Appendix talk:Palindromic words

So this thing is only for words, not phrases? Kappa 02:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose very short, fairly well-known or well-used phrases (i.e. perhaps phrases that individually meet the CFI such as "Madam, I'm Adam" and "Able was I, ere I saw Elba") would be ok, but including all palindromic phrases would be a nightmare, as the number is limitless. bd2412 T 16:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, sir. I am planning of doing some work on this article using this translator and I'll be starting very soon, please feel welcome to help.--Chris Wattson 07:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

How "existing" should the words in this list be?

There are a few words in the Swedish list (and almost certainly in the lists for other languages too) that have probably never been written (let alone uttered) except while actively trying to create palindromes. Is any deggree of far-fetchedness OK? - Tournesol 12:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - agglutinative languages, such as German, can in theory form palindromes of any length. I question whether the German entry "Nebelregennegerleben" ("the life of a black man in rain and fog") is anything more than a contrivance. — 217.46.147.13 13:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest avoiding explanations of palindromes

If a listed palindrome is already defined in the Wiktionary and explained in the given language, I suggest avoiding additional explanation in the list of palindromic words. --Rpr 23:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

RFM discussion: May 2009–September 2014

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Appendix:Palindromic words

Discussion moved from WT:RFC#Appendix:Palindromic words.

I wasn't the person who added the cleanup template, but it doesn't seem to be here so I'll add it. I'd suggest separate annexes for each language. Appendix:English Palindromes or Palindromes in English. Mglovesfun 10:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think mixing all the languages into one appendix is a good idea either. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Some languages have only a handful of terms. Perhaps we should separate out those languages with large numbers (English, Swedish, Korean, etc.). bd2412 T 19:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Relisted. - -sche (discuss) 07:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Expired with no action taken. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

RFDO discussion: May–September 2015

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Appendix:Palindromic words

Appendix:Palindromic phrases

Based on two old discussions I'm going to link to below, I'd like to delete these two long lists of palindromes of all languages. I've copied the contents of both pages into 55 language-specific appendices like Appendix:Portuguese palindromes.

Discussions:

• Appendix talk:Palindromic words#RFM discussion: May 2009–September 2014 (2009) (RFC discussion which was moved into RFM)
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2011/April#Palindromes by language (2011) (this one was my proposal of splitting the appendices exactly the way I did now, some people supported it at the time)

Also sorry if I did anything wrong with Croatian/Serbo-Croatian in the process, I've just copied all the phrases into Appendix:Serbo-Croatian palindromes. --Daniel 06:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete both. The languages look much better when they’re separate. Piling them all up in one entry is messy. --Romanophile (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

We already have Category:Portuguese palindromes. Why create an appendix? Split Appendix:Palindromic phrases and then delete both. --Dixtosa (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Delete the page of words (but ideally move red links somewhere, e.g. to requested entries). Not sure about the phrases, since they don't merit entries, and I suppose the list is interesting (?). Equinox ◑ 17:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Does it really make sense to have Appendix:Urdu palindromes, with its two entries? I'm all for breaking out longer lists of palindromes by language, but for the short lists, I see no benefit to splitting them out rather than keeping them together on a page. bd2412 T 17:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Do we really want appendices of palindromic phrases? Anything that meets CFI we can categorize (and we do), but what about non-CFI meeting stuff like madam, I'm Adam? Do we even want that in the appendix namespace? Palindromes aren't lexical anyway, they're mathematical like anagrams. I'd rather we delete the whole lot and just keep the categorization. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

We should do it with categories rather than appendices. For now, that would cause us to lose the red links, though. Equinox ◑ 17:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

By all means move them to WT:RE. But being palindromes doesn't make them more urgent as entries. Like I said, palindromes are mathematical not lexical. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

My opinion as the creator of this discussion: Keep words and phrases in the language-specific appendices. Palindromes are interesting, and they are shown/organized in an interesting way in appendices, with their translations readily available and the words normally organized by letter count, see Appendix:Slovene palindromes.

I don't know whether the aforementioned Appendix:Urdu palindromes is useful as a single page with only 2 instances, I just like how it fits this system which is consistent enough in style and 100% consistent in categorization, which is rare for appendices. Category:Urdu palindromes has 2 entries not mentioned in the appendix, for a grand total of 4 palindromes.

Question: About the suggestion of having a separate page for the languages with few palindromes, isn't it an unnecessary layer of complexity? The way it is now, one can see/navigate all the languages at once since I left them all cross-linked in the See also section. Cases in point: Kabyle and Egyptian have 1 entry each.

Delete Appendix:Palindromic phrases and Appendix:Palindromic words, it is tedious having to scroll to find examples of a particular language and come back to the top for section links. I also don't like having to navigate and search for words and phrases separately if all I speak or want to see is, say, Danish. --Daniel 09:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't be tedious if all languages with larger numbers of palindromes were removed, and the only languages on the page were those with only a handful. In that case, I would think that it would be more tedious to look through several different pages of languages with two or three palindromes then to have them all in one place. bd2412 T 14:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Still the current separate appendices words/phrases are a mess. Also, pages like Appendix:Urdu palindromes are categorized in language-specific categories like Category:Urdu appendices, thus more likely to draw attention of the language's speakers/editors and be improved. Perhaps we could have Appendix:Palindromes (currently a redirect to "Appendix:Palindromic words") with duplicate content from Urdu, Kabyle, Egyptian, etc. and links to all appendices. Personally, I am still leaning towards having just the language-specific appendices with nothing else, but do you and/or think that would be a reasonable compromise? As long as we're keeping palindromes here, while some languages have too few palindromes, I'd argue that languages with a substantial number of palindromes benefit from having their own appendices no matter how you look at them. (Appendix:English palindromes, Appendix:French palindromes, Appendix:Finnish palindromes, Appendix:Danish palindromes, Appendix:Italian palindromes, Appendix:Slovene palindromes, Appendix:Swedish palindromes, etc.) --Daniel 04:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)