Template talk:ordinal

interwikis links
Could we please add: fr:Modèle:ordinal it:Template:-ord- Thanks. JackPotte 18:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:ordinal
Since we now treat cardinal and ordinal numbers as valid headers/lexical categories (as opposed to topical) I think these should be deleted. It provides information that should be elsewhere, that is the definition and/or the header. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, we don't. We still have never agreed that "Cardinal Num." is a valid header versus just Number/Numeral.  When this last went up for a vote, no consensus was reached.  Please do not state that "we now..." when it is not true.  This is grammatical context, and should remain in the context template, just like  and . --EncycloPetey 01:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They are de facto valid headers, they are in use on they're the list of valid headers. So perhaps the only mistake in what I said was 'now' - they've been valid for years AFAICT. These templates add categories that are on a list to be deleted per a recent vote. When I modified the templates accordingly, you reverted me. So if I can't fix it, you fix it. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no list of valid headers, there is a list of headers "in use", many of which were listed so that they could be removed, and some of them have notes about how they are wrong. These particular headers are listed as "debated", and have been listed so for years. --EncycloPetey 19:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop lying. The last vote ended with support. -- Prince Kassad 19:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide a link to the vote that made "Cardinal X" a valid header, or else apologize and block yourself. --EncycloPetey 19:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You said that This is grammatical context, and should remain in the context template. However, Votes/pl-2010-01/Number categories clearly concluded it should go into a lexical category, as it's now a lexical context. -- Prince Kassad 19:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * PK: You might want to look up the words lexical: and grammatical: before you apologize and block yourself. The vote, of course, used neither word, and was entirely about categories, not headers.  To help you understand your error: we have Category:English ergative verbs, but "Ergative verb" is not an acceptable header.  So the vote about categories decided nothing about headers.  The last vote on changing the section headers ended in no consensus.  We also do place grammatical information in the definition line, such as  and, so your feeling that such labels do not belong on the definition line is at odds with current Wiktionary practice.  The grammatical labels thus work to identify which subclass of Number/Numeral is intended, just as for other grammatical context markers that mark subclasses of Adjectives, Nouns, or Verbs.  Your baseless accusations are rude and unacceptable behavior that do nothing to help the Wiktionary community. --EncycloPetey 22:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair EP, I thought I judged you harshly when I accused you of POV pushing. Now I don't think I was harsh, I was being fair. Pity really, it would have been better for everyone if I'd been wrong. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * EP, cut the crap and explain how these can be used for anything other than breaking entries? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so you want to push POV, then, by forcing removal of a template whose removal would thus force the community use a particular style of section header for which the community did not approve and is in fact divided on the issue. I won't be responding to that, as you've chosen to be rude and borderline abusive.  In a week, when you've calmed down and can use a civil tongue, you may address the issue with me again.  --EncycloPetey 22:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean the point of view of 90% of the community. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Am I missing something? It seems to me that EncycloPetey is quite right: the community voted only on the names of categories, not on the choice of headers. This seems to have been an intentional decision, given that I had raised the issue on the vote's talk-page before it began, and was ignored. —Ruakh TALK 00:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This whole business of lexical versus grammatical is a horrible idea anyway. Templates are tools that we use to make our jobs easier and more consistent. Different people use different templates. Some of my favorite templates have been deleted over this matter and I never know anymore whether what I want to mark in a page is lexical or grammatical, so I don’t add categories anymore, except for the basic parts of speech. Instead of deleting the tools that make life simpler, the output of the templates should have been changed to please whoever it was who came up with this weird idea. Then I could continue adding my categories and MG and EP could spar about how the output should be arranged. —Stephen 00:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Ruakh. The vote Votes/pl-2010-01/Number categories was only on the names of categories for terms denoting cardinal numbers and ordinal numbers. No conclusion on the deletion of and  follows from the vote, AFAICS.
 * "Stop lying" is an undesirable accusation, one based on a mere speculation about the knowledge state of a Wiktionary editor. --Dan Polansky 10:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason is, nobody is nominating a header for deletion or creation. This is about two templates. When I modified them per Conrad's suggestion (in the BP somewhere, April I think) EncycloPetey reverted me. How does the deletion of a template relate to headers? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * EP, you say it's as valid as ... which you nominated for deletion minutes before these two were nominated by me. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. Please stop inventing things for me to say.  Let me speak the words that I speak, and you can speak the words that you want to speak.  Don't invent things for me to have said, please. --EncycloPetey 13:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Kept. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

deletion debate 2
These are context labels and widely used. But are they actually contexts? Or are they really odd substitutes for a definition? Surely, if an adjective is defined as seventh, such a label isn't even necessary? 19:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to say yes cardinal and ordinal are contexts, in the same way that 'idiomatic' isn't a context in the strictest sense of a context, but it is a context in terms of what Wiktionary context labels do. They perhaps provide useful information in a neat, concise format and should therefore be kept. I will wait for replies before saying anything more. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Kept 12:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)