Template talk:Latin variations

Template:Latin variations
Do we really want Wikipedia style templates in our "see also" sections? Probably not. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For most things, this has way too much information. For a language (or, as here, dialect) name, the years of use is of interest to dictionary users. I'm tempted to say that, yes, we do want this info under =Coordinate terms= in the entries Late Latin, et al. (I'm not sure, though. Maybe we should just list the coordinate terms themselves, sans years of use of their referents.) But as a big, ugly box? Certainly not. Just normal list text, with the years afterward in parentheses, will suffice. But that's a stylistic choice, not a reason for deletion. &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 16:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia link offers this kind of information about the term's referent. Etymons, like Latin are linked from the etymology, and related terms like Old Latin, Classical Latin, etc from the related sections. “See also” is meant for other semantic relations, not for an excuse to start duplicating the encyclopedia. Really folks, how can we make a dictionary to be proud of, if we keep trying to turn it into a second-rate encyclopedia by copying bits from Wikipedia?!


 * For Wiktionary readers interested in the language, a single prominent editorial link to WT:ALA is sufficient (and that page could be improved to serve as a readers' portal to Latin-language indexes, appendixes, etc). —Michael Z. 2010-03-11 20:20 z 


 * I think this information should be here on Wiktionary somewhere, but am not enamored of the big clunky box being stuck into entries. --EncycloPetey 06:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've edited the template, please have a look. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep rewritten version. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Kept for no consensus. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)