Category talk:from Old Babylonian on

RFC discussion: March 2022
(Containing e.g. enzum.). The name doesn't fit any of our category naming schemes; perhaps it was intended to be "Category:Akkadian terms derived from Old Babylonian on"? (It's kind of odd that it's not a templatized part of the entries' etymology sections, but I guess it's comparable to Arabic root categories in English entries, which we lately have...) - -sche (discuss) 08:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Noticed via Category:Categories with invalid label if anyone is inspired to fix others. - -sche (discuss) 08:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @-sche Hi! Yeah, that should have been "Category:Akkadian terms attested from Old Babylonian on". I meant to go back to those categories (there's more similar ones) and fix them with @Metaknowledge's help (I'm quite useless when it comes to templates/categories/Lua and the like), but then I got busy with life... Sartma (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I don’t find it that bad as Old Babylonian is a subset of Akkadian, and moving it makes it more wordy despite all having been said. On the other hand terms can be part of a lect without being attested in it, so it is problematic to include the term attested in a category name. A clear-cut example outside the reconstruction space, though rare in its kind, is 🇨🇬 which in view of Iberian Romance borrowings definitely was part of Andalusi usage but is unattested there; and the category is Category:Andalusian Arabic and not Category:Arabic terms attested in al-Andalus. Or for chronolectal examples: Category:Biblical Hebrew is not Category:Hebrew terms attested from Biblical times or the like. You do have a category Category:Old Babylonian though. Fay Freak (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)