category:en:Greek deities → Category:English names of Greek deities
 * 9) ** Category:en:Hindu deities → Category:English names of Hindu deities
 * 10) * Category:en:Individuals → Category:English names of individuals
 * 11) * Category:en:Artistic works → Category:English names of artistic works
 * 12) ** Category:en:Fairy tales → Category:English names of fairy tales
 * 13) ** Category:en:National anthems → Category:English names of national anthems
 * 14) * Category:en:Mountains → Category:English names of mountains
 * 15) * Category:en:Oceans → Category:English names of oceans
 * 16) [language] terms for [...]
 * 17) * Category:en:Coins → Category:English terms for types of coins
 * 18) * most of Category:en:Dogs → Category:English terms for dog breeds (which is different from Category:English terms relating to dogs, listed below)
 * 19) * Category:en:Emotions → Category:English terms for emotions
 * 20) * Category:en:Senses → Category:English terms for senses
 * 21) [language] terms relating to [...]
 * 22) * Category:en:Chess → Category:English terms relating to chess
 * 23) * Category:en:Death → Category:English terms relating to death
 * 24) * Category:en:Dogs → Category:English terms relating to dogs (kennel, doghouse, dognap, dogsicle, puppy...)
 * 25) * Category:en:Sex → Category:English terms relating to sex
 * 26) * Category:en:Three → Category:English terms relating to three (or Category:English terms relating to the number three)
 * 27) * Category:en:Four → Category:English terms relating to four (or Category:English terms relating to the number four)
 * 28) [language] technical terms of [...]
 * 29) * Category:en:Anatomy → Category:English technical terms of anatomy
 * 30) * Category:en:Medicine → Category:English technical terms of medicine

Comparison between old and new names (place names):
 * Category:en:Counties of Kansas → Category:English names of counties in Kansas, USA
 * Category:en:Municipalities in São Paulo, Brazil → Category:English names of municipalities in São Paulo, Brazil
 * Category:en:Cities in Ontario → Category:English names of cities in Ontario, Canada
 * Category:en:Cities in Kyoto (Prefecture) → Category:English names of cities in Kyoto Prefecture, Honshu, Japan

Rationale 1 (clarity of the name):
 * A language code followed by a single word (like Category:ja:Dogs) may be short, but short text may not always be the most helpful. In etymologies, there seems to be a consensus not to use abbreviations like q.v., L., Gr., esp., cf., &c., which are short but obscure. Some people have opposed using template abbreviations like instead of, arguing that the latter is easier to read.

Rationale 2 (ambiguity between different types of categories):
 * Our current categories with language codes are often ambiguous.
 * Sometimes, people attempt to use the category description to clear the ambiguity, but descriptions are often ignored. They are often repetitive and not very inviting to read. It's normal to add an entry to multiple categories at once, and maybe the descriptions of all categories are not always read.
 * Category:en:Anatomy is just for technical terms, or for any parts of the body such as "face"? (The category does contain "face" as of July 24, 2017.)
 * Category:en:Stars is for names of stars, and/or types of stars, and/or terms relating to stars? It may be replaced by:
 * Category:English terms relating to stars (star system, interstellar, starlike...)
 * Category:English names of stars (Aldebaran, Pollux, Capella...)
 * Category:English terms for types of stars (supernova, giant star, pulsar...)
 * Category:en:Internet is for internet slang or terms relating to the internet? We do have Category:English internet slang, but Category:en:Internet is full of internet slang terms too. This would be fixed by having these two categories:
 * Category:English internet slang (FWIW, IOW, IYKWIM...)
 * Category:English terms relating to the internet (frame, FTP, e-mail...)
 * Category:en:Coins is for types of coins or terms relating to coins? We could have:
 * Category:English terms relating to coins
 * Category:English terms for types of coins (shilling, maravedi, centavo...)

Rationale 3 (barrier of use):
 * Not everyone in the world knows how our language codes work. It shouldn't be necessary to learn it to navigate categories.
 * Quick summary: We use two-letter ISO 639-1 codes when possible (en, fr, it...), or else we use three-letter ISO 639-3 codes when possible (gsw, frk, ang...) or else we create made-up non-ISO compliant language codes that start with ISO 639-5 family codes (roa-oca, gmw-tsx, ine-pro...). In the categories managed by, we ignore etymology language codes, which sometimes resemble the normal codes previously mentioned (xno, frc, sco-uls, sem-jar...) and sometimes don't (NL., LL., pregrc...). Source: Languages, a "think tank" non-policy.

Rationale 4 (barrier of reuse):
 * Wiktionary can be reused. Anyone can create mirrors, books, CDS with our material, so we should make it as generic as possible. If we keep categories with language codes such as Category:map-pro:Dogs, the creators of derivative works will have to choose between (1) using the language codes despite the fact that only Wiktionarians are aware of how they work or (2) converting the codes to something that makes sense in real life, such as Category:Proto-Austronesian terms for dogs. ("Proto-Austronesian terms for dogs." currently is the exact description of Category:map-pro:Dogs). If this vote passes, we ourselves will be able to have category names that make sense in real life, and people who reuse our content will benefit as well.

A note about prefixes:
 * For clarity as mentioned above, it's best not to create prefixes for categories like "Category:list:(something)", "Category:set:(something)" or "Category:topic:(something)". which have been proposed before. If you get all terms relating to linguistics, this is equally a list, a set and the topic of linguistics-related terms, unless we define these words in a way specific to the English Wiktionary, which again harms both use and reuse because it would not be how these words work in real life. If we used these prefixes, there's some chance we will have to constantly inform new users and anons how the prefixes work, because it would not be obvious.

Past votes:
 * In the past, some old categories like Category:es:Japanese derivations and Category:es:Derogatory were renamed in a similar way. Old names with language codes were replaced by longer and clearer names, written in normal English. (related votes: Derivations categories, Lexical categories)

Procedural notes:
 * This vote is only about the category naming system. Specific categories are mentioned here as examples only. Voting here says nothing about whether we should have any of the mentioned categories in the first place.
 * If this vote passes, it may supersede a number of ongoing WT:RFM discussions concerning the affected categories.

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2017/June
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] User talk:-sche
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/2017-07/Rename categories

