Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits/archive/2011

= October 2011 =

Category:English female given names from Slavonic
Two reasons:


 * 1)  displays 'Slavic' not 'Slavonic'.  states that that ISO 639-5 code for Slavonic is 'sla', the same as for Slavic
 * 2) Since 'Slavic' isn't a language, it should be ...from Slavic languages. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But who says that given name subcategories must be by language? There is "English male/female given names from Germanic/from surnames/from coinages". The subcategories are for names that belong together by origin or association. It's not an exact science. I'm not saying the name change would be harmful (if you do all the work yourself), it just seems needless. It might inspire people to create new categories like "from Russian/from Polish" etc. that are not really needed in English. Not so many English names are of Slavonic origin.--Makaokalani 17:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have moved all of the entries to fit the usual naming system. - -sche (discuss) 03:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Quinian
The -ian spelling seems to be simply wrong for this word, and the correct spelling instead be Quinean. About the only argument I've managed to find for the -ian spelling is (from the linked-to discussion) that this is the only one that Quine himself has been observed using. An explanation for that could however be that in older useage, -ean would always be stressed, which does not seem to be a rule anymore. 130.239.218.89 14:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Googling "Quniean" gives only hits related to Quine in the top ten.
 * 2) Conversely, among the top ten from googling "Quinian", there is only one that directly uses this word in the sense defined. The majority of seven (which expands to at least 25 in the top 30) uses is instead that "Quinian" is a name (of Scottish origin); this could perhaps be worth a page in itself. The remaining two of the top ten are (i) this Wiktionary entry and (ii) a discussion on whether it should be spelt -ian or -ean, that finds some pretty good sources that it should be -ean.
 * It's widely used. I've now added Quinean as an alternative. Equinox ◑ 14:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In that corpus (Google books), the -ean spelling has more than four times as many hits as the -ian spelling, which would suggest it is rather the latter that should be the alternative. 94.255.156.147 19:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC) (Same contributor as started this topic, probably at a different IP.)
 * The pages aren't locked, edit 'em! Mglovesfun (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have edited the pages to make "Quinean" the main spelling. --Dan Polansky 13:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Goguryeo Old Korean
Move to Category:Goguryeo language, per the existence of the ISO code

Category:Baekje Old Korean
Move to Category:Baekje language, per

Category:Buyeo Old Korean
Move to Category:Buyeo language, per

Discussion
-- Liliana • 18:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No comments? Oh well. done -- Liliana • 05:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

= November 2011 =

template:defective spelling of
More a statement of intent to move than a request for move: I'm hereby informing y'all that I'm moving template:defective spelling of and template:excessive spelling of to template:he-defective spelling of and template:he-excessive spelling of, respectively. Rationale: (a) No one's used them (or AFAIK proposed using them) for anything but Hebrew. (b) It'd be nice (for using them in Hebrew entries) if they had the same parameters and styling as the other  templates, which would make more sense if they were Hebrew-only templates, in which case they should be named accordingly. I'm effecting the moves immediately. (Everything is, of course, undoable should there be a problem, which I don't at all expect.) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:unk. - Template:und - Template:etyl:qfa-und
Three templates that essentially perform the same things. The first two were already discussed on RFDO, the third one is new though. -- Liliana • 04:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference between the templates is this, I think. The second says a word came from another language but we don't know from which. And the first says we don't know anything about the origin of the word at all, it might not even be a loanword. And the third is used to classify languages, and means that it has not yet been determined positively which family it belongs to (we don't know if it's an isolate). —CodeCat 12:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as-is, explain this usage documentation subpages. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Struck. - -sche (discuss) 00:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

gagin and haliþaz
These need to be moved to a Proto-Germanic appendix. But it's beyond me. SemperBlotto 15:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)