Category talk:English words derived from: frat

Category:English words derived from: frat
Plus many more categories of this type which User:Engirst has created (see Special:Contributions/Engirst). This user does not seem to entirely appreciate the established approach to organizing this sort of information, using the "Derived terms" sections. · 18:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He may simply have been copying the format of the many existing (but usually empty) similarly-named categories that have never been cleaned up or deleted. --EncycloPetey 18:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree - they are annoying. If it needs a vote, I would vote to delete them all. SemperBlotto 18:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why is it annoying? It is a good thing, such as this example.  Engirst 19:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't we first decide what we think "Derived terms" should mean, possibly something different, in principle at least, for each language? Should morphological derivation be the sole type of derivation that uses morpheme- and word-level categories? (Why?) Should affixes be the only morphemes allowed to have categories? (Why?) Should they use categories or some other means of creating lists of derived terms? (Why?)
 * AFAICT, there is not even clarity here as to whether a morphological derivation for a given term is unique if more than one partitioning into morphemes is possible. How should multiple morphological derivations be displayed? Is historical derivation to be called upon to resolve this issue?
 * I'd get more excited about this if it didn't seem like an epiphenomenon on top of dwindling efforts to improve and correct English definitions. Were it not for the various lame entries for non-idiomatic terms, numbers, neologisms, fictional characters and other proper noun entries, our poor coverage relative to other on-line unabridged would be more apparent. Every time I compare our entries for polysemic words I am disappointed by out coverage of senses.
 * It would be nice if we could use word-level derivation categories to reliably aggregate the terms we have that are compounds of other words and morphemes. I suppose that instead of categories we could do runs against the XML dumps for the purpose of populating Derived and Related terms when, as, and if we decide what those terms mean for us. I am sure that some among the technically adept would be able to do that in their copious free time. A side benefit would be that categories could be thus be left for various other hobby projects and novelties which may turn out to be more ephemeral. DCDuring TALK 20:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * DCDuring if you want to create a discussion about this you are free to do so in the BP. This is about Engirst's latest vandalism. Hate to say I told you so, guys, but I told you so. I'm still in support of a complete deletion of all of User:123abc's contributions, including his sockpuppets. ---&gt; Tooironic 23:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You call it vandalism, I call it an understandable desire to make sense out of derivational relationships. If we can't do so, so be it. DCDuring TALK 04:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The current system of using the Derived terms and language-derivation and affix categories is perfectly fine. Putting each new word in a different derivation category is messy and confusing, especially in languages like Chinese which have thousands upon thousands of different characters. (Yes, that's another stupid thing User:123abc has been doing as of late.) ---&gt; Tooironic 06:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this a "stupid thing" too? Engirst 18:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. And I see you've been doing it with words like boy too. That's just silly; just because a term happens to have the word "boy" in it, doesn't mean it's derived from the word "boy", nor does it mean that a collection of words with "boy" in them are related linguistically. Any written down word can have a number of meanings in a number of historical contexts, and to put them systematically together like that is misleading. Some goes for every other language. The derived categories should only be used for fixed constructions, like affixes. ---&gt; Tooironic 23:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * CodeCat's work is not a "stupid thing" but a good thing indeed. It is beneficial to users especially for learners. 2.25.213.172 02:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You always make statements but you never support them. You say things are good and beneficial, but you don't explain why. You act as if your opinions are good in their own right and we should just accept and believe it. That's not how community consensus works.
 * It's not even my work. I just created the categories because they were flooding the 'Wanted Categories' page. The real 'work' was done by editing the template that adds pages to those categories. I was not involved in that. —CodeCat 11:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * However some administrators delete others but not themselves. Anyway you are an "accomplice".  2.27.73.120 17:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * She is not an "accomplice", because no "crime" was committed at that point. The "crime" occurred when you learned that you were acting against consensus, yet continued to do so. —Ruakh TALK 19:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you notice that "accomplice" is in quotation marks. Using  has no problem according to the rules of Wiktionary.  2.27.73.120 21:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do rules matter so much to you? Cooperation is what a wiki is all about, and the rules only exist to make that cooperation easier. They're not there to tell you what to do. The community already decides what to do. If you don't want to work within a community you shouldn't even be here. Wiktionary is not your pet project where you can just do what you like without discussing with other users. —CodeCat 22:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately in Wiktionary, some administrators do anything as they like. 2.27.73.120 22:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but so do some non-administrators I know of. —CodeCat 23:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So, we need rules to follow. 2.25.191.61 23:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We've been discussing rules for a few weeks now. Have you missed that somehow? —CodeCat 23:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How about the rule for now?  2.25.191.61 23:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to resolve the dispute, feel free to start a new discussion about it somewhere. —CodeCat 23:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Striking, deleted by . Mglovesfun (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I support the deletion. --Dan Polansky 16:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)