Support

 * 1)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 2)  —CodeCat 14:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 3)  DTLHS (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 4)  -Xbony2 (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 5)  Pariah24 (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 6)  (though see my comments in the "Abstain" section below for a suggested compromise). — SGconlaw (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 7)  I don't like the length of the new names but the rationale is sensible and it can't be helped. —suzukaze (t・c) 23:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 8)  I see the use of language codes in visible category names as good for editors (unambiguous), but bad for users (unclear), and in my opinion it's more important to be inclusive for users than editors. The use of templates to categorise pages, where the language code is an argument to the template, would be good. Sure, categorising via templates may mess with HotCat, but I think we should develop tools that support the best implementation of policies, rather than write policies to fit the current tools we have available. -Stelio (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 9)  per Suzukaze and Stelio. DCDuring (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) . I see no reason for this enormous task and disagree with the four rationales given. --WikiTiki89 18:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * While you are completely free to disagree with the rationales, I'd like to point out that they include some statements that seem to be objectively true and thus are above agreement or disagreement. They include: "Our current categories with language codes are often ambiguous.", "Not everyone in the world knows how our language codes work." and most or all of the rationale 4. They illustrate some of the current problems that this vote was designed to solve, as per recent discussion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I should hope they contain objectively true statements, otherwise I or someone else would have removed them from the page before the vote even started. I disagree with them as rationales. "The sky is blue" is objectively true, but that doesn't make it a good rationale. --WikiTiki89 19:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So, is it accurate to say you're OK with keeping a categorization system where (to repeat what I quoted above) our current categories with language codes are often ambiguous, not everyone in the world knows how our language codes work and creators of derivative works have to choose between using an obscure system or changing it themselves? Isn't this bad for the project? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what I just said? --WikiTiki89 21:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That does not really answer my second question. ("Isn't this bad for the project?") The rationales given are not comparable to "The sky is blue.", but to "The house is on fire." They are not random examples of objectively true sentences, they are objectively true summaries of existing problems, and how to fix them. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Now you're asking a more reasonable question. So when I say I disagree with the rationales, I mean that each problem either is not really much of a problem, or that it would not really be fixed by this proposal, or both. --WikiTiki89 20:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) . I see no reason at all to lengthen the names of categories, and make the task of editors more difficult. Some names are already far too long, such as Category:en:Georgia (United States of America), which was a recent ill-judged renaming. DonnanZ (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact, each category already does this, e.g. Category:en:Stars says it should contain "English names of individual stars, not including the Sun." DonnanZ (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you suggest we name a category for terms related to stars, or a category for types of stars? —CodeCat 22:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure how many types of star there are. "Category:en:Types of star" (or stars) and "Category:en:Individual stars" I suppose. Category titles should be as brief as possible without being ambiguous. Terms relating to stars, hmm, would that include anything else? Stardust? DonnanZ (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I sometimes think we are guilty of overcategorisation, especially in relation to animals, birds etc. DonnanZ (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Terms relating to stars may include: corona, photosphere, starspot, stellar wind, starry, stellar, stellar nursery, astroseismology, chromosphere, nova remnant, main sequence, LRN, star system, star cluster, starhood, starcraft, starquake, starscape, starman, circumstellar, constellation, interstellar, intersidereal, initial mass function, Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, Bayer system, Bayer designation, stellarly, protostellar, astropause, astrosheath, astrotail, termination shock, interstellar space, nonstellar, photoprocessing, stellary, astral, interstellary, astrally, stellarcentric, quasistellar, helmet streamer, pseudostreamer, coronal hole, panstellar, superstellar, starly, periastral, planetary system, sidereal, starlight, gravitational collapse, radiometric magnitude, radial velocity, interstellar extinction, hydrogen burning, helium burning, carbon burning, silicon burning, s-process, solar mass, Olbers' paradox, photometry, photovisual, starlit, periastron, spectral type, star cloud, star tracker, starburst galaxy, starburst, starless, stargaze, stargazer, starscape, star-studded, planisphere, starward, star stream, proplanetary disk, starquake, stellate, bolometric correction, bolometric magnitude, visual magnitude, astrophotographer, astrophotography, gamma-ray burst, gravitational lensing, stellated, collapsar, star visitor, stellocentric, Cl*, gyrochronology, gyrochronological, stelliform, habitable zone, continuously habitable zone, Goldilocks zone, starlike, binary star, trinary star, quadruple star, binary star system, trinary star system, quadruple star system, multiple star system, antistar, double star system, double star, single star system, prestellar, asterseismology, apogalacticon, apogalactic, perigalacticon, perigalactic, neutronization, superflare, coronal mass ejection, starshine, photoevaporation, solar apex, astrocompass, subluminous, cuspiness, overluminous, undermassive, star-forming, clustercore, starshade, electrosphere, circumprimary, gravothermal, circumsecondary, hypercompact, unstarlike, neutrinosphere, stelliferous, siderostat, subplanetary, symbiotic star, starfaring, astrometrized, exosystem, starwards, uranometry, starproof, astromantic, astroscopy, metrochrome, star seed, chromatoscope, astrolatry, astriferous, astrogeny, astrography, cosmosphere, catasterism, synastry, substellate, starstuff, starmatter, starlore, starn, super star cluster, open cluster, globular cluster, spheroscope, Venus zone, startracker, Alderson disk, molecular core, photochronograph, astrophotometer, astrophotometry, paranatellon, Sagan's number, proto-neutron star, astrolatrous, birthline, violent relaxation, velocity dispersion, velocity curve, starfilled, nocturnal arc, starbirth, stardrift, photogravitational, photoeccentric, protobulge and starrish.
 * As per this vote, all these entries would be found in Category:English terms relating to stars. Alternatively, we could have one or more additional categories like Category:English terms for groups of stars.
 * In practice, currently we have only Category:en:Stars for everything (names of stars, types of stars, terms relating to stars) which seems like a bad idea -- the purpose of the category is unclear, and it is increasingly difficult to find the terms I listed above among names of stars. While we do have the option of using alternate category names like maybe Category:en:Terms relating to stars and Category:en:Types of stars for disambiguation, there's still the issue that our codes are obscure, unlike normal English. This vote would solve that. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your proposal of using Category:English blah blah would appear to preclude the use of, etc, which require the code en, nb etc. which would be yet another reason for voting against. DonnanZ (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It would make that template obsolete, which allows us to repurpose it for another use. —Rua (mew) 22:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You have already expressed your dislike in another current vote. DonnanZ (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My dislike is with the name. —Rua (mew) 22:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The use of two-letter codes is not really a problem anyway, they are used everywhere, e.g., , {{l|en|, {{lb|en|, {{t|de|, {{m|la|, {{cog|sv|, {{der|en|fr|. So their use is more or less universal, and most users get to know them. DonnanZ (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Those are not user-facing. They are only for editors. Editors can be expected to learn the codes, users can't. —Rua (mew) 23:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with CodeCat. FWIW, as a bit of anecdotal evidence, I've had the experience of introducing Wiktionary to a friend and attempting to teach him how our ISO and non-ISO codes work to let him navigate a few categories. That's non-obvious stuff that seems to make navigation harder for our readers. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It still shouldn't create too much difficulty. For example, looking at the clutter at the bottom of the entry for car you will find that categories are grouped with the relevant language; even for Welsh (perhaps the least obvious one) {{temp|Category:cy:Vehicles}}, if you click on it it tells you that its "Welsh terms related to Vehicles". DonnanZ (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't speak Welsh, but its English version Category:en:Vehicles could be confused for either "terms relating to vehicles" or "terms for types of vehicles". Currently, the description states the former, but it's populated with the latter. The category is currently missing vehiclelike, vehicle identification number, railway, undercarriage, hit the road, carjack, etc. It seems the category name does not invite any of these terms even though the description does, which is a major problem that will probably cause the categories to be forever underpopulated if left unchecked. Category:Welsh terms relating to vehicles and/or Category:Welsh terms for types of vehicles are clearer and better than Category:cy:Vehicles. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the description used in a category module it can be edited, but I think the descriptions are probably designed to be "catch-all". There is still the danger of an overprovision of categories, especially in a language like Welsh with possibly very few entries in each category. But besides Category:en:Vehicles there is also Category:en:Auto parts (a horrid title, car parts is more preferable), Category:en:Automobiles, and Category:en:Automotive. A {{l|en|Winnebago}} or {{l|en|garbage truck}} shouldn't be classed as an automobile.
 * I think how categories appear in an entry also needs to be looked at, especially with multi-language words like car. I think it would be better to be able to access categories used in a particular language entry within the entry itself, instead of having to search through the clutter at the bottom of the page. DonnanZ (talk) 09:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What about categories like Category:en:Internet? It's filled with a lot of terms that belong on Category:English internet slang. Category descriptions seem to be traditionally ignored. Do you have any idea on how to make people read and follow the descriptions? If reading descriptions is needed to avoid confusion, it means the category names are not good enough. This vote would fix that problem, by renaming Category:en:Internet to Category:English terms relating to the internet, so any mistake would be readily apparent and thus all but sure to be corrected. Aside from the obscure language code, at first sight there may be nothing wrong with placing LOL in Category:en:Internet, until you read the category description and discover that the other category exists.
 * I'm fine with discussing ways to present categories within the entry itself. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem with Category:en:Internet is that we use topical categories to categorise most other kinds of slang or jargon. We also use labels to indicate where a term is used. So when a term is used in the UK, we use {{temp|lb|en|UK}}, and when it's used on the internet, we use {{temp|lb|en|Internet}}... —Rua (mew) 13:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should make {{temp|lb|en|Internet}} categorize into Category:English internet slang. When a terms semantically involves the internet (URL, webpage, etc.) it doesn't actually need to start with the context label "(Internet)". Of course, we also have the option of typing {{temp|lb|en|internet slang}} when a term is used on the internet, which currently works and successfully categorizes the entry in Category:English internet slang. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  —Aryaman {{sup|(मुझसे बात करो)}} 14:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) . I don't even know how to begin to express how strongly I oppose this proposal. I always envied the English Wiktionary's categorisation system, because the system we have back home in the Romanian Wiktionary – which is quite similar to the proposal above – is a complete nightmare. A reoccurring issue we've had is that we encourage ambiguity. Do we name categories "Culori în franceză", or, "Culori în limba franceză" – both forms are acceptable and there are just as many people who prefer the first form as the second. And don't get me started on languages that have different names: should it be olandeză or neerlandeză? How do we spell Malay? Is it malaieziană, malaieză or malaeză (N.B. all are correct)? The system with ISO language codes that we have now strikes me as both logically and technically sound. On another note, I appreciate everything you do around here @Daniel Carrero and the votes you have started, but allow me to be brazen and ask you why there's a need for a revamping of our categorisation system? Personally, I have not seen anyone complain. I hate to use this cliché, but if ain't broke, why fix it? I'm afraid that if this vote passes, we will be substituting a functional method with something that hasn't worked in other projects, and that's not taking into consideration the tremendous undertaking this change implies. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because you don't see a problem doesn't mean there isn't one, and that it hasn't been discussed before. Some links to discussions were even helpfully provided in the vote. —CodeCat 18:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Robbie SWE}}: We use the same language name at all places. We always use "Old English", never "Anglo-Saxon" (code: ang). We always use "Austronesian Mor", never "Mor" or "Mor (Austronesian)" (code: mhz). When a language name needs to change for whatever reason, it changes everywhere. The language name used in categories is the same as the one used in entries. Categories like " nouns" and " terms derived from " never have any problems like what seems to be happening in the Romanian Wiktionary. More information: WT:LANG. This system is kept by large modules like Module:languages/data3/m. I apologize if I said anything you were already aware of. If the only problem was that, please consider changing your mind and voting support. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's agree to disagree – I believe we have other issues to worry about, categories not being one of them. Daniel Carrero, thank you for your explanation. I promise to think long and hard and consider changing my mind. However, right now, I'm pretty sure I'm sticking to my initial gut feeling. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Robbie SWE}} Thank you for promising to think long and hard and consider changing your mind. We have extra time to think if needed since this is a two-month vote, so there's no rush. I would just like to add this: Please refrain from voting oppose on the grounds that we could be doing something else. I personally like to clean up our categories -- I've been doing it since 2008. So even if we have other issues to worry about, this is a focus of mine. I would like to organize all of our categories, given enough time and the opportunity to do so. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Daniel Carrero}}, I assure you that I don't in any way, shape or form downplay the need to clean up our categories — I fully respect the work and thought you (and others) have put into this. In all honesty, 99,9% of the reason why I voted oppose is because I'm in love with the language codes and wouldn't want to see them go. Sad, but true. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Robbie SWE}}: Thanks, it's nice of you to clarify that. Sometimes I've seen people voting "oppose" on some project on the grounds that we could be doing something else. I understand that's not the case with your vote. Well, now I guess I can't argue with your reason. C'est la vie. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) {{oppose}}. Wyang (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) {{oppose}} —Μετάknowledge {{sup|discuss/deeds}} 06:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) {{oppose}} While I support changing the category naming system in principle, I don't believe the suggested alternatives given here are an improvement. I think expanding the names for clarity is a good thing, but getting rid of the codes is the main gripe for me; for example, I would support a system where an ambiguous category such as Category:en:Dogs becomes Category:en:Dog breeds and Category:en:Terms relating to dogs. BigDom 06:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) {{oppose}} —  Z. [ {{lang|he|קהת}} ] b"A. — 14:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) {{oppose}}. — justin(r)leung {{sub|{ (t...) | c=› }}} 20:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) {{oppose}}. Formatting of category names should be like the formatting of our entries: concise and streamlined. As I've said before, burying the essential information in long strings of English text risks making category names TLDR. If we're going to do something like this, it should be telegraphic in style with the more changeable stuff up front: Category:English:Cats:Kinds Category:English:Cats:Related terms Keeping the colons makes it easier for the eye to find the structure, and minimizing the function words needed to make the names work as running English text makes it easier to read. I also think that we need to think more about the way we divide the topical categories before we cast things in concrete like this. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I like this. —suzukaze (t・c) 02:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This alternative structure works for me too. It replaces the language code with the more accessible (for users) language name, whilst keeping the category names concise. -Stelio (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Chuck Entz}}, your vote isn't showing up in the total. Perhaps your name needs to be on the same line as the "oppose"? -Stelio (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. I removed the formatting. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't like Category:English:Cats:Related terms. I disagree with the comparison in your first sentence ("Formatting of category names should be like the formatting of our entries: concise and streamlined."), Chuck Entz. Our entries may be concise and streamlined, but they still need to make sense as normal English text.
 * Currently, streamlined is defined as: "1. Designed to offer little resistance to the flow of fluid, especially by having sleek, graceful lines. / 2. Having been made more simple and straight forward."
 * The way I see it, Category:English:Cats:Related terms is too concise, and is not even streamlined as defined above. In my opinion, the name Category:English terms relating to cats which was proposed in the vote is better - after reading all the vote comments, I can say this is the most concise option given which still makes sense as normal English, which by definition makes it the most streamlined option too. You can just read it like normal text. How can it be more simple and straightforward than normal English text?
 * If we are going to compare entry formatting with category names, note that the entry dog could be even shorter, sacrificing syntax in favor of added colons too. These are the first three definitions of that entry:
 * A mammal, Canis lupus familiaris, that has been domesticated for thousands of years, of highly variable appearance due to human breeding.
 * A male dog, wolf or fox, as opposed to a bitch (often attributive).
 * {{lb|en|slang|derogatory}} A dull, unattractive girl or woman.
 * These are the same definitions, in a style closer to Category:English:Cats:Related terms. We could still kind of understand them, but normal English would be better in my opinion, both for entry formatting and category names.
 * Mammal:domesticated:Canis lupus familiaris
 * Mammal:dog,wolf,fox:male
 * {{lb|en|slang|derogatory}} Woman:ugly
 * --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I checked a few random pages in Wikipedia, Commons, MediaWiki, Meta-Wiki, Wikibooks, Wikidata, Wikinews, Wikiquote, Wikisource, Wikispecies, Wikiversity and Wikivoyage.
 * The categories I have found are written as normal English text, with normal syntax, as opposed to obscure abbreviations. For example: w:Category:Cat breeds originating in Thailand, w:Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2015.
 * Exceptions include:
 * Apparently Wikidata does not use categories. The pages I visited in Wikivoyage don't use categories.
 * Exceptions do exist, like c:Category:Photo challenge/2016 - May - Birds in their habitat (I kind of like this one, the syntax is sacrificed for a clear purpose which is readily understandable).
 * Let me know if I missed anything. Wiktionary seems to be the only Wikimedia project where you need to decode a whole new system to understand a large chunk of the category names, as opposed to just reading them as normal text. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) {{oppose}}. Crom daba (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) {{oppose}} After considering both sides, I think I have to oppose. We can do disambiguation without removing the ISO tags and making names unconscionably long. As a previous user suggested, Category:en:Dogs could be split into Category:en:Dog breeds and Category:en:Terms relating to dogs. The non-ISO codes present a dilemma, but the vast majority of global speakers and headwords are from languages with ISO codes, so it doesn't make sense to rewrite the system for that reason. Catrìona (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Abstain

