Category talk:English entry maintenance

"entries needing reference" categorization
This is a little strange, because all of these are redlinks at the moment, but templates have been modified to generate cats using this naming scheme, and I would like them all to go away. While it might seem nice to unify things, having diverse templates using the same cats means you have to generalize away all the useful information and you end up with mumbling and hand-waving.

I'm sorry, but "English entries needing reference" makes no literal sense, and it's impossible to tell from the cat name what's supposed to go in it- you might as well call it "English entries needing something or other". Please change it to something that makes sense before we create a lot of really lame categories that will have to be deleted. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Entries are placed in those categories by and . Both templates specifically ask for a source, so the name seemed appropriate. Before I changed them, these templates just categorised in the generic "needing etymology" and "needing pronunciation" categories, which was not really any more helpful. —CodeCat 10:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * But your solution just substituted one problem for another, by eliminating any reference to etymologies or pronunciation: providing references for an etymology is quite different from providing references for a pronunciation. Also, treating reference as uncountable makes the category names look like typos- does anyone use reference that way? Can one ask, "how much reference do you need?"
 * A few possible alternatives (the equivalents for pronunciation are left as an exercise for the reader...):
 * etymologies needing to be referenced
 * etymologies needing references
 * etymologies needing referencing
 * etymologies needing to be sourced
 * entries with etymologies needing to be referenced
 * entries with etymologies needing references
 * entries with etymologies needing referencing
 * entries with etymologies needing to be sourced
 * entries with unreferenced etymologies
 * Chuck Entz (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would prefer "entries needing etymology reference" or "entries needing etymology source". The name doesn't treat it as uncountable; it just leaves out the article as a shorthand. A plural doesn't seem appropriate as it would imply that more than one reference is needed. —CodeCat 10:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Chuck about the missing article. It seems non-native or needlessly telegraphic to drop it. What do we hope to accomplish by dropping it as no human keystrokes are involved? Are we suddenly concerned with server resources, download times? As to the implications of the plural, there is no more implication than there would be using the singular. DCDuring TALK 13:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly agree with Chuck. We need more specificity of categories not less.
 * Whether the prefix to these types of requests should be "rfv" is another question that should be addressed while we have fewer than a hundred of these. Are we fairly sure this prefix will turn out to be adequate? DCDuring TALK 01:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The template names go back 7 or 8 years, and I seem to remember discussions as to whether it was a good idea to link etymologies, which take citations in the Wikipedia sense, with rfvs, which take citations in the Wiktionary sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The only alternative I know of that has some installed base is (45 transclusions here, and lots of pedians who have the habit), which would need to be followed by "pron" or "ety" (or "usage" etc?), but that might quickly get us part ways back to where we are now with a template likely to be overused and with an undifferentiated category. I suppose that if we made  generate a screen that required the users to say what type of problem concerned them or could detect the previous heading in an AF-type bot run, we could make that work. Some new prefix, like "ref", could work. DCDuring TALK  02:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would add that the subject nouns are plural, so one could just as easily say that using a singular object would imply that one reference or source would do for all the entries in the categories- but that would be silly, too. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've created the "needing reference" categories as they were originally named. This does not mean I'm enforcing that particular state of affairs (in case someone gets the wrong idea - you know who you are), it's only so that they aren't left in a redlinked state for ages, filling up Special:WantedCategories. They will presumably be deleted again once there's an agreement on what to name them. I do want to note, though, that as far as omitting the article goes, we already have "entries needing inflection", "entries needing definition", "entries needing etymology", "entries needing pronunciation", "entries needing audio pronunciation", "entries needing quotation" and "terms needing transliteration". I think that whatever name is chosen should fit with the existing names, or else all these should also be renamed to maintain consistency in the naming. —CodeCat 20:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Translation requests (X) to X translation requests

 * formerly Category:Translation requests (X) to Category:X translation requests / Category:Translations to be checked (X) to Category:X translations to be checked

Unintuitive names that don't match the rest of the category structure or other maintenance categories, hence require totally different code to parse and can't use. DTLHS (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. I hope it makes a difference to new contributors. DCDuring TALK 02:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Other categories


Suggestion: Make all the request categories in all languages use the same naming system, per the same reasons given for the categories above.


