Template talk:flower

Request for deletion
Apparently, this violates the conclusion of a Wiktionary vote on context labels, as it it used solely to categorize pages, not for context. Template:bird already failed, above, but is used on 700 pages so won't be deleted for some time. Mammal also failed and has been deleted. This one is "only" used on 90 pages, so could be deprecated much quicker. This one doesn't bother me personally but yes, creating pseudo-context labels is a bad idea as you could have anything, couldn't you? This is currently being discussion at the Beer Parlour too. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * delete --Bequw → ¢ • τ 14:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per the result of . Razorflame 14:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This template can be turned into a category template, one that is made invisible by default. I do not see that keeping the template violates the conclusion of the vote Votes/pl-2009-03/Context labels in ELE v2, which only speaks of how context templates should be used, without forbidding creation of category templates, and without mentioning that a host of templates is about to be deleted. A template that has been turned into a category template is not a context template, so the result of a vote on context templates does not apply to it.
 * Making the category label invisible by default is technically easy to do using CSS, and has already been tested by me.
 * I oppose the result of the deletion of "bird". --Dan Polansky 11:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I do understand, but it sets a bad precedent of allowing any template used purely to categorize through "laziness". We already have 550 context labels, allowing any random words would mean us getting to a thousand, or two thousand. At some point, can't we just write the damn word out between square brackets like ? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Using "Category:..." does not create the category label. If you look at the discussions at Votes/pl-2009-03/Context labels in ELE v2, I was already hesitant at that point, having changed my mind to support the clear distinction of restricted context labels from mere categorization labels. That above all means that the definition of "river" does not carry the pseudo-context label "geography". Allowing category labels does not allow any random word to be attached to a sense, only a term that describes its broad category, such as "river", "bird", "flower", etc. --Dan Polansky 11:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is an addage in English: "Calling a lamb's tail a leg does not make it one." Similarly, saying this is not a context tag doesn't mean it isn't.  There is already code in existence for categorization, and it works just fine.  --EncycloPetey 15:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You would first need to prove that the logical formula implicit behind the proverb applies; otherwise, proverbs as arguments belong not to logical but rhetorical discourse. If you claim that a category label whose appearance has been modified as I proposed is still a restricted-context label, and can prove it, go ahead; you may need to state sufficient conditions for what constitutes a restricted-context label, either by appearance or by function. Category labels differ significantly in semantics from restricted-context labels, which is I suppose undisputed, and can be made look rather different, so they end up differing also in appearance. How it is that such apperance-modified category labels are still restricted-context labels I really do not grasp.
 * I have explained that what is at stake is not only categorization but also showing a category label, but it did not prevent you from reiterating that wiki markup for categorization works just fine; for showing, it does not.
 * I understand that some people do not like category labels, and that if there are enough such people, there will be no category labels.
 * This response of mine is academic anyway, as I get outvoted. But I want to make it clear that I have been outvoted, not outargued. --Dan Polansky 14:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You cannot be outargued since you haven't given any reason why a category should appear at the start of definition lines. With no argument put forward, it cannot be argued against, can it?  If you understand that context and category labels differ significantly, then why are you so keen to mingle them?  Doing so would promote confusion for both editors and users.  You can indicated that the appearance can be modified, but have proposed neither quality nor mechanism to accomplish this.  So, your arguments are purely theoretical, and have little bearing on the practical questions at hand.  --EncycloPetey 03:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This vote, together with the previous votes on the templates "mammal" and "bird", is likely to set a precedent for the following templates: organic compound, pharmaceutical drug, protein, fish, bird, amino acid, birds, carbohydrate, carbohydrates, chemical compound, inorganic compound, chemical element, element, chess piece, city, coenzyme, color, colour, computer language, genre, genres, insect, mushroom, mushrooms, plant, plants, enzyme, and reptile. I have copied the list from RFDO:template:mammal. --Dan Polansky 12:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Like other inappropriate uses of context tags, this should be deleted, although the entries (probably) should have the category added into the entry, rather than simply haivng this tag removed.  However, they'd need to be checked individually, since there may be some terms that aren't flowers or relevant to flowers. --EncycloPetey 15:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You are making it more and more difficult to edit on Wiktionary. Instead of deleting useful tools such as this that some people use, you should modify its output to conform with whatever new idea you have come up with (as I have pointed out before). Since the templates that I use such as mammal and bird have been deleted, I have stopped entering any new Russian pages...or any new entries in any language except by special request, because you have made it so difficult. I do not see whatever it is that you see concerning these templates and contexts, and I do not have a grasp of the rules that you use to determine when to use what. If you simply changed the output and left the templates, it would be much easier on editors that don’t know what you’re on about. —Stephen 03:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that it's so difficult for you to type .  How can we help?  I have set up a custom Edittools that allows me to input  with a single click, and sets the cursor after the final colon.  This has made it easier for me to add categories to items.  Perhaps this would help you?


 * Context templates are used to indicate that a term is restircted in its usage to (1) jargon of a particular group or field, (2) one or a few regions, (3) a particular period of time. If a word is used commonly by everyone, then it shouldn't have a context tag for that sense.  The word dolphin: should never have a "mammal" tag, because is not some kind of mammal jargon.  Even small children use this word.


 * The problem with simply changing the output is that it would play havoc interacting with our existing context templates. The primary coding would have to be completely redone for all context templates to make this ill-conceived notion of sometimes-hidden context tags work. --EncycloPetey 02:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like a deleter, any last comments? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fails RFDO. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)