 * : I am leaning towards supporting the proposal, but agree that as it stands it may lead to rather long category names (which I don't necessarily object to). Perhaps a compromise could be to retain the language codes, for example, "Category:en:Terms for dog breeds" (or even "Category:en:Dog breeds") and "Category:en:Terms relating to dogs". — SGconlaw (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Part of the point was to eliminate the language codes, so that the names agree with the other categories such as Category:English nouns and so that people don't need to know codes to navigate our categories. —Rua (mew) 10:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, right. Well, if this is a key concern then I essentially support the proposal. However, if the length of category names is a big issue for editors, I think my suggestion strikes a compromise. — SGconlaw (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe this is a stupid question but why not Category:en:Nouns? It would be consistent and increase brevity. Catrìona (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your question is not stupid; it is a good question. I wonder if there are people who would support Category:en:Nouns, maybe you would? Currently, the category exists, to hold terms like common noun and abstract noun. Sometimes, we used to have POS categories like these (e.g., placing random nouns in Category:en:Nouns). I removed those I found around 2006-2008. We also used to have a large system of etymological categories named like Category:fr:Japanese derivations and other categories like Category:es:Vulgarities.
 * I will have to repeat some arguments given before, if you don't mind. I can't speak for anyone else, but in my opinion "English nouns" (like "Spanish vulgarities" and "Spanish terms derived from Italian") is better because its meaning is readily understandable as normal English text. If all language-specific categories had codes instead of names, including the ones I mentioned above, this would at least be a consistent system. (should it be Category:en derived from ja instead of Category:en:Japanese derivations?) This is all I can say in its favor at the moment, and I would object to this system anyway. This is just my opinion, naturally other people might think differently. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  I am inclined to oppose, but I sense I did not find the energy to consider the benefits of the proposal seriously enough. Short names are much easier to skim, and also to type. A distinction between a set category and a relating-to category could be made by category definitions placed into the categories themselves; and a convention could be made that categories named in plural would be set categories. I think it was Chuck Entz who, in relation to this subject, pointed out that the verbosity of Cobol did not necessarily make it a better, easier to use language than the alternatives, especially modern alternatives. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Decision
No consensus: 9-12-1 (42.85%).

(Procedural note: As specified in WT:VTIME, for votes with at least 40% support, I've been using "No consensus" instead of "Failed".)

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

 * I wish it worked like that (no consensus) in referendums - 48 to 52% in the UK EU referendum. DonnanZ (talk) 09:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


text:
Montour County

Etymology
Named after.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Montour County


text:
ఏరువాక

Noun

 * 1) The commencement of cultivation.

title: ఏరువాక


text: Category:Arabic terms belonging to the root ع ي ر


text:
Wiktionary talk:Votes/2017-07/Rename categories

Demonyms and ethnonyms
Why not take these to the same conclusion and give them "terms for"-type names? "Terms for people from a place" and "Terms for people of ethnic groups" or similar? —CodeCat 13:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's OK if people prefer using "Terms for people from a place" and "Terms for people of ethnic groups" or similar, but I'd rather use the shortest normal English-sounding names available. Category:English demonyms and Category:English ethnonyms are fine. They are "lexical categories", like Category:English nouns. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Should they be, though? It seems inconsistent with how we treat terms for people in general. Compare Category:Occupations. Being a demonym says more about the referent of the word than about the word itself. —CodeCat 14:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point, Category:English demonyms and Category:English ethnonyms seem inconsistent with how we treat terms for people in general. But we do have Category:English surnames and Category:Ancient Greek patronymics.
 * I'd say the simple fact that "-nym" is in the category name serves as a suitable replacement for "terms" or "names" in the category name. Maybe Category:Ancient Greek patronymics should be renamed to Category:Ancient Greek patronyms.
 * Demonyms are for both natives and inhabitants (according to the entry demonym), so there's this possible name, but it's too long: Category:English terms for natives and inhabitants of places. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We could add the option to disallow the names Category:English demonyms and Category:English ethnonyms, but I'm not sure we should -- for the reasons above, I think "demonyms" and "ethnonyms" are better than the alternatives presented as of now, and the vote is quite long already. Then again, if conflicting naming systems exist (some different proposals were presented in the BP discussion), it may be natural to create multiple options.
 * Aside from that, as you know, you may vote "support everything except oppose Category:English demonyms and Category:English ethnonyms" or something if that's consistent with what you think. Or just support everything, or whatever you think is best. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If we go with ethnonyms and demonyms, should our current Category:Places be renamed to "toponyms" as well? Or should we go with "place names" or "names of places"? —CodeCat 16:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer Category:English place names, because it sounds more like normal, commonly used English to me than Category:English toponyms. It's also shorter than Category:English names of places. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Where to put the rules
Irrespective of the proposal's merit, I would firmly oppose a vote like this without some sort of confirmation, in the vote text itself, that these rules will be written down in a policy page. This, that and the other (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. I edited the vote now and added that kind of confirmation, which I think was an improvement. Do you think it looks better now? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Transition plan
I would like to see some sort of plan for how this large-scale reorganization will actually be implemented, especially for when a category may need to be merged or split. DTLHS (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What about moving one large set at a time? For example, start by moving the place name categories and forbidding any other category move until all place name categories are done. Then, moving all the "names of" categories (names of languages, names of individuals, names of stars). Then moving all the categories for species of animals. If you like that idea, I can write a more detailed plan like this. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that really necessary? We could handle them in a more ad-hoc per-category manner. —CodeCat 20:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually prefer the more ad-hoc per-category manner too. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We'll know it's done when Category:All topics is empty. —CodeCat 21:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and when Category:topic cat is empty too. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should already start working on making new data modules for these categories. —CodeCat 21:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That looks like a good idea. As you know, we can't say for sure whether the vote will pass or fail yet, but maybe some people would be more inclined to vote support if they see some work being done, I guess. It helps to let us know how the modules would look like if this vote passes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've created Module:User:CodeCat/place names. It contains most of the content of Module:category tree/topic cat/data/Places, but not all of it. I've also done a bunch of work to make descriptions consistent and such. —CodeCat 17:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's nice. But can't we compress the repeated information in a way to occupy less space in a predictable manner?
 * If possible, I'd like to avoid having repeated descriptions and categorization for lots of regions of the same type, especially those in the same countries.
 * Some options:
 * Allow any combination of place name categories if they seem valid, even if they don't make sense in real life. Apparently Canada has provinces and territories, not states, but under this option Category:English names of states of Canada would be recognized as a valid category. Obviously, all categories for actual, real life place names would be recognized automatically too, and ideally anything else shouldn't be created, and may be deleted manually if needed.
 * We could have a data module with the allowed types of place names of each country as per Place names (some countries have provinces, prefectures, departments, etc.) and stop at that without checking the actual names of each country subdivision. So if there aren't any "prefectures" in USA, then this would be invalid: Category:English names of prefectures of Alabama, USA. But USA does have counties, so this category with a nonsensical state name would be valid: Category:English names of counties of Mxyzptlk, USA. We could use this type of list to specify that "counties" is a "level 2" subdivision in USA, so we couldn't have categories with an excess of commas like Category:English names of counties of A, B, C, D, E, USA even if just Category:English names of counties of A, USA is allowed. Obviously, we can have the simple Category:English names of counties of USA (without the state) because it could have all these subcategories, and 0 entries:
 * Category:English names of counties of USA
 * Category:English names of counties of Alabama, USA
 * Category:English names of counties of California, USA
 * Category:English names of counties of Texas, USA
 * etc.
 * We could have a large data module listing all the actual place names, with the description and categorization added automatically, not repeated in each instance. Say, Category:English names of municipalities in Minas Gerais, Brazil is a valid place name, these municipalities exist in real life, and the places could be checked in the data module. Maybe we could use Wikidata for that somehow (instead of a data module), but I'm not sure if we could search for "Minas Gerais" (Q39109) and "Brazil" (Q155) using only their names (not their item IDs) and arrive at the correct data items to check.
 * --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an implementation detail and I'd rather avoid too much technical fanciness for now. I'm also not a fan of the idea of potentially allowing invalid names. —CodeCat 10:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

