Template talk:PIE root

, no problem if i'll be removing PIE words from etymology when i use this template since it's duplicating? — Игорь Тълкачь 19:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, they should be kept in the etymologies. Etymologies are running text and give more information than a box. —CodeCat 19:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * is it necessary to keep PIE words in language (e.g. Russian) when it links to Proto-Slavic page where PIE words are written? — Игорь Тълкачь 19:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? —CodeCat 19:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , i just want to avoid duplicating and make etymology clear, so it's easier to link to Proto-Slavic and write there further etymology. — Игорь Тълкачь 20:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The etymology should give the full origin of the word, as far back as is known. —CodeCat 20:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , yeah but it requires to edit +10 pages of descendants (e.g. just to add Balto-Slavic), would be better if there was way to display automatically etymology from Proto-Slavic page so if i change something in it then changes will also appear in descendant's etymology. — Игорь Тълкачь 20:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

RFD discussion: August 2016–April 2019
Reasons:


 * Duplicates information that is already in the etymology. (In the etymology, it would be simply written like: "from Proto-Indo-European *swep-".)
 * Annoying little ugly box. (to be fair, that's just my opinion)

I'm not too sure we need this template. Anyone has reasons to keep it?

Votes/2016-07/Adding PIE root box failed. It's worth repeating that the vote was not about having the template, it was about adding it to a large number of entries (through automatic and semi-automatic edits). Still, the vote failed almost unanimously and some opposers gave reasons not to have the template at all.

In addition to displaying the small blue box, the template populates categories like Category:Czech terms derived from the PIE root *swep-.

Suggestion: Edit and  to make them able to categorize the entries into PIE root categories. This way, we would be able to delete while keeping the categories populated.

If there's any problem with the suggestion above or if it takes time to make the necessary changes, we can also consider keeping for some time but only as a categorization template, without showing the box at all. Although I consider this a poor workaround if we can do the same work using and. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. We also have other boxes similar to it for other languages, like . —CodeCat 13:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a reason to keep, IMO. I don't think any similar boxes should be kept either. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The main difference is that the others are for roots in the same language- the PIE root box would be analogous to a Proto-Semitic root box in Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Akkadian, Maltese, etc. Also, the ones I've seen are in languages such as Hebrew where roots are part of the morphology of the language in question, and knowing the roots helps in understanding those languages in ways having nothing to do with etymology. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, but as suggested, use a different template for categorization, so that that is not lost. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete in accordance with the positions expressed by the voters in Votes/2016-07/Adding PIE root box . --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and consider modifying it to function only for categorization purposes and not display a box. Benwing2 (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, but I'd like it if der and inh had the ability to categorize, i.e. if cs and cs categorized a page into Category:Czech terms derived from the PIE root *swep- without any other template. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What about cases where or  are not desirable, since the etymology would become too elaborate and duplicative? Consider ; do we want to trace it all the way back to  just so that we can write  and get the category, even though the current etymology is still perfectly fine? The PIE box bypasses this issue. —CodeCat 17:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree with you about keeping the box & category, but actually, yes i do think we should trace the etymology of words "all the way back" (as far as we can), & do so on the article-page for the word. That is MUCH more useful to readers/end-users, than making them click through page after page to find the ultimate root. Utility for end-users is the point of the project (& there are no shortage of "basic"-level content dictionary websites out there. what's the point of having wiktionary, if that's all we are going to do?). Lx 121 (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to try to convince me otherwise, but I'd say yes to your question about "witty". Yes, I think we should add in the etymology. The current etymology is incomplete. It lacks the category Category:English terms inherited from Proto-Indo-European. It lacks a category for inheritance from Middle English and any other previous languages. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - :) Lx 121 (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If we delete this, who will volunteer to convert the info to inh/der calls? Benwing2 (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅! --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We can't have our cake and eat it too. If we don't want to mention in 's etymology, then  doesn't belong in CAT:English terms derived from the PIE root *weyd-. If it does, then we do. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever gives you that idea? Let's say that we decide to use to give the PIE root. Then the etymology would necessarily become the horribly convoluted
 * This is way more than is needed, and what's more, the majority of it is a duplication of the etymologies of and . —CodeCat 19:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I know we usually don't do this for words formed from a suffix (in this case, a suffix in the Old English word). This also means that a word like shouldn't mention in the etymology all the Middle English, Old English, Proto-Germanic and the like, that are ancestors of, and it also means that  won't be placed in categories like "English derived from Proto-Germanic".
 * With that in mind, looks like a case of special pleading to me. Either we do mention all those ancestors, or we don't. Why aren't we adding boxes for Middle English, Old English, Proto-Germanic and other ancestor languages? I'm not really convinced that we need a box for PIE and keep the etymology small, without most ancestors in the "main" text, as suggested.  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably keep per Benwing and convert to categorization only. The problem is the box, not the the categorization. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably keep per Benwing and convert to categorization only. The problem is the box, not the the categorization. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ (the categorization part, I mean). I made it so, and  now place entries in categories like Category:Czech terms derived from the PIE root *swep-.
 * A few notes:
 * To keep current categorization, I used the word "derived" (and not "borrowed", "inherited") in all the PIE root category names. It would be overkill to start populating categories like "Category:Czech terms inherited from the PIE root *swep-" and "Category:Czech terms borrowed from the PIE root *swep-".
 * Probably Module:etymology can be edited to allow categories for languages other than PIE if people want.
 * There are exactly 2 entries marked as explicitly "borrowed" from PIE instead of derived ir inherited: უღელი and Reconstruction:Proto-Uralic/mete.
 * --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete unless its functionality is reduced to solely categorisation, and there is no better solution. I'm not sure I agree with Daniel when he says that every ultimately PIE-derived word should trace its roots directly back to PIE in the etymology section. For example, swiftly is ultimately from PIE but the etymology +  is surely sufficient; anything more than that would be overkill. This template could be handy as an invisible categorisation tool, if such categorisation is what we want. This, that and the other (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If Daniel Carrero has indeed made, and  do the categorization automatically, then my vote can simply be a delete rather than a categorization only. It is entirely duplicative apart from the box, which nobody seems to like. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * He hasn't. He tried, and posted about it, but I reverted, explaining that it doesn't work. The difficulty is in getting to recognise whether a term is a root, which is pretty much impossible. —CodeCat 23:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: Not all etymologies mention the PIE root, so categorization using would not include all terms from a root; for instance,  mentions derivation from, whose etymology section in turn mentions . — Eru·tuon 20:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, though I'm late to the party. Keep the category, trash the box. Anti-Gamz Dust (There's Hillcrest!) 17:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, I'm neither fond of the box, nor the categorisation. Per utramque cavernam 00:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

, this looks to have passed rfd. --Victar (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - User:Victar if you look carefully it's more like "no consensus". Just having a simple majority of votes does not make a consensus on Wikimedia projects. & I vote "keep"; fix the box if there are problems with it, but the categorisation makes obvious sense. It seems like there is some kind of push on here to wipe out PIE etymology (in word entries), or at least to bury it so deep that it is hidden from end-users & effectively useless. Is there some reason that we don't want end-users to know the PIE roots of words? Is "less-usefulness" the new black? :p Lx 121 (talk) 10:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Kept —Rua (mew) 17:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)