 * Category:English entries needing audio pronunciation → Category:English audio requests
 * Category:English entries needing definition → Category:English definition requests
 * Category:English entries needing etymology → Category:English etymology requests
 * Category:English entries needing images → Category:English image requests
 * Category:English entries needing inflection → Category:English inflection requests
 * Category:English entries needing pronunciation → Category:English pronunciation requests
 * Category:English entries needing quotation → Category:English quotation requests
 * Category:English entries needing reference → Category:English reference requests
 * Category:English terms needing attention → Category:English attention requests
 * Category:English term requests → Category:English term requests (no change)
 * Category:Sanskrit terms needing transliteration → Category:Sanskrit transliteration requests
 * Category:Sanskrit terms needing native script → Category:Sanskrit native script requests
 * Category:Translations to be checked (Sanskrit) → Category:Sanskrit translations to be checked
 * Category:Translation requests (Sanskrit) → Category:Sanskrit translation requests

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Is it me, or does "attention requests" sound a bit odd? Might there be a better noun to use for that one? Equinox ◑ 20:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Category:English review requests? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Might not Category:English requests for … be better nomenclature? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's probably the best suggestion! —CodeCat 13:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's a good idea. I believe this would be the full list, please check if it's ok:


 * Category:English entries needing audio pronunciation → Category:English requests for audio
 * Category:English entries needing definition → Category:English requests for definitions
 * Category:English entries needing etymology → Category:English requests for etymologies
 * Category:English entries needing images → Category:English requests for images
 * Category:English entries needing inflection → Category:English requests for inflection
 * Category:English entries needing pronunciation → Category:English requests for pronunciations
 * Category:English entries needing quotation → Category:English requests for quotations
 * Category:English entries needing reference → Category:English requests for references
 * Category:English terms needing attention → Category:English requests for attention
 * Category:English term requests → Category:English requests for terms
 * Category:Sanskrit terms needing transliteration → Category:Sanskrit requests for transliterations
 * Category:Sanskrit terms needing native script → Category:Sanskrit requests for native script
 * Category:Translations to be checked (Sanskrit) → Category:Sanskrit translations to be checked (!)
 * Category:Translation requests (Sanskrit) → Category:Sanskrit requests for translations
 * --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think "Requests for etymologies" ought to be singular "etymology", same for "pronunciation", "transliteration", maybe also "translation". —CodeCat 14:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, the full names of these 4 categories would be:
 * Category:English entries needing etymology → Category:English requests for etymology
 * Category:English entries needing pronunciation → Category:English requests for pronunciation
 * Category:Sanskrit terms needing transliteration → Category:Sanksrit requests for transliteration
 * Category:Translation requests (Sanskrit) → Category:Sanskrit requests for translation
 * And do you think these other 4 categories don't look as good in the singular and should be plural:
 * Category:English entries needing definition → Category:English requests for definition
 * Category:English entries needing images → Category:English requests for image
 * Category:English entries needing quotation → Category:English requests for quotation (currently a blue link; it is full of categories of authors, like: Category:Requests for quotation/Colgrave)
 * Category:English entries needing reference → Category:English requests for reference
 * --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I support getting rid of "needing" and going to "English requests for"; I also support the singular, and thus, "etymology" instead of "etymologies", "image" instead of "images" and the like. Since so many categories are involved, this should be done via a vote, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe this discussion could serve the purpose of reviewing what exactly are the category names we want (as we are discussing right now), for a vote to be created later.
 * For the record, I believe it's been 5 years since we had votes for changing the names of many categories at once. Some of the passing votes were: Votes/2011-04/Derivations categories, Votes/2011-04/Lexical categories and Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-05/Add en: to English topical categories, part 2. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * These are good votes, providing relatively strong evidence of consensus. The current "needing" category names are a result of the use of this very RFM process without strong evidence of consensus, as far as I remember. The good thing about this RFM is that it was announced via Beer parlour, but still, the vote pages create the strongest evidence of consensus in part since there are never too many votes running concurrently, which is not true of RFM. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I support getting rid of "needing". (though I'm still thinking whether the singular or plural looks better IMO) As discussed in the 2015 vote "Language-specific rfi categories", said, and I quote: "The category tracks where an image was requested, not where it is needed."
 * For the record, the RFM discussion that introduced "needing" is: Category talk:English entries needing definition. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Suggested names for the parent categories:
 * Category:English entry maintenance (parent category of "English requests") (no change)
 * Category:Requests (English) → Category:English requests (parent category of all English request categories)
 * Category:English requests for image, Category:English requests for etymology, etc.

Cross-language umbrella categories:
 * Category:Entry maintenance by language (no change)
 * Category:Requests → Category:Requests by language (parent category of: Category:English requests, Category:Portuguese requests, etc.)
 * Category:Requests for image by language, Category:Requests for etymology by language, etc. (should be self-explanatory)

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

+a few categories: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Category:Requests for example sentences → Category:English requests for usage example
 * Category:Requests for date → Category:English requests for quotation date
 * Category:English entries with incomplete etymology → maybe Category:English requests for etymology expansion
 * Category:German verbs needing inflection → Category:German requests for verb inflection (or conjugation?)
 * Category:German nouns needing inflection → Category:German requests for noun inflection


 * I created: Votes/2016-07/Request categories. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

This discussion was superseded, now that Votes/2017-03/Request categories 2 (the second request vote) passed. I suggest archiving this discussion at Category:English entry maintenance. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)