"by language"
If this vote passes, it might be a good idea to remove "by language" from all lexical categories. The "by language" was added in Votes/2011-04/Lexical categories to distinguish say, Category:Nouns (a category for words like common noun and mass noun) from Category:Nouns by language (a category for nouns like dog and book).

 * Category:Nouns by language → Category:Nouns
 * Category:Internet slang by language → Category:Internet slang
 * Category:Lemmas by language → Category:Lemmas

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I'd like to see a full list of any collisions that would happen. —CodeCat 22:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm mistaken, but if this vote passes and in addition "by language" is removed from all categories, no collisions should happen at all. Examples:
 * Category:Nouns
 * Category:English nouns
 * Category:French nouns
 * Category:Terms for types of nouns
 * Category:English terms for types of nouns
 * Category:French terms for types of nouns
 * --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Reality is always different from what you expect. —CodeCat 22:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, but can you tell me one example of collision that might happen? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

 * The following categories would need to be dealt with:

 * Category:Adjectives, Category:Adjectives by language
 * Category:Appendices, Category:Appendices by language
 * Category:Category boilerplate templates, Category:Category boilerplate templates by language
 * Category:Definition templates, Category:Definition templates by language
 * Category:Diacritical marks, Category:Diacritical marks by language
 * Category:Entry templates, Category:Entry templates by language
 * Category:Etymology templates, Category:Etymology templates by language
 * Category:Experimental templates, Category:Experimental templates by language
 * Category:Figures of speech, Category:Figures of speech by language
 * Category:Form-of templates, Category:Form-of templates by language
 * Category:Han characters, Category:Han characters by language
 * Category:Headword-line templates, Category:Headword-line templates by language
 * Category:Index templates, Category:Index templates by language
 * Category:Interrogative pronouns, Category:Interrogative pronouns by language
 * Category:Letters, Category:Letters by language
 * Category:List templates, Category:List templates by language
 * Category:Modules, Category:Modules by language
 * Category:Names, Category:Names by language
 * Category:Nouns, Category:Nouns by language
 * Category:Numbers, Category:Numbers by language
 * Category:Punctuation marks, Category:Punctuation marks by language
 * Category:Reconstructed terms, Category:Reconstructed terms by language
 * Category:Reference templates, Category:Reference templates by language
 * Category:Requests, Category:Requests by language
 * Category:Requests for cleanup, Category:Requests for cleanup by language
 * Category:Requests for deletion, Category:Requests for deletion by language
 * Category:Requests for verification, Category:Requests for verification by language
 * Category:Supplementary templates, Category:Supplementary templates by language
 * Category:Surnames, Category:Surnames by language
 * Category:Symbols, Category:Symbols by language
 * Category:Templates, Category:Templates by language
 * Category:Terms with audio links, Category:Terms with audio links by language
 * Category:Usage examples with the translation missing, Category:Usage examples with the translation missing by language
 * Category:Usage templates, Category:Usage templates by language
 * Category:Verbs, Category:Verbs by language

DTLHS (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, DTLHS. I rest my case. :P —CodeCat 23:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the list. I retract my statement: "no collisions should happen at all". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking... Because of these collisions, maybe we should add "by language" to all the categories when applicable? It would also make it clear the exact purpose of the "by language" categories. Obviously, it would work like this:
 * Category:Nouns by language
 * Category:English nouns
 * Category:French nouns
 * Category:Terms for types of nouns by language
 * Category:English terms for types of nouns
 * Category:French terms for types of nouns
 * Category:Terms relating to dogs by language
 * Category:English terms relating to dogs
 * Category:French terms relating to dogs
 * Category:Names of oceans by language
 * Category:English names of oceans
 * Category:French names of oceans
 * Category:Technical terms of anatomy by language
 * Category:English technical terms of anatomy
 * Category:French technical terms of anatomy
 * --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably better, yes. The names without it are cleaner, but also more troublesome. —CodeCat 16:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I added the "by language" in the vote text. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Parallel proposal: place topical categories next to the senses they apply to
Right now we place them at the bottom, far away from where they are relevant. I think it would be a good idea if we placed them next to the sense that they applied to. This would have no effect on how entries look, of course, but it would help editors and encourage them to add the appropriate categories for specific senses. It would perhaps also discourage them from adding inappropriate context labels. —CodeCat 10:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. This could be a good idea. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you think we could go about implementing it? —CodeCat 15:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could have some labels that are invisible by default. For example, if the user types, it would categorize entries in Category:en:Beech family plants (old name) or Category:English terms for Beech family plants (proposed name) but without generating a label. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What if someone puts in ? Without qualifying, we'd be back to the old problem. If we just put in the category directly (using or what would be its successor, ), then we can decouple labels from categories. Perhaps we can even eventually remove the categorisation of some labels entirely. —CodeCat 20:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Alright, maybe we could place below the sense line. I typed a simple example in this right-floating box. Is that consistent with how you envisioned it? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The lines would start with #: . DTLHS (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not place them before the sense, though? We already place context labels there, as well as senseids. —CodeCat 21:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I added a second example below the first. This should be what you described. If it is, it looks good to me too. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is what I had in mind. As for relative ordering: senseid first, then semantic categories, then context labels. —CodeCat 21:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

 * Why not make them visible? The template could work the same way as . DTLHS (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * : I would rather not let them be visible like . I fear these categories that are not context labels (say, Category:en:Trees) might distract readers from reading the definitions. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Relative categorization
The vote doesn't currently say anything about how these new categories would be categorized relative to one another. I don't know if the vote needs to say this, but it would be good to work out in advance.

