Talk:muwallad

, bor does not imply that, only that it was borrowed in some way or another. I'm not sure what the criterion for "normal language contact" is, but almost everything in Category:English terms borrowed from Mandarin were borrowed via transliteration schemes that are very counterintuitive for English speakers (e.g. English speakers tend to read Qing as /kɪŋ/). Should everything in that category then be classified as "transliterations", as oral language contact would not have produced such orthographies? If the criteria is direct contact between native speakers, what of e.g. Category:English terms borrowed from Ancient Greek?

"Transliteration" implies that the term has not entered the English lexicon, as signified by such thing as the unadapted use of foreign plurals, the consistent use of italics, and the preservation of non-English diacritics, which is not the case for muwallad given the use of the English pluralized forms and the widespread attestation of non-italicized forms of the word. Case examples of "transliteration" would be shāh or Muḥammad.

I don't use en because English is the first language header and it wastes data on larger pages, and because English is not templated in definitions, but if you want to add it in I don't mind.

Where in WT:EL does it say "See also" is a level 3 header? There are 68,990 entries currently using it as a level 4+ header, out of 125,657 total uses of "See also". Admittedly some of them are due to entries with multiple etymologies, but I don't imagine those number over twenty thousand.--Tibidibi (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , having looked at Google Books more, italics actually seem more common, so I think "transliteration" can stay after all.--Tibidibi (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Originally bor was used here for any kind of borrowings, but over time with the birth of more specific etymology templates like lbor, slbor, translit, etc., the scope of bor has now become limited to the strict loanwords, those that came to the language through normal language contact. Therefor, instances of bor should be corrected to one of more appropriate templates, whenever applicable. English borrowings from Mandarin indeed are transliterations. We have this category: CAT:English learned borrowings from Ancient Greek. And, transliterations with diacritics are systematic transliterations, while those without diacritics are the casual (technically, nonstandard) ones. I think a level 4 heading for See also is deprecated now. - ⸘ - dictātor · mundī  14:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , there is nothing about a level 4 heading for See also being deprecated that I can find. Furthermore, I'm very skeptical that terms as widely accepted in English as qipao or even potentially Qur'an (which is not an orthography that would occur to most native speakers of English not trained in linguistics) should be discussed as "transliterations", which obviously imply that the word has not fully lexicalized in English.--Tibidibi (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, if you wish you can set the heading as level 4, because you are the creator of that entry, after all. But most editors have started using level 3; you might take this matter to the BP. Etymology has no bearing on the status of words: transliteration is simply the conversion of one script into another, a word being transliterated from another language does not convey any information about how established, etc. the term is. Our etymologies should be accurate. - ⸘ - dictātor · mundī  15:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)