Category talk:English homophones

Category:English homophones
This seems like a nonsense, as a word can't be a homophone on its own, it has to be the homophone of something. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Under an analogy to AGF, called AOCNCI (Assume Old Contribution Not Completely Idiotic), we can interpret this as referring to entries that have homophone relationships that we recognize. As we have no mechanism for inserting homophone groups into categories and haven't universally replaced illegal homophone headers with homophone templates this is the only way to conveniently locate some homophones. Once all homophones have been entered into homophone templates in the appropriate entries we can contemplate whether "what links here" applied to that template is an adequate substitute. I think not, "what links here" doesn't categorize by the language of the homophone. I would argue that the homophone template should automatically insert homophones into this set of categories by language.
 * IOW, keep. DCDuring TALK 17:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm for keeping such categories, maybe with a renaming. "English words having homophones" or something like this would be better, because as Mglovesfun said, a word can't be a homophone on its own, it has to be the homophone of something. Because of this, the current name is quite incorrect. Then, we need a list of entries in Latin script with the Homophones header, we should replace it with the template immediately. After, we can think something around the parameters of the template for resolving this in a better way. Pharamp 14:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with DCDuring and Pharamp that this category should be kept. As to the name of the category, I don't see anything wrong with it (these words are homophones, after all), but I'd be okay with a move to something like "English words having [or with, or that have] homophones". &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 16:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The name is wrong. Would you accept a category English synonyms? Lmaltier 22:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, English synonyms would not be Tongan synonyms. Also, it would be more economical to have a category for Category:English terms with no synonyms. There are more terms that have no homonyms than those that do, so the economical choice would seem to be the one under discussion here. If we could do searches for the word homophones: limited to the English L2 section we would not need the category. DCDuring TALK 00:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like we're leaning to keep this, renamed. Any objection to having categorize herein? &#x200b;—msh210℠ 17:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How about a potential Category:English anagrams? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As a grouping category, perhaps. It might be better to have subcats like Category:English seven-letter words with anagrams. --EncycloPetey 17:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: AutoFormat now adds lang= to { {homophones} }, so it can categorize. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! Thank you very much! Pharamp 16:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone object to a decision to rename to Category:English terms with homophones? (I'm now posting a link to this discussion on the talkpages of those who've participated in it.) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Much better, yes. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose we have to allow for multi-word entries or at least borderline cases, so we can't have it be "words". We can make it clear that we mean English words with English homophones at the category page. It would be nice to make sure that if "foo#English" shows "fu#English" as a homophone, that "fu" reciprocated. How are we going to handle dialect difference? I guess that for now we will just kick that last can down the road. OK. DCDuring TALK 19:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of the proposed new name. I do think we should keep this category in some form, as it can be useful to locate words that possess homophones. --EncycloPetey 02:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposed new name makes sense. Lmaltier 07:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm late. I don't know why I don't receive Wiktionary mails, I will check in my options if something has been changed. Anyway, I agree for the new name, of course! Everything is good to me if you don't remove the category :D Pharamp 16:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * appendixify -- Prince Kassad 20:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Appendices makes more sense to me.--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 09:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Moved. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)