In principle, it would make sense for "terms for" categories to have "terms related to" categories as their parents. However, this runs the risk that many of the "related to" categories will stay empty and only act as meaningless parent categories. An example that came to mind is that of Category:Reindeers. This is currently relatively empty but at least it could be potentially filled up if someone was willing to take up the task. Languages such as Northern Sami have a lot of reindeer-related vocabulary as well, so there would also be a "terms related to reindeer" category for them. The problem is when we put Category:Northern Sami terms for reindeer species (I'm assuming that species categories will be named this way, the vote is actually missing them) into Category:Northern Sami terms related to reindeer. This categorization makes sense for Northern Sami, but obviously not for Arabic which presumably has zero reindeer-related vocabulary outside of species names. In fact, the vast majority of languages around the world have no reindeer-related terms, only species names. So their "terms related to reindeer" categories will all be empty and exist only for the sake of the few languages like Northern Sami that have that kind of vocabulary. —CodeCat 18:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll type that category tree here:
 * Category:Arabic terms related to reindeer
 * Category:Arabic terms for reindeer species
 * Category:Northern Sami terms related to reindeer
 * Category:Northern Sami terms for reindeer species
 * I agree that in principle, it would make sense for "terms for" categories to have "terms related to" categories as their parents.
 * I can't speak for everyone, but personally I'm completely fine with having that empty or almost empty Arabic category ("Arabic terms related to reindeer") as long as the Northern Sami version of the same category has a lot of reindeer-related terms. I assume it would help navigation, by having the same tree for semantical categories (I'm thinking, maybe I'll stop saying "topical categories") of all languages. Don't we already have a lot of empty categories like these which serve the purpose of containing other categories to match the same tree in other languages?
 * I noticed that all current "reindeers" categories have only one entry per language. OK, I'm sure we could have a lot of reindeer-related terms in Northern Sami as you said. I would suggest deleting this whole category tree if it were to contain just one entry per category forever.
 * Category:Reindeers
 * Category:ckt:Reindeers (contains 1 entry: ӄораӈы)
 * Category:en:Reindeers (contains 1 entry: reindeer)
 * Category:eve:Reindeers (contains 1 entry: оран)
 * --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of creating useless categories. Perhaps we should introduce a new concept, that of "related" category. Such categories would link to each other directly via something in their description, rather than via subcategorisation. That way the categories can exist, or not exist, independently of each other. —CodeCat 21:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A bit off-topic: We've been discussing "terms for reindeer species", but it seems "terms for reindeer subspecies" would be accurate. Apparently reindeer is a single species itself and it has subspecies.
 * Does that idea of "related" categories means that even if both Category:English terms relating to reindeer and Category:English terms for reindeer subspecies exist, one can't be subcategory of the other because they would be linked through their descriptions? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Do we really have to start remembering whether things are genus, family, order, phylum, species, subspecies and so on? I'm going to quit if that's the case. It's the most pointless part of taxonomy that I know of. I'm sure others will find it needless busywork as well.
 * The point of related categories is that the relationship isn't one of subcategorisation. If you want to subcategorise, then you don't need related categories. You know how currently, POS-type categories show a list of recognised subcategories with a description? Related categories would be like that, but listed separately (above or below). A category would not appear in both lists, that would be silly. —CodeCat 21:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to have words like genus, family, order, phylum, species, subspecies in category names, but I noticed that Category:English terms for reindeer species seems to include an inaccurate use of the word "species". I would be happy with an equivalent like Category:English terms for kinds of reindeer.
 * Aren't the reindeer categories a relationship of subcategorization? As I believe you implied, all terms for kinds of reindeer (say, Finnish forest reindeer) are terms relating to reindeer. Or maybe you are thinking of using the "related" categories for other categories? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Semantically you are correct. All terms for kinds of reindeer are also terms related to reindeer. But our categories don't have to reflect the semantic relationships exactly. We can do something different, such as related categories, for pragmatic reasons. There are other cases where this applies as well, I have come across many but can't think of any examples offhand. But if you look at the list of categories for an ancient language like Proto-Germanic, you might see categories that are horribly out of place for such a language, relating to concepts that the speakers of that language had no notion of. I prefer to categorise in such a way that it reflects, within reason, the understanding of its speakers.
 * "terms for kinds of reindeer" could possibly also contain kinds of reindeer that are not genetic variants. Think of possible words like "breeding reindeer, infertile reindeer, female reindeer", etc. —CodeCat 21:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If we decide that Category:Arabic terms for reindeer species should exist and Category:Arabic terms related to reindeer shouldn't, then how do we get to the existing category in the first place? Won't there be a number of semantical categories that are not in any category?
 * I guess Category:English terms for reindeer subspecies is the best name among those discussed for that category. To some extent, it's similar to Category:English terms for dog breeds ("breeds" instead of "subspecies"). We could still rename Category:en:Beech family plants to Category:English terms for Beech family plants; that is, the use of "species", "subspecies" could be allowed sometimes when needed for disambiguation, this time to avoid possible words like "breeding reindeer, infertile reindeer, female reindeer", etc. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The categories would still form a tree, and have at least one parent. Category:en:Reindeers currently has Category:en:Cervids as its parent, which is fine because all reindeer are cervids. The new structure should preserve this subtyping. The new "terms related to reindeer" meanwhile could be placed under something more generic such as "terms related to cervids", "terms related to mammals", or further up the tree. You'd end up with two parallel trees, with corresponding branches linked via the "related" mechanism. —CodeCat 22:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I believe you mean this category tree below, but this does not seem very intuitive to me. Let me know if this is not consistent with what you proposed.
 * Category:Arabic terms related to cervids (linked to Category:Arabic terms for cervid species in the description)
 * Category:Arabic terms related to reindeer (linked to Category:Arabic terms for reindeer species in the description)
 * Category:Arabic terms for cervid species (linked to Category:Arabic terms related to cervids in the description)
 * Category:Arabic terms for reindeer species (linked to Category:Arabic terms related to reindeer in the description)
 * I think Category:Arabic terms for reindeer species really should be a subcategory of Category:Arabic terms related to reindeer. If an anon or new editor wants to create a category, this should be the most intuitive thing to do. If these two category trees really are kept separate, arguably Finnish forest reindeer should be part of both "reindeer" categories (which I'm not suggesting to do).
 * It does not even solve that problem: categories like Category:Arabic terms related to cervids could be completely or almost empty, and serve only to contain subcategories like Category:Arabic terms related to reindeer. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

"relating to" / "related to"
Does any of these two options sound more like normal native English? I'm not a native speaker, I can't always tell. (Both sound equally good to me, and "terms relating to" and "terms related to" have a similar number of Google hits.) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:English terms relating to dogs
 * Category:English terms related to dogs
 * The "relating" sounds better here in my opinion. --WikiTiki89 20:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * With "related", you give the impression that the terms themselves are somehow related, not their meaning. —CodeCat 20:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If the "parent" category were to be included (for example, if "animal" were to be a term in the dogs category), then I would prefer "related to". But otherwise, "relating to" might be slightly better. Germyb (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

of / in
In Module:User:CodeCat/place names, I noticed that some place names use "of" and others use "in". Please check if they are all OK. If they are, the vote may need to be edited to say that all these possibilities are accepted. If there are any problems, they should be fixed. I believe this is the full list.

 * "names of ... of"
 * "names of autonomous communities of"
 * "names of autonomous oblasts of"
 * "names of autonomous okrugs of"
 * "names of autonomous regions of"
 * "names of autonomous republics of"
 * "names of cantons of"
 * "names of census-designated places of"
 * "names of counties of"
 * "names of countries of"
 * "names of departments of"
 * "names of districts of"
 * "names of districts and autonomous regions of"
 * "names of divisions of"
 * "names of federal cities of"
 * "names of krais of"
 * "names of oblasts of"
 * "names of prefectures of"
 * "names of provinces of"
 * "names of regencies of"
 * "names of regions of"
 * "names of republics of"
 * "names of special administrative regions of"
 * "names of state capitals of"
 * "names of states of"
 * "names of subdistricts of"
 * "names of subprefectures of"
 * "names of territories of"

 * "names of ... in"
 * "names of boroughs in"
 * "names of cities in"
 * "names of municipalities in"
 * "names of rivers in"
 * "names of special wards in"
 * "names of towns in"
 * "names of villages in"

Compare this, which seems to be inconsistent: "names of federal cities of" / "names of cities in". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say that "in" refers to geographical location, while "of" refers to administrative division. Another way to think of it might be that with "in", you're saying that the thing exists even if the political structure around it were to disappear, while with "of" it would not be the case. —CodeCat 12:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Then, in the list above as currently shown, it seems only "names of rivers in" should keep the "in" at the end. All other names would have "of", including: "names of boroughs of", "names of cities of", "names of villages of", etc. We could also add (if needed) these other "in" places: "names of mountains in", "names of lakes in", "names of volcanoes in". Does that sound OK to you? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Cities don't vanish when the country does. They are physical entities, not abstract. Municipalities could become "of" though, same with special wards. —CodeCat 12:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * : Fair enough. I edited the vote to allow the use of both "in" and "of". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


text:
ع ي ر

Root

 * 1) related to roaming and wandering
 * 2) related to measurement and standardization
 * 3) related to shame and dishonor

Derived terms

 * Verbs and verbal derivatives

 * Nouns and adjectives

title: ع ي ر


text:
عير

Verb

 * 1)  to denounce (someone) as dishonorable or shameful for (something), to shame; to defame; to besmirch; to stigmatize
 * 2)  to measure according to a set standard
 * 1)  to measure according to a set standard
 * 1)  to measure according to a set standard

Noun

 * 1)  a caravan

Etymology 2
From.

Noun

 * 1)  a donkey; a wild ass; an onager

Etymology
ultimately from

Noun

 * 1)  dick

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to shame, to disgrace, to humiliate

title: عير


text:
Gregg County

Etymology
Named after.

title: Gregg County


text:
nyeheng

Etymology
Perhaps from, from.

Noun

 * 1) wife

title: nyeheng


text:
Talk:метрдотель

Ruwikt uses a secondary accent. Does any resources allow no sec. accent? I've added my version (#3) as colloquial. That's what I find a common pronunciation. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ivanova only has one pronunciation, and that is without secondary accent, corresponding to your version #3 without schwa. She specifically underlines the трд sequence, which means "pronounce as written (and don't insert a schwa)". Avanesov meanwhile says "мѐтрдоте́ль [доп. мэ̀; факульт. до; тэ́]", which corresponds exactly to your #1 and #2. Reznichenko says essentially the same thing as Avanesov. Benwing2 (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Messed up the ping before. Benwing2 (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I removed the annotations (usually used for variants with differing primary stress, and not usually used to indicate phonetic spelling) and replaced the tilde variants with separate lines. I agree that the tilde variants look nice but they aren't properly supported (e.g. the word ends up in Category:Russian 6-syllable words). Benwing2 (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you really like the tilde variants I can look into what is needed to support them. At the least, I'll have to change the code that counts syllables, and my bot code to generate pronunciations for non-lemma forms. Possibly the code will need a few tweaks as well. Benwing2 (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am OK with our current notation but I don't mind the tilde either. Thanks for checking. I don't consider the shwa pronunciation standard. A well-known example with the shwa is in this "блатная песня" (roughly "an underworld song") . I am afraid you have to find the occurrence yourself, can't listen to it right now. BTW, let me know if you like Russian songs, I can give you some advise, which ones are good for learning or just enjoying but I am a bit old-fashioned. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If Ivanova lists [mʲɪtrdɐˈtɛlʲ], then it should be added as standard and the shwa version as colloquial. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:метрдотель


text:
ع ر ي

Root

 * 1) related to bareness, nakedness

Derived terms

 * Verbs and verbal derivatives

 * Nouns

 * Adjectives

title: ع ر ي


text: 掛売り

title: 掛売り


text: Latka

title: Latka


text: Łatka

title: Łatka


text: Łątka

title: Łątka


text:
掛け買い

Noun

 * 1) buying on credit; credit purchase

Verb

 * 1) to buy on credit; to buy on account

title: 掛け買い


text:
pugak

Noun

 * 1) honk

title: pugak


text:
pugad

Etymology
, from .

