Category talk:English terms by orthographic property
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
And likewise for other languages. This name seems more descriptive of what the category actually is for. —CodeCat 11:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- That name would imply that all terms absent from this category have no orthographic properties at all. That is, they have no written form. Which seems unusual, to say the least. — Keφr 13:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Needs different name, though polysemy makes current name pretty silly, too, at least out of context. DCDuring TALK 14:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that it needs to be changed. How about “ […] with unusual orthographic properties”? — Ungoliant (falai) 14:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't want to add a qualification to keep the name short. Besides, Category:Japanese terms by their individual characters does not contain terms that are unusual in any way. It just categorises terms by the characters they use. —CodeCat 16:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note different preposition. — Keφr 16:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's a subcategory of Category:Japanese characters. So whatever name we choose for Category:Japanese characters should apply to its subcategories as well. "Unusual" would not fit. —CodeCat 17:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note different preposition. — Keφr 16:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't want to add a qualification to keep the name short. Besides, Category:Japanese terms by their individual characters does not contain terms that are unusual in any way. It just categorises terms by the characters they use. —CodeCat 16:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that it needs to be changed. How about “ […] with unusual orthographic properties”? — Ungoliant (falai) 14:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Needs different name, though polysemy makes current name pretty silly, too, at least out of context. DCDuring TALK 14:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- How about Category:English terms by orthographic property? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Support. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that this will result in Category:Terms by orthographic property by language as well. Do we really want a name with "by" in it twice? —CodeCat 17:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Drop "by language". — Keφr 17:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- That would mean dropping it from a lot of other categories as well. I don't think that's such a good idea because we'd have to differentiate, for example, Category:Form-of templates from Category:Form-of templates by language. We could decide on an alternative for the "by language" wording (maybe "(by language)"?) or explicitly name categories that contain things for any language, but that's a different story. —CodeCat 17:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- We already have Category:Terms by their individual characters by language and Lord knows how many others; I think we can live with a double-by. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Drop "by language". — Keφr 17:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Done. —CodeCat 16:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
words with two pairs of doubled letters (lemmas: aggress, accommodate, etc.)[edit]
Hi, taking into account the educational characteristic inherent in lexicography, I'd like to propose creating categories for intricate issues related to orthography. Thus, a category for words with doubled letters, even twice (lemmas: aggress, accommodate, etc.) would help learners review lists and make less mistakes. --Backinstadiums (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)