Category talk:Turkish verb plural forms

From Special:PermanentLink/24941665 on WT:RFDO:


 * Category:Turkish first-person possessive forms
 * Category:Turkish first-person singular possesive dative forms
 * Category:Turkish first-person singular possessive dative forms
 * Category:Turkish noun first-person possessive forms
 * Category:Turkish noun possessive singular forms
 * Category:Turkish possesive singular forms
 * Category:Turkish possessive singular forms
 * Category:Turkish second-person possesive forms
 * Category:Turkish second-person singular dative forms
 * Category:Turkish second-person singular possesive dative forms
 * Category:Turkish second-person singular possessive dative forms
 * Category:Turkish terms with homophones
 * Category:Turkish third-person possesive forms
 * Category:Turkish third-person singular dative forms
 * Category:Turkish third-person singular possesive dative forms
 * Category:Turkish third-person singular possessive dative forms
 * Category:Turkish verb first-person possesive forms
 * Category:Turkish verb plural forms
 * Category:Turkish verb possesive singular forms
 * Category:Turkish verb second-person possesive forms
 * Category:Turkish verb third-person forms
 * Category:Turkish verb third-person possesive forms

I noticed these in the Special:UncategorizedCategories page, and was going to add the appropriate categories and move the misspelled ones, but then I noticed who created many - if not all- of these, and thought I should check whether this kind of categorization is appropriate. If the consensus is that they're ok, I'll happily withdraw the nominations and fix the problems. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't do this in any language I'm familiar with, except Latvian and Icelandic, and I'm pretty sure we stopped doing it there. Delete --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I templatised Category:Turkish terms with homophones. — Ungoliant (Falai) 03:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * These categories are very specific, but languages are all unique so they have to be judged as such. I think asking User:Sinek would be a good idea. User:George Animal is also listed as a native Turkish speaker, I think the other users Category:User tr-N aren't currently active. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I just realized: these seem to each have their own template that produces them, and the templates aren't language specific - one could just as easily find Category:French possesive singular forms someday . Chuck Entz (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not all of them do, but the more specific ones seem to. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that I know what was populating them, I've orphaned and speedied the misspelled ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that a general useful template form for all languages is difficult - if not impossible -, but I propose to follow the way it is done in Hungarian, as this Finno-Ugric language is somehow similar to the Altaic Turkish. In Hungarian, words are formed also agglutinively, and I know that a word can have several cases at the same time. Sae1962 (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think all that categories (the most of them; like:Turkish third-person singular possesive dative forms) are redundant because that templates exist not even at the Turkish Wiktionary.It is nonsense to create the pages (e.g.:my auto, my page, my father, of the father). It would be enough if the templates exist.They don't have to be created.The creation of the entries like (arabam:my auto) are also redundant because all that things are the same.Arabam (my auto), evim (my house) etc. It is better to create a page for the grammar part for the possessive nouns of the Turkish language.I'm in favour of this idea. George  Animal . 13:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * PS:I am for the deletion of the pages.-- George  Animal . 13:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC).But the templates shall remain in the entries.---  George  Animal . 13:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * These Turkish inflection forms can be all generated from simple grammar rules. Including them in the Wiktionary is totally useless. They don't even have exceptions like in English you have dog ->dogs but mouse->mice. Because Turkish is an agglutinative language, if you started including all possible Turkish constructs you would have no rational way to reject something like Çekoslovakyalılaştıramadıklarımızdanmışsınız which means "reportedly you are you one of those whom we could not make Czechoslovakian". Terms with definitions that are Sum-of-Parts are not included in the Wiktionary and with a similar reasoning, I believe grammatical constructs in agglutinative languages that follow simple rules should not be included either. For this reason the categories listed above and the words contained within them should be deleted. Same argument applies for the templates mentioned below. --İnfoCan (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Per İnfoCan-- Sabri76' talk 17:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I find it unnecessary to create articles every declined noun form and conjugated verb form, as it'd mean countless forms. Being quite different than English, there are so many possible situations that are expressed by a suffix in Turkish. But I also think of the users that have no knowledge of Turkish. We also have to take into account that, even someone without a basic knowledge should be able to find the definitions they needed. So if someone sees a word like evimizdeyiz ("we are at our house") and tries to look it up, they'll probably find nothing, as it has 3 different suffixes. And searching words like this is useless, as Did you mean ...? part can't always lead you to the right direction, as the forms on the declension templates are not shown on the searches.


 * Rather than creating each form, I guess we could edit the templates in order to give links to each suffix, something like that: evimizdeyiz. I guess this is more practical, as there are so many (and I mean it.) suffixes and there'd be millions of different combinations with all Turkish nouns. But I still have no idea about the search part, is there way to make it possible to show the info on the declension templates? Sinek (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Any chance of moving all the off-topic stuff to the Beer Parlor? The deletion debates has got lost among it. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I collapsed my comments above. --İnfoCan (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would favour deleting these in favour of an approach like that used in Hungarian noun form categorisation. To elaborate, categorise possessive noun forms in one possessive noun form subcategory, then perhaps for any further inflected forms based off a form that is possessive (should we include them) categorise them as basic noun forms; for example, evimizde could be included as "locative singular(?) of evimiz". I don't know how accepting of this people would be but I think it would be kind of ok to give some like a free pass to the basic inflections, except perhaps in the case of odd or rare words, so that we would generally have no qualms about the addition of the simple case forms and probably nominative possessive forms too but would maybe be more strict or watchful of additions of not so basic forms like non-nominative possessives and such. User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 14:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Kept the remaining ones, due purely to inactivity by the admins. But I hope they ignore this, and delete them. --ElisaVan (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

RFC discussion: August–September 2012
I think we have templates like poscatboiler to categorise these categories, but I can't find which one goes here. — Beobach (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be . Mglovesfun (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)