Noun

 * 1)  nest

Etymology
.

Verb

 * 1) to house fowls for the night

Etymology
. Compare 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬, and 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) nest
 * 2) nest hideout for bad people to frequent or haunt
 * 1) nest hideout for bad people to frequent or haunt

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) nest

Verb

 * 1) to settle in a nest
 * 2) to make a hideout

Noun

 * 1) egg

title: pugad


text:
puil

Noun

 * 1)  coccyx

title: puil


text: 掛買い

title: 掛買い


text:
ιώδες

Noun

 * 1) violet

title: ιώδες


text:
Caledonia County

Etymology
The county was named for the presence of many settlers of Scottish descent.

title: Caledonia County


text:
unheilig

Adjective

 * 1) unholy

title: unheilig


text:
unheilvoll

Adjective

 * 1) fatal
 * 2) malign, portentous, sinister

title: unheilvoll


text:
勤しむ

Verb

 * 1) to do something diligently; to work hard

title: 勤しむ


text:
unhistorisch

Adjective

 * 1) unhistoric, unhistorical

title: unhistorisch


text:
unhygienisch

Adjective

 * 1) unhygienic, insanitary

title: unhygienisch


text:
pungol

Adjective

 * 1) blunt; worn-out at the tip or point

title: pungol


text:
uniert

Adjective

 * 1) united

title: uniert


text:
unikursal

Adjective

 * 1) unicursal

title: unikursal


text:
unislamisch

Adjective

 * 1) un-Islamic

title: unislamisch


text:
unitaristisch

Adjective

 * 1) unitary, unitarist

title: unitaristisch


text:
obudzić

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1)  to wake
 * 2)  to get someone up
 * 3)  to awake, to waken
 * 1)  to awake, to waken
 * 1)  to awake, to waken
 * 1)  to awake, to waken

title: obudzić


text:
unitär

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1) unitary

title: unitär


text:
手広い

Adjective

 * 1) roomy; spacious; large
 * 2) (of relationship) wide; broad

title: 手広い


text:
universitär

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  varsity

title: universitär


text:
گوشت گاو

Noun

 * 1) beef

title: گوشت گاو


text:
Template talk:pl-decl-adj-auto

Is it possible to add a parameter "diminutive" for adjectives as some of them may have diminutive forms? Noun templates has it already implemented. Thanks in advance ~Mihxal (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Old dative
@Hythonia, @Tashi, @BigDom, @Benwing2 @KamiruPL The old template had something for the old dative, was this something we were saving? most major dictionaries don't, but if we want to we could probably easily include a parameter for it. I'm asking because Benwing is gonna replace all the old templates with this one, and we should sort this out first. Vininn126 (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Doesn't seem worth keeping to me TBH. BigDom 12:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I converted the templates, but I kept the olddat param for now (which is already implemented in ). On some pages that have it, the old dative non-lemma form already has an entry, e.g., . This way, no information is lost; we can always remove it later if we want. BTW Some pages couldn't be converted, particularly those involving short adjectives, such as , , , , etc. On these pages, there is a declension table where the nom masc sg (and inanimate acc masc sg) is the short form, and otherwise the declension is of the "long form". Is this correct? If so we can add the appropriate support to Module:pl-adj. Benwing2 (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Benwing2 That is correct, the list of "short form adjectives" is exceedingly small. Vininn126 (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Unclear structure
Until I looked very closely, I couldn't figure out which gender(s) is hardego, which case(s) is hardej and hardą. The table cells have no borders, and this is a torture for a user to solve it. JWBTH (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed it with this edit. JWBTH (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Vininn126 (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Template talk:pl-decl-adj-auto


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/flugilaz

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) wing

title: Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/flugilaz


text:
St. Johnsbury

Etymology
Believed to be named after.

