Talk:first declension

This isn't so much SoP as it's encyclopedic. Surely other languages have first declensions, do we mention them all separately or in the same definition? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just Latin and Ancient Greek I think. If this gets deleted, I think that there are some templates that link to it - will need a small mod. SemperBlotto 15:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

RFD discussion: October–November 2022
The talk page mentions some reasons why this should be deleted. I generally concur GreyishWorm (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The meaning is not transparent, since there is no natural ordering of declensions. I'm not aware of grammarians of other languages than Latin and Greek using the term, but if they do, we can add these as separate senses. --Lambiam 01:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's also used in Russian, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Irish Gaelic, Swedish, and probably other languages too. 98.170.164.88 02:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lambiam. AG202 (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lambiam. Binarystep (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as a clear SOP first + declension, the exact meaning of which depends on the language we are describing the grammar of. We can't list every single meaning under the entry. It's no less SOP than something like "declension class 1" would be. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 07:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a term without a transparent meaning that's routinely used in the expectation that the reader/listener will understand the specific grammatical paradigm it's referring to (in the context of whatever language), so clearly non-SOP I think. There might be a fair number of languages with "first declensions" but I don't see a problem with documenting them wherever the term is widely used. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I'm not sure how useful this is likely to be (as most people care about a specific language and not a list of every language that happens to have a first declension, though it could be useful for languages lacking proper explanations of their grammar in English). That all being said, it does fit our inclusion criteria. Theknightwho (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * RFD kept: 2/3-supermajority for deletion seems very unlikely to materialize. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A 2/3 supermajority is not required for deletion, as you know. Please stop claiming that it is. Your attempt to impose that also failed. Theknightwho (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * On a balance, and seeing the large number of senses, delete. Although (as Lambiam says) you might not know the trappings of Declension I vs IV for one language or another without referring to a grammar or encyclopedia, the fact that you can refer to the classes that way (not just "second declension" but, etc) shows first declension isn't a special phrasing, and I'm not convinced it's lexical/dictionary information anyway. Is 2290 lexical because you don't know from the numbers alone what it means to be required to file a 2290 form? Does the fact that numbers alone don't tell you which crime someone who violated "USC 534" committed make every law code chapter number something to define in a dictionary? Is "class 14" idiomatic? Meh. - -sche (discuss) 08:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)