Category talk:English derived terms

RFD discussion: August 2016–December 2020
Pretty horribly named, and it contains almost nothing but empty categories. —CodeCat 22:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think DCDuring started this hoping other people would join in, and they didn't. And it's too big to be managed by just one person. While potentially interesting instead of categorization I'd sooner see good lists of derived terms in one of the entry. That is, put all the derived terms at cat and not at catlike, catless, cattish (etc.). Categorization requires a lot more effort and really just duplicates good listing. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that derived terms sections should show terms derived indirectly as well, where there is an intermediate step in the derivation? That would turn derived terms sections into trees, while also duplicating the information from the derived terms sections of its derived terms. —CodeCat 22:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No I mean in general, and I suppose I mean related and not derived terms, put everything at cat/dog/chair whatever and nothing at cattish, doglike or chairless. We do tend to duplicate and of course duplicate partially, not wholly. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't really like that idea. —CodeCat 23:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * In the past, someone proposed that should categorize all terms (like "doghouse") which are compounds containing "dog", etc. (Possibly the affix templates would also put "doggish" etc in the same category.) That seems like a more workable idea than manual categorization like this. - -sche (discuss) 23:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As I conceived them I thought they would have been more inclusive than what would result from categorizing based on . I attempted to demonstrate using special template and these categories. The system would have required broad support, but instead the templates were removed from template space by vote. I doubt that there is any support now and don't want to exert myself to test that belief.
 * We have more fundamental problems, like definition and gloss quality, the systematic correction of which also has no indication of support. DCDuring TALK 23:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Kept by default after 4 years. Yeah, it's crappy, but so are many pages here Kilo Lima Mike (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

RFD discussion: October 2019–October 2023
Almost all categories under Category:English derived terms are empty. The ones that aren't empty are populated manually, as there are no (remaining?) templates to populate those categories automatically. The idea appears to be to create categories for terms derived from common English words like "cat" and "load". This is potentially a good idea but doesn't seem to have worked out in practice. If we are to implement something like this it should probably be done either through or  or through a mechanism similar to, which would automatically scrape a specified pages for derived terms. Rather than have what's essentially dead weight at this point hanging around, I propose deleting all the individual categories and the top-level category, removing the few manual invocations of those categories and removing the category boiler. Benwing2 (talk) 05:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The idea of autopopulated categories which would enable automagical displays under Derived terms headers is perfectly consistent with what we do under Descendants, but the polylingual lobby for doing so for Descendants has proven more powerful than the monolingual lobby for doing so under Derived terms. I suppose reminders of the loss should be razed. DCDuring (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I could definitely implement something that works like and pulls from Derived terms, but I don't think it can populate a category. The problem here is that the only way I know of to get a page in a category is to link to the category on the page itself. What could be done however is create pages in some namespace whose contents are auto-generated, consisting of a table of links in some format, and which pull from Derived terms on a specified page. E.g. it could be called Derived terms:English/cat (with a short-form prefix "DT:"?) and have a simple page definition  (or even just ). Or this could go into the Appendix or wherever. We have namespaces for rhymes, reconstructions, etc. so there is precedent. IMO this is more likely to work than going through  or  (which in the case of cat means that 118 pages must all have etymologies that mention the word "cat", vs. a single page that lists 118 derived terms, like we already have). Benwing2 (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete unless someone automates the process. Ultimateria (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, unless the process is automated (in which case I provisionally abstain). &mdash; excarnateSojourner (talk &middot; contrib) 05:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * RFD failed. I emptied all the remaining categories. P. Sovjunk (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)