This is a discussion archive created in January 2006, though the comments contained may not have been posted on this date. Please do not post any new comments on this page. See current discussion, or the archives index.

Kept

Template:altspellpar

Yet another template we don't really need. Ncik 02:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (also Template:altspell) - useful (and in use) - text is not optimum though. SemperBlotto 08:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is good - Παρατηρητής 13:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find either of them very useful, particularly the one that adds a pointless tag to articles. What an alternative spelling is is a matter of general Wiktionary knowledge, and should not need to be repeated in an ugly tag every time it applies. Eclecticology 10:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ec 100%. I find this tag very ugly and I think it dumbs down the content that would be much better served by spelling out the similarities and differences in each article. — Hippietrail 17:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both templates are heavily linked. Suggesting formatting improvements is worlds better than recommending elimination. Obviously someone found these useful; I would have used them if there wasn't this vitriolic assault on them. Why is a conversation that belongs in the beer parlour to begin with, being catered to? Both of these templates seem like an elegant approach to easing the persistent UK/US issues. Why is a request for their deletion deemed appropriate, when a reasonable apprach would be to offer an improved solution first then migrate such entries over, then when all is clear, request deletion. Elimination of useful templates is no improvement. --Connel MacKenzie T C 04:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could I be any more...

This may be very banal, but its the dots that "worry" me --Dangherous 23:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Doesn't bother me much. There probably should be a place in an appendix to note common phrase constructs that fit a particular pattern. Until such an appendix is devised, I don't object to retaining it. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

even weaker keep It isn't a prefix, shouldn't be capitalised and should lose the dots. SemperBlotto 08:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moved to Could one be any more Davilla 23:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dekoration

Another article with non-English content by the same author.

Cleanedup. Mike 18:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diskursanalyse

A German word with no definition. Jonathan Webley 12:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

translatory

Thanks, but this is English wiktionary. Jonathan Webley 21:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [1] --Connel MacKenzie T C 23:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's in the OED with cites from between 1727 and 1849. — Hippietrail 23:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

หญิงชาติชั่ว

Special:What links here says this is Thai for slut, but tagged as not in Thai alphabet? --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It’s Thai, all right, but I don’t know whether it’s a standard expression or just a description. —Stephen 12:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning it up. --Connel MacKenzie T C 07:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

çimen diğer tarafta her zaman daha yeşildir

Not English. Jonathan Webley 21:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linked from the grass is always greener on the other side --Dangherous 23:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

three

IDEO locator -- seems to be the name of an Internet guy
Fair and balanced - do we accept slogans? Or would Wikisource like this?
action star (Action Star). Dodgy.
clippety-cloppety - Seemingly written by a 5 year old. Call me racist, but I don't think 5 year olds should write dictionaries.
diddly dum, from the same page. It has a fair amount of hits on the web, but so does "brrrrrrr" and "rub a dub dub".

--Dangherous 23:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ideo locator page is okay, it just needed to be lowercased. It’s not the same as the IDEO Internet company. —Stephen 12:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted

維基/维基

bad title. no useful content. Millie 17:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. SemperBlotto 08:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted again. no ned to have saved this as a non-article. Eclecticology 08:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:wietsezuyderwijk/oddgrammarfeatures

Something very strange is going on with User:wietsezuyderwijk and all its sub-pages. The user does not exist. All edits were made by anon IPs. Unclear if any of the subpage information is useful. --Connel MacKenzie T C 08:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the name of the User page starts with a lowercase letter - even in en.wiktionary a User account cannot start that way. I would be inclined to delete it - we can always recover it if really needed (the talk page gets redirected to Capitalised version to add to the confusion). SemperBlotto 10:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, he does exist, and his capitalized user page redirects to the lowercase version. The redirections between his talk pages are made by another Dutchman. This must be some Dutch conspiracy. Vildricianus 19:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a conspiracy. I am employed by Prisma Woordenboeken. Seriously: it is a User Page by me, a regular contributor, and I am currently in the process of migrating all this data to here. When I am done, I will add all my userpages to the rfd-category... I hope a kind sysop will then delete all the pages under User:wietsezuyderwijk except for the actual page itself. Sorry for the inconvenience. DON'T DELETE MY PAGES JUST NOW!!

wiktionary isn't a playground, it isn't supposed to be used for saving data from pet projects. The wiki software is free, webspace is cheap, that is a much better solution if you wish to make a project of some kind. delete. - TheDaveRoss 01:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of anti-Semites

Violates NPOV

playah

Not convinced that it is a real definition. Jonathan Webley 20:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that didn't seem right… Deleted. Jon Harald Søby 20:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2009

We are not Wikipedia...we don't keep year entries, at all, right? --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vuckle

Sorry, but I just don't believe this one is correct. Jonathan Webley 21:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. SemperBlotto 16:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ro:plants

Delete Category:Ro:plants. cf. Category:ro:Plants (the correct format). Alexander 007 00:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]