title: St. Johnsbury


text: ungesühnter

title: ungesühnter


text: ungesühnterer

title: ungesühnterer


text: ungesühntere

title: ungesühntere


text: ungesühnteres

title: ungesühnteres


text: ungesühnteren

title: ungesühnteren


text: ungesühnterem

title: ungesühnterem


text: ungesühntester

title: ungesühntester


text: ungesühnteste

title: ungesühnteste


text: ungesühntestes

title: ungesühntestes


text: ungesühntesten

title: ungesühntesten


text: ungesühntestem

title: ungesühntestem


text: ungesühnte

title: ungesühnte


text: ungesühntes

title: ungesühntes


text: ungesühnten

title: ungesühnten


text: ungesühntem

title: ungesühntem


text: ungewollter

title: ungewollter


text: ungewollterer

title: ungewollterer


text: ungewolltere

title: ungewolltere


text: ungewollteres

title: ungewollteres


text: ungewollteren

title: ungewollteren


text: ungewollterem

title: ungewollterem


text: ungewolltester

title: ungewolltester


text: ungewollteste

title: ungewollteste


text: ungewolltestes

title: ungewolltestes


text: ungewolltesten

title: ungewolltesten


text: ungewolltestem

title: ungewolltestem


text: ungewollte

title: ungewollte


text: ungewolltes

title: ungewolltes


text: ungewollten

title: ungewollten


text: ungewolltem

title: ungewolltem


text: ungeziemender

title: ungeziemender


text: ungeziemenderer

title: ungeziemenderer


text: ungeziemendere

title: ungeziemendere


text: ungeziemenderes

title: ungeziemenderes


text: ungeziemenderen

title: ungeziemenderen


text: ungeziemenderem

title: ungeziemenderem


text: ungeziemendster

title: ungeziemendster


text: ungeziemendste

title: ungeziemendste


text: ungeziemendstes

title: ungeziemendstes


text: ungeziemendsten

title: ungeziemendsten


text: ungeziemendstem

title: ungeziemendstem


text: ungeziemende

title: ungeziemende


text: ungeziemendes

title: ungeziemendes


text: ungeziemenden

title: ungeziemenden


text: ungeziemendem

title: ungeziemendem


text: ungeübter

title: ungeübter


text: ungeübterer

title: ungeübterer


text: ungeübtere

title: ungeübtere


text: ungeübteres

title: ungeübteres


text: ungeübteren

title: ungeübteren


text: ungeübterem

title: ungeübterem


text: ungeübtester

title: ungeübtester


text: ungeübteste

title: ungeübteste


text: ungeübtestes

title: ungeübtestes


text: ungeübtesten

title: ungeübtesten


text: ungeübtestem

title: ungeübtestem


text: ungeübte

title: ungeübte


text: ungeübtes

title: ungeübtes


text: ungeübten

title: ungeübten


text: ungeübtem

title: ungeübtem


text: ungnädiger

title: ungnädiger


text: ungnädigerer

title: ungnädigerer


text: ungnädigere

title: ungnädigere


text: ungnädigeres

title: ungnädigeres


text: ungnädigeren

title: ungnädigeren


text: ungnädigerem

title: ungnädigerem


text: ungnädigster

title: ungnädigster


text: ungnädigste

title: ungnädigste


text: ungnädigstes

title: ungnädigstes


text: ungnädigsten

title: ungnädigsten


text: ungnädigstem

title: ungnädigstem


text: ungnädige

title: ungnädige


text: ungnädiges

title: ungnädiges


text: ungnädigen

title: ungnädigen


text: ungnädigem

title: ungnädigem


text: unheiliger

title: unheiliger


text: unheiligerer

title: unheiligerer


text: unheiligere

title: unheiligere


text: unheiligeres

title: unheiligeres


text: unheiligeren

title: unheiligeren


text: unheiligerem

title: unheiligerem


text: unheiligster

title: unheiligster


text: unheiligste

title: unheiligste


text: unheiligstes

title: unheiligstes


text: unheiligsten

title: unheiligsten


text: unheiligstem

title: unheiligstem


text: unheilige

title: unheilige


text: unheiliges

title: unheiliges


text: unheiligen

title: unheiligen


text: unheiligem

title: unheiligem


text: unheilvoller

title: unheilvoller


text: unheilvollerer

title: unheilvollerer


text: unheilvollere

title: unheilvollere


text: unheilvolleres

title: unheilvolleres


text: unheilvolleren

title: unheilvolleren


text: unheilvollerem

title: unheilvollerem


text: unheilvollster

title: unheilvollster


text: unheilvollste

title: unheilvollste


text: unheilvollstes

title: unheilvollstes


text: unheilvollsten

title: unheilvollsten


text: unheilvollstem

title: unheilvollstem


text: unheilvolle

title: unheilvolle


text: unheilvolles

title: unheilvolles


text: unheilvollen

title: unheilvollen


text: unheilvollem

title: unheilvollem


text: unhistorischer

title: unhistorischer


text: unhistorischerer

title: unhistorischerer


text: unhistorischere

title: unhistorischere


text: unhistorischeres

title: unhistorischeres


text: unhistorischeren

title: unhistorischeren


text: unhistorischerem

title: unhistorischerem


text: unhistorischster

title: unhistorischster


text: unhistorischste

title: unhistorischste


text: unhistorischstes

title: unhistorischstes


text: unhistorischsten

title: unhistorischsten


text: unhistorischstem

title: unhistorischstem


text: unhistorische

title: unhistorische


text: unhistorisches

title: unhistorisches


text: unhistorischen

title: unhistorischen


text: unhistorischem

title: unhistorischem


text: unhygienischer

title: unhygienischer


text: unhygienischerer

title: unhygienischerer


text: unhygienischere

title: unhygienischere


text: unhygienischeres

title: unhygienischeres


text: unhygienischeren

title: unhygienischeren


text: unhygienischerem

title: unhygienischerem


text: unhygienischster

title: unhygienischster


text: unhygienischste

title: unhygienischste


text: unhygienischstes

title: unhygienischstes


text: unhygienischsten

title: unhygienischsten


text: unhygienischstem

title: unhygienischstem


text: unhygienische

title: unhygienische


text: unhygienisches

title: unhygienisches


text: unhygienischen

title: unhygienischen


text: unhygienischem

title: unhygienischem


text: unislamischer

title: unislamischer


text: unislamischerer

title: unislamischerer


text: unislamischere

title: unislamischere


text: unislamischeres

title: unislamischeres


text: unislamischeren

title: unislamischeren


text: unislamischerem

title: unislamischerem


text: unislamischster

title: unislamischster


text: unislamischste

title: unislamischste


text: unislamischstes

title: unislamischstes


text: unislamischsten

title: unislamischsten


text: unislamischstem

title: unislamischstem


text: unislamische

title: unislamische


text: unislamisches

title: unislamisches


text: unislamischen

title: unislamischen


text: unislamischem

title: unislamischem


text: unitärer

title: unitärer


text: unitärerer

title: unitärerer


text: unitärere

title: unitärere


text: unitäreres

title: unitäreres


text: unitäreren

title: unitäreren


text: unitärerem

title: unitärerem


text: unitärster

title: unitärster


text: unitärste

title: unitärste


text: unitärstes

title: unitärstes


text: unitärsten

title: unitärsten


text: unitärstem

title: unitärstem


text: unitäre

title: unitäre


text: unitäres

title: unitäres


text: unitären

title: unitären


text: unitärem

title: unitärem


text: ungeständiger

title: ungeständiger


text: ungeständige

title: ungeständige


text: ungeständiges

title: ungeständiges


text: ungeständigen

title: ungeständigen


text: ungeständigem

title: ungeständigem


text: ungesäuerter

title: ungesäuerter


text:
تپل

Adjective

 * 1) chubby

title: تپل


text: ungesäuerte

title: ungesäuerte


text: ungesäuertes

title: ungesäuertes


text: ungesäuerten

title: ungesäuerten


text: ungesäuertem

title: ungesäuertem


text: ungesüßter

title: ungesüßter


text: ungesüßte

title: ungesüßte


text: ungesüßtes

title: ungesüßtes


text: ungesüßten

title: ungesüßten


text: ungesüßtem

title: ungesüßtem


text: ungetaner

title: ungetaner


text: ungetane

title: ungetane


text: ungetanes

title: ungetanes


text: ungetanen

title: ungetanen


text: ungetanem

title: ungetanem


text: ungezuckerter

title: ungezuckerter


text: ungezuckerte

title: ungezuckerte


text: ungezuckertes

title: ungezuckertes


text: ungezuckerten

title: ungezuckerten


text: ungezuckertem

title: ungezuckertem


text: ungeöffneter

title: ungeöffneter


text: ungeöffnete

title: ungeöffnete


text: ungeöffnetes

title: ungeöffnetes


text: ungeöffneten

title: ungeöffneten


text: ungeöffnetem

title: ungeöffnetem


text: ungrammatischer

title: ungrammatischer


text: ungrammatische

title: ungrammatische


text: ungrammatisches

title: ungrammatisches


text: ungrammatischen

title: ungrammatischen


text: ungrammatischem

title: ungrammatischem


text: unierter

title: unierter


text: unierte

title: unierte


text: uniertes

title: uniertes


text: unierten

title: unierten


text: uniertem

title: uniertem


text: unikursaler

title: unikursaler


text: unikursale

title: unikursale


text: unikursales

title: unikursales


text: unikursalen

title: unikursalen


text: unikursalem

title: unikursalem


text: unitaristischer

title: unitaristischer


text: unitaristische

title: unitaristische


text: unitaristisches

title: unitaristisches


text: unitaristischen

title: unitaristischen


text: unitaristischem

title: unitaristischem


text: universitärer

title: universitärer


text: universitäre

title: universitäre


text: universitäres

title: universitäres


text: universitären

title: universitären


text: universitärem

title: universitärem


text:
郵送

Noun

 * 1) mailing

Verb

 * 1) to mail

title: 郵送


text:
Ferry County

Etymology
Named after.

title: Ferry County


text: 宓羲

title: 宓羲


text: 悠々

title: 悠々


text:
diunam

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to eat

title: diunam


text:
袷袢

Etymology
. Related to 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1)  robe worn by Uyghur and Tajik people

title: 袷袢


text:
gikla

Noun

 * 1) horrified surprise

title: gikla


text:
ginang

Postposition

 * 1)  with, including, along with

Etymology
Probably from. Compare with 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) matron; married woman
 * 2) woman of established age and dignity
 * 3) wife; Mrs.
 * 1) wife; Mrs.

title: ginang


text:
gining

Etymology
From. Compare with.

Noun

 * 1) young woman; teenage girl

title: gining


text:
unkalkulierbar

Adjective

 * 1) incalculable

title: unkalkulierbar


text:
火傷

Etymology 1
From.

Noun

 * 1) a burn (caused by heat); a scald

Verb

 * 1) to burn, to scald

Noun

 * 1) a burn (caused by heat); a scald

Verb

 * 1) to burn, to scald

title: 火傷


text:
unkreativ

Adjective

 * 1) uncreative

title: unkreativ


text:
User talk:2.29.221.192

You mean hause:, not Hause:. English common nouns do not begin with a capital letter. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:2.29.221.192


text:
物置

Noun

 * 1) storeroom; space used for storage

title: 物置


text:
unkündbar

Adjective

 * 1)  uncancellable, non-terminable, permanent
 * 2)  incapable of being dismissed

Usage notes

 * In sense 2, it generally refers to what German law calls, which under the existing labour laws is impossible, or virtually impossible, under certain circumstances. in cases of severe misconduct is always possible.

title: unkündbar


text:
目印

Noun

 * 1) mark; sign; visual indicator

title: 目印


text: Category:Japanese terms suffixed with 抜き


text:
博奕

Etymology 1
From.

Noun

 * 1) gambling

Etymology 2
The reading of 奕 is an alteration of the reading やく.

Noun

 * 1) gambling

title: 博奕


text: Category:Japanese terms spelled with 奕

title: Category:Japanese terms spelled with 奕


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Iranian/Hrawdʰás

Etymology
From, from. Cognate with 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) red metal, copper, brass

Descendants

 * Pahlavi
 * Pahlavi
 * Pahlavi
 * Pahlavi
 * Pahlavi
 * Pahlavi
 * Pahlavi
 * Pahlavi
 * Pahlavi
 * Pahlavi
 * Pahlavi
 * Pahlavi
 * Pahlavi


text:
great-grand

Etymology
From ; from, , , , etc.

Noun

 * 1) A great-grandparent or great-grandchild.

title: great-grand


text: great-grands

title: great-grands


text:
尉犁

Etymology
First attested in the .

The etymology was discussed in detail in the article On the Place Name Yuli and Rouran (《尉犁地名和柔然源流考》) by Li Shuhui (李树辉).

The name Yuli was postulated to have come from Turkic (J)yrægir (“one who is stationed; one who stays”), the name of a Turkic clan, and derived from yræ- (verb form yryk, “to be stationed in”) + -gir (adjectival suffix).

Both (J)yrægir and yryk were said to be recorded in the ancient dictionary , although the exact Arabic-script forms are unknown, perhaps, , the 15th clan of the Oghuz.

Proper noun

 * 1)    former state in the

title: 尉犁


text:
nərgis

Etymology
, from, from.

title: nərgis


text:
博打

Noun

 * 1) gambling

title: 博打


text:
Rhytium

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Proper noun

 * 1) A town in Crete

title: Rhytium


text:
Inachorium

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Proper noun

 * 1) A city in Crete

title: Inachorium


text:
Citations:foal

 * 1987, Toni Morrison, Beloved, page 267:
 * He would have to trade this here one for $900 if he could get it, and set out to secure the breeding one, her foal and the other one, if he found him. With the money from "this here one" he could get two young ones, twelve or fifteen years old. And maybe with the breeding one, her three pickaninnies and whatever the foal might be, he and his nephews would have seven niggers and Sweet Home would be worth the trouble it was causing him.

title: Citations:foal


text: гадын

title: гадын


text:
Talk:foal

Use other than for horses?
I've just added a quote to Citations:foal. It's pretty clear from the quote, and very clear from the context of the rest of the book, that it's using the word "foal" for a young child who has been born into slavery. This usage doesn't seem to be covered by our current senses, but I'm not sure if it exists outside of Toni Morrison's work. A bit of searching on Google Books didn't turn up any other quotes where a "foal" is anything but a young horse or closely related animal. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:foal


text: гыз

title: гыз


text:
Hippocoronium

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Proper noun

 * 1) A city in Crete

title: Hippocoronium


text: оғлан

title: оғлан


text: Doniphan

title: Doniphan


text: зөвҹә

title: зөвҹә


text:
Praesus

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Proper noun

 * 1) A town of Crete situated near Mount Dicte

title: Praesus


text: арвад

title: арвад


text:
Matalia

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Proper noun

 * 1) A town in Crete near the headland of Matala

title: Matalia


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Iranian/ćšáytram

Etymology
Perhaps from or, per Lubotsky,, from.

