Category talk:Entries missing romanizations of Hebrew

Couple of issues here, for me. First one is does this refer to the Hebrew language, or Hebrew script? I'm a little unsure, but I think it refers to the Hebrew language. This category currently contains 146 entries which isn't that much, so moving them would be pretty easy. Why not stick to our current formula and have Category:Hebrew terms lacking transliteration, as (AFAICT) this is the only translitreqcatboiler category which doesn't use that formula. Of course, it's worth pointing out that transliteration always means romanisation on Wiktionary, as we don't transliterate into other scripts. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I support moving to the standard category name. Note that many of the Hebrew templates call this template (probably a good many of them silently w.r.t. whatlinkshere (i.e., only on transclusion, only if some criterion is satisfied, and it's not satisfied by any entry now)) and will need to be modified if this is moved. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * O.K., I've emptied Category:Entries missing romanizations of Hebrew into Category:Hebrew terms lacking transliteration; but I haven't deleted the former, for the reason that msh210 gives. Instead, I've just made it a subcategory of the new category, so that anyone visiting the new category will see instantly if the old category contains entries. (Right now if you go there you'll see “Entries missing romanizations of Hebrew‎ (0 c, 0 e)”, where the “0 e” means it's empty.) After the next database dump, it should be a simple matter to find any occurrences of Entries[ _]+missing[ _]+romanizations[ _]+of[ _]+Hebrew or whatnot. —Ruakh TALK 20:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)