Category talk:English terms suffixed with -est

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 1 year ago by ExcarnateSojourner in topic RFD discussion: May 2019–February 2023
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RFD discussion: May 2019–February 2023

[edit]

The following information passed a request for deletion (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.


This contains non-lemmas, and we do not categorise nonlemmas by etymology. Compare Category:English terms suffixed with -s, which does not contain all plurals and third-person singular forms, and Category:English terms suffixed with -er, which does not contain all comparatives. —Rua (mew) 19:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Delete. It's not really accurate to say they're suffixed anyway. Ultimateria (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC) Update: see below. Ultimateria (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Ultimateria: oh? Do explain – I’m intrigued. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Sgconlaw: I believe the point I wanted to make but failed to elaborate was that if we're not going to provide etymologies for most non-lemma forms, it doesn't make sense to categorize them by etymology. Ultimateria (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Ultimateria: righto. — SGconlaw (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
As an aside, the Category:English terms suffixed with -s category mentioned above also has some simple plurals in it which need to be gone over, if they are not supposed to be there... - -sche (discuss) 23:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
@-sche: a bot has created “Category:English terms suffixed with -s (regular plural)” … — SGconlaw (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
I guess if the -eth and -est categories fail, that one should also be RFDed. - -sche (discuss) 00:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Particularly weird is oxes, which was categorized as having the regular plural '-s', but it doesn't: historically it comes whole from Middle English, and by surface analysis in has '-es'... truly, Category:English terms suffixed with -s (regular plural) is odd... - -sche (discuss) 20:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
No opinion - but I would like to see Category:English plurals not ending in s, now that would be useful for both newbies and veterans of the language. Cheers! Facts707 (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Facts707: we have “Category:English irregular plurals”. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks SGconlaw! I wonder why I have't come across this before. Can you set me straight though - these are plurals of English words that don't make a "regular" plural? So plurals ending in ... would be a different category? Also it seems there are a lot of terms that are in both e.g. "Category:English irregular plurals ending in "-i"" and in the base category “Category:English irregular plurals” such as abaci and abaculi. Is this intended? Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 05:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Facts707: Note that this category (and its subcategories) are very incomplete (hundreds are missing) as they have to added manually. J3133 (talk) 05:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
The problem is that the template for creating irregular plural forms dumps all of them into the parent category. What is needed is an "ending=" parameter for that template to indicate specific common irregular ending cases, and categorize terms accordingly. bd2412 T 03:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Note: I have proposed this at Template talk:en-irregular plural of#Add a parameter to subcategorize?. bd2412 T 03:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Surjection Could you remove non-lemma etymologies from pages in these categories? Ultimateria (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Is that the consensus decision for this vote? It should be closed first IMO before taking action. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Surjection: It's a small but unanimous consensus, and it's unlikely that anyone will add to it. Also, removing etymologies from regular non-lemmas is, I believe, already seen as uncontroversial. I'm only referring to the most straightforward cases, like holdeth. But you're right about the process, I've closed it. Ultimateria (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
OK, I'll look into doing a bot job. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
The categories still have the RFD templates in place, which they shouldn't if this is closed. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 19:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply