User:JoergenB/PIEnounsappendix

Copied 2019-07-31 from an appendix with a RFD. I found no corresponding WT:RFDO item, though, until I searched its history. ((The following seems to have happened: The Appendix:List_of_Proto-Indo-European_roots (which I liked) was marked for deletion, "together with its underpages"; this was duly discussed (by few participants; I'm not sure the participants in the former RFD for this appendix (which reportedly was turned down) ever were alerted, but perhaps they've gone inactive or changed their minds); the heavyweight discussion participants decided that a strong majority of reliable editors were for deletion, and the opponents didn't recognise that lists in this project are considered bad in se, since they are hard to maintain; the appendix and some subpages indeed were deleted; and somewhat later, the nomination and its discussion was archived.))

OK; I admit that I've just kept a link to the deleted "roots" appendix, not checked it often, not participated more than marginally to this project, and may have let my irritation over missing this deletion discussion make me summarise what happened a bit unfairly. (The tendecy for deletion in the actual votes was fairly clear.) There was actually just one point where the procedure clearly could have been handled considerably better, and that was in the description of the nomination.

Indeed, that nomination (by User:victar) did not list all pages its nominator intended to let it encompass. The page I copy below (Appendix:List_of_Proto-Indo-European_ nouns) with a high probability was so intended, since victar (as you can see) referred to the discussion for the "roots" appendix; probably, they considered this as one of the "subpages" (in substance, if not in form). The person doing the deletion may not have remember this page, or may have interpreted "subpages" differently.

In a way, I'm happy for the resulting, since it has made it possible for me to create this copy of at least one of the offending lists, before it is completely deleted; but of course, the unclearity of what the discussion was about was not good for the project. Not only did it result in this "orphaned" deletion demand; it also may have influenced the discussion, if all participants had been aware that they also voted about this semasiological appendix. Therefore, I think that in the future the nominators should strive to make it even clearer exactly what they are nominating for deletion, than they did this time.

This is a semasiological index of Proto-Indo-European nominal stems. See Appendix:List of Proto-Indo-European roots for an alphabetical list of roots.