Noun

 * 1) land, region


text: 𣅃

title: 𣅃


text:
𣱶

Definitions

 * 1) name of an ancient river

title: 𣱶


text: 𨚍

title: 𨚍


text:
belevág

Verb

 * 1)  to cut into e.g. an unopened package; with
 * 2)  to stick something into something with
 * 3)  to throw something into something with
 * 4)  to hit, bang, bump, stub a body part into something with
 * 5)  to strike with
 * 6)  to start suddenly and/or vigorously, set about, go ahead, plunge into, embark e.g. on a project; with
 * 7)  to interrupt, butt in, cut in, break in, barge in, cut off, push in with
 * 1)  to strike with
 * 2)  to start suddenly and/or vigorously, set about, go ahead, plunge into, embark e.g. on a project; with
 * 3)  to interrupt, butt in, cut in, break in, barge in, cut off, push in with
 * 1)  to interrupt, butt in, cut in, break in, barge in, cut off, push in with
 * 1)  to interrupt, butt in, cut in, break in, barge in, cut off, push in with

title: belevág


text:
Reconstruction talk:Proto-Indo-European/krep-

Bad reconstruction
You did the same thing as before based on the exact same evidence. The Sanskrit and Avestam are both root nouns, not a thematic noun. Latin is also a completely different declension (an *s-stem). — JohnC5 17:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not delete entries so carelessly. You deleted an improved PII descendant tree that could have been incorporated in this entry, regardless. --Victar (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I copied everything in the entry at the time back over to the main entry. I'm just looked over at old deleted entry, and the only things I omitted were the PII and PIr reconstruction because they were incorrect. — JohnC5 21:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


text:
Turpilius

Etymology
From.

Proper noun

 * 1) a Roman nomen gentile, gens or "family name" famously held by:
 * 2) Sextus Turpilius, a Roman writer

title: Turpilius


text:
𫊥

Definitions

 * 1)  Used in personal names

title: 𫊥


text: 𪯈

title: 𪯈


text:
㶥

Definitions

 * 1) Used in personal names.
 * 2) Used in place names.
 * 1) Used in place names.

title: 㶥


text:
Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Iranian/ráyknas

Etymology
From, from. Cognate with 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) property left, inheritance


text:
𠜅

Definitions

 * 1) to clip

title: 𠜅


text: ex-friends

title: ex-friends


text: 𦮴

title: 𦮴


text:
Charlottesville

Etymology
From. Named after (1744–1818), the consort of.

Proper noun

 * 1) . Named after.

title: Charlottesville


text:
𢩳

Pronunciation
None. Only used in written form.

Definitions

 * , used in.

title: 𢩳


text:
تعاير

Etymology
Morphologically from the root.

Verb

 * 1) to revile each other

title: تعاير


text:
𦬸

Alternative forms

 * In (based on the character form used in ), the component under the grass radical contains.
 * In mainland China (based on the  standardized character form), the component under the grass radical contains.

Derived characters

 * 蒁 (Exception: Only for its Japanese character form. Chinese character form is written instead)
 * 蒁 (Exception: Only for its Japanese character form. Chinese character form is written instead)

title: 𦬸


text: 𤵒

title: 𤵒


text: Kalęba

title: Kalęba


text: Kalemba

title: Kalemba


text: Koziara

title: Koziara


text: Ciura

title: Ciura


text: Cipura

title: Cipura


text: 𣔙

title: 𣔙


text:
Paskuda

Etymology
From.

title: Paskuda


text:
𢙝

Definitions

 * 1)  Used in personal names

title: 𢙝


text: Malota

title: Malota


text: Rawa

title: Rawa


text:
ل ء ل ء

Root

 * 1) related to flashing, glittering, sparkling, twinkling, or pearls.

Derived terms

 * Verbs and verbal derivatives

 * Nouns and adjectives

title: ل ء ل ء


text:
𣎷

Han character

 * 1) chili pepper

title: 𣎷


text:
Janiga

Etymology
Borrowed from.

Statistics

 * According to the 2010 United States Census, Janiga is the 38155th most common surname in the United States, belonging to 581 individuals. Janiga is most common among White (97.25%) individuals.

title: Janiga


text: 𡴭

title: 𡴭


text: Kalota

title: Kalota


text:
لألأ

Verb

 * 1) to flash, to glitter, to sparkle, to twinkle

title: لألأ


text: Category:Arabic form-Iq verbs with ء as fourth radical


text: Category:Arabic form-Iq verbs with ء as second radical


text: Boguta

title: Boguta


text:
Uryga

Etymology
From Latin.

title: Uryga


text: Paliga

title: Paliga


text:
𤴥

Han character

 * 1) to fall in a faint

title: 𤴥


text:
𤴦

Definitions

 * 1) illness

title: 𤴦


text: Pietryga

title: Pietryga


text: 𤝌

title: 𤝌


text:
paleoartista

Etymology
..

Noun

 * 1) paleoartist

Etymology
From.

Noun

 * 1) paleoartist

title: paleoartista


text: هزائم

title: هزائم


text: Małota

title: Małota


text:
Soliwoda

Etymology
From.

title: Soliwoda


text: 𢬂

title: 𢬂


text:
Prendota

Etymology
From.

title: Prendota


text:
لؤلؤي

Etymology
.

Adjective

 * 1) pearly

title: لؤلؤي


text: Pacocha

title: Pacocha


text:
κανελί

Noun
or indeclinable

 * 1)  cinnamon

title: κανελί


text: κανελλί

title: κανελλί


text: κανελλιού

title: κανελλιού


text: κανελλιών

title: κανελλιών


text: κανελλιά

title: κανελλιά


text: Gieroń

title: Gieroń


text: κανελιών

title: κανελιών


text: κανελιά

title: κανελιά


text: κανελιού

title: κανελιού


text:
Świgoń

Etymology
From.

title: Świgoń


text:
κανελής

Adjective

 * 1) cinnamon

title: κανελής


text:
καννελής

Adjective

 * 1)  without simplification of double consonant

title: καννελής


text: κανελιάς

title: κανελιάς


text: κανελή

title: κανελή


text: κανελιές

title: κανελιές


text: κανελιοί

title: κανελιοί


text: κανελιούς

title: κανελιούς


text: 𡵉

title: 𡵉


text: 𧉾

title: 𧉾


text:
फड़फड़ाना

Etymology
Ultimately from a ; a. Compare 🇨🇬.

Verb

 * 1) to flap, flutter

title: फड़फड़ाना


text: 𠔾

title: 𠔾


text:
𡦼

Definitions

 * 1)  long hair

Glyph origin
Replacement of +  with  +.

title: 𡦼


text: 𤆂

title: 𤆂


text:
pinolero

Adjective

 * 1)  Nicaraguan

Noun

 * 1)  Nicaraguan

title: pinolero


text:
nebliselva

Noun

 * 1) cloud forest

title: nebliselva


text:
हल्ला

Etymology
. Compare 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) noise, tumult, uproar
 * 2) a call to invade, warcry
 * 3)  raid, attack
 * 1) a call to invade, warcry
 * 2)  raid, attack
 * 1)  raid, attack

Noun

 * 1) attack

title: हल्ला


text:
jinotegano

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * 1)  of

Noun

 * 1) an inhabitant of the city of, Nicaragua

title: jinotegano


text: Template:sam-verb

title: Template:sam-verb


text:
veguer

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) vicar, representative of the Spanish monarchy

Noun

 * 1) vicar, representative in northeast Spain, of the monarchy

title: veguer


text: veguers

title: veguers


text: vegueres

title: vegueres


text: Category:Samaritan Aramaic headword-line templates


text:
Golus

Etymology
, from.

Noun

 * 1) the Jewish Diaspora

title: Golus


text: Witos

title: Witos


text:
fofisano

Adjective

 * 1)  husky, burly, stout
 * 2)  having a dadbod
 * 1)  having a dadbod

title: fofisano


text: Watras

title: Watras


text: Truchan

title: Truchan


text: paleoartistas

title: paleoartistas


text: nebliselvas

title: nebliselvas


text: Category:Samaritan Aramaic templates

title: Category:Samaritan Aramaic templates


text: trastrueques

title: trastrueques


text: trastrueco

title: trastrueco


text: trastrueque

title: trastrueque


text: trastrueca

title: trastrueca


text: trastruequen

title: trastruequen


text: trastruecas

title: trastruecas


text: trastruecan

title: trastruecan


text: upáramos

title: upáramos


text: upaseis

title: upaseis


text: upabas

title: upabas


text: upabais

title: upabais


text: Jędruch

title: Jędruch


text: uparas

title: uparas


text:
upaba

Etymology 1
, from. .

Cogante with 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) hammock
 * 2) bed
 * 3) field
 * 4) lodging
 * 5)  barbette
 * 1) lodging
 * 2)  barbette
 * 1)  barbette

Etymology 2
, from. .

Cogante with 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1) lake; lagoon

title: upaba


text: upando

title: upando


text: upá

title: upá


text: uparían

title: uparían


text: uparán

title: uparán


text: upábamos

title: upábamos


text: upés

title: upés


text: upéis

title: upéis


text: upás

title: upás


text: uparemos

title: uparemos


text: upáremos

title: upáremos


text:
upé

Determiner

 * 1) that

title: upé


text: upamos

title: upamos


text: uparé

title: uparé


text: upada

title: upada


text: upare

title: upare


text: uparía

title: uparía


text: upará

title: upará


text: upaste

title: upaste


text: upasen

title: upasen


text: upásemos

title: upásemos


text: uparais

title: uparais


text: upase

title: upase


text: uparan

title: uparan


text:
upara

Noun

 * 1) a kind of

Noun

 * 1) baldness

title: upara


text: upadas

title: upadas


text: upares

title: upares


text: upemos

title: upemos


text: upaban

title: upaban


text: uparíais

title: uparíais


text: upado

title: upado


text: uparen

title: uparen


text: uparíamos

title: uparíamos