Template talk:fuf
From Template:fuf, Template:fuc, and Template:ff at Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits:
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits.
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.
These beguilingly named, closely related West African lects (one is called "Pular", one is "Pulaar") seem to quite possibly just be dialects of {{ff}} (Fula). It also seems possible that Fula is pluricentric and really a sort of macrolanguage that needs to be split up. Pulaar has a bunch of entries, Fula has a couple, and Pular has none. However, entries like Haalpulaar suggest that {{fuf}} and {{fuc}}, at least, are even considered to be the same language by Pula(a)r speakers themselves. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Merge all to
{{ff}}-- Liliana • 22:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Merge intoAlso consider: Template:ffm, Template:fue, Template:fuh, Template:fuq, Template:fuv, Template:fub, Template:fui. - -sche (discuss) 22:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC){{ff}}.- Definitely merge the Fulfuldes, I have no doubts about that. Should we use
{{context}}tags to distinguish entries currently marked as Pulaar? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)- Whenever we know or suspect that a form is restricted to any of these dialects, or any of the dialects Ethnologue declined to code, we should indicate that, yes. We should be careful not to mark general forms as dialect-specific, of course. Our Serbo-Croatian editors can tell of how nationalists often mark a
{{sh}}form as natiolect-specific when they're really used by all the languages. (Disclaimer: alternatively, if you subscribe to the philosophy some expressed in a recent RFDO discussion, it's not misleading to mark a general word as being restricted to a narrow context.) If we ever find native speakers to really expand our{{ff}}entries, verbs will need multiple conjugation tables to show the different endings used in different dialects, but that is not an argument against a merger: several Germanic languages have verbs with multiple tables because the verbs sometimes conjugate strongly, sometimes weakly. - -sche (discuss) 22:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Whenever we know or suspect that a form is restricted to any of these dialects, or any of the dialects Ethnologue declined to code, we should indicate that, yes. We should be careful not to mark general forms as dialect-specific, of course. Our Serbo-Croatian editors can tell of how nationalists often mark a
- Definitely merge the Fulfuldes, I have no doubts about that. Should we use
Abstain.I do not oppose a merge, but I feel I should abstain because it is not clear to me that the differences are smaller than those between{{sco}}and{{en}}, or{{lb}}and{{ksh}}(and{{de}}). - -sche (discuss) 02:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Currently, our Maasina Fulfulde entries treat themselves as alternative forms of Fula entries, which is ... nonstandard.
{{alternative form of}}is not supposed to be used across languages. I'm back to saying "merge". I'll take care ffm, at least, since the current situation implies that the user who added it (User:A12n) considers it a mere variety. - -sche (discuss) 18:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)- After checking for uses of them, and fixing those that weren't on old out-of-date user subpages, I've merged and deleted all of the dialects: ffm, fub, fuc, fue, fuf, fuh, fui, fuq, fuv. - -sche (discuss) 19:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)