Template talk:bor+

There was a long debate about whether or not to create this template. Read more about it at Wiktionary:Votes/2021-04/Creation of Template:inh+ and Template:bor+ (it's really boring) Wubble You (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

RFD discussion: June–September 2021
Should be deleted per Creation of Template:inh+ and Template:bor+. See Beer_parlour/2021/June. -- 20:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, or what was the point of having the vote in the first place? —Mahāgaja · talk 20:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, for the same reason as above. Shouldn't this kind of creation be speedied by the way? Thadh (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, — Fenakhay ( تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت ) 21:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. As Benwing2 and Lambiam pointed out on that vote, there was no reason to hold a vote in the first place. "New templates that add additional functionality without changing existing functionality shouldn't need a vote." And the vote just barely failed - it would have passed if the deadline were just a few hours later. There's certainly consensus if we go by the spirit, rather than the most strict reading of, our voting policies. Imetsia (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If they created the templates without a vote, myself or someone else would have created a vote to delete them and we would have ended up in the same place. -- 22:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's quite true, though. If the vote hadn't taken place and the templates had been created straightaway, there would need to be a consensus for their deletion here. But given the results of the vote, there clearly is no such consensus. PUC ~ 212.224.238.99 11:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The status quo is that they aren't in use, so the vote would have been for their usage, not their deletion. -- 13:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. At User talk:Benwing2 § Ongoing vote, said: “if everyone needed a vote to do add any new feature, nothing would get done”. This is exactly what is happening now —— this is a simple and harmless new feature but it is causelessly being opposed by so many. Those who oppose inh+: why? A "+" sign is easier than "From" also. The vote was unnecessary so we shouldn't really count that.  ; that makes it 20-10-2. It doesn't make the vote pass, but shows that majority is, at least okay with this. 🔥 शब्दशोधक 🔥 05:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See above, but to repeat, if you didn't create the vote, I would have, and it would have been the same outcome: bor+ and inh+ are banned. Period. -- 05:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See the outcome of this first then say. If these pass here, you are requested not to create another vote just to waste people's time. 🔥 शब्दशोधक 🔥 05:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote -- the vote already happened -- this is simply a formality and a request that those pages be admin-locked. If it was up to me, I would have you blocked for a week as well for disruptive edits. -- 05:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. It was a mistaking on my part to have started a vote for this; such minor changes do not need a vote in the first place, and I was misled by Victar & Co.’s contention into creating the vote. Since this was nothing more than an opinion poll, the vote’s result is null and void. There’s no question of deleting these new templets, at the very most a BP discussion ’bout th’ templets may ensue instead. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  06:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just forget about the vote, if someone had created these templets earlier, there would have been no vote. Now these templets display the etymological text with the words “inherited” & ”borrowed” linked to Glossary, so I think there’s no reason we should miss the benefit of having the keywords hyperlinked (being consistent with other etymology templets). Plainly writing ’from’ not only seems to be discriminating against inheritances and loanwords, but also is confusing for those who clean up etymologies (der, inh, and bor all currently use a plain ‘from’), not to mention it is irksome for our readers likewise; whilst advocating against the usage of the new templets seems ridiculous: why would two templets (with just an additional plus sign) beget confusion?—wikis are full of templets that are meant to further consistency. Instead of complaining about having additional templets, the opposers should accept the fact that we are solving some real issue. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  14:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep because I don't think a precedent should be established that new templates need a supermajority to be created. There are templates that Victar created that I don't like, e.g., but I would not think to require a vote before allowing them to be created. Benwing2 (talk) 07:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're of the opinion that any templates I've created should be deleted, feel free to start a vote. Having lead text in derivational templates has been a long contended issue, which is why a vote was especially needed in this case. -- 09:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like we're doing the same thing over and over again. We have already voted on the creation of these templates, the outcome was no consensus, hence the templates shouldn't be created. It's as simple as that: if we can't hold ourselves to the outcome of a vote, then we can't keep any order and everyone is free to do whatever they want. Even if I personally weren't against these specific templates (which, suffice to say, I am), it sets a very dangerous precedent to ignore the outcome of a vote. Thadh (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * While I do agree with the template creators that "a reader should be able to read what the exact mode of derivation of a word is instead of having to see the wikitext or check the categories" (which is why I always - manually - add "borrowed from" or "inherited from", and why I oppose the removal of these specifications in or ), I think these templates are unnecessary (per Mahagaja: "If you want to say "Borrowed from" or "Inherited from", just write it in. No reason to complicate things by adding two new templates"), and I would prefer that they be deleted (per Jberkel: "We are creating a culture in which redundant/overlapping templates are added because no consensus can be found on the existing ones"), though I won't insist too much.
 * What I do oppose strongly is any kind of template substitution such as . If the goal of the template creators is simply to save keystrokes (a feeble argument if you ask me, but whatever), let them use the templates in new entries / new etymology sections, but I see absolutely no reason for them to go around replacing plain text with templatized text, thereby making things harder to edit. There's a reason why I pushed for removing the text from : it's more flexible that way, as I don't have to use the pesky notext / nocap parameters. I certainly don't want to go back to that.
 * In my opinion, if these templates are kept, there should be a motion that they can only be used in new entries/sections/instances, that they cannot be used to replace plain text that's already there, and on the contrary that they can be replaced with plain text by anyone who should wish to do so. Otherwise we will have an inconsistent mess.
 * Also I deliberately ignored the vote, but had I taken part in it (which I would have if I'd seen it was going to pass), I would have voted weak oppose, per Mahagaja, Jberkel and -sche (see Beer Parlour), so I'm not so sure the 2/3 threshold would have been reached (see, however, my response to Victar above). PUC ~ 212.224.238.99 09:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Many of the most-used templates are “unnecessary”. Indeed (as I also expressed at the time), there was no point of having the original vote in the first place. But we lack a mechanism that allows us to vote not to have a vote. --Lambiam 10:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. There was plenty of presidence for the necessity of this vote 2. The recent vote was binary, you vote for the template or you vote against it. I don't see what mechanism is lacking. -- 21:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That vote is not comparable to this one. During that time there were very few etymological templets known to editors: apples and oranges. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  00:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep on the grounds that the vote was out of normal process in the first place. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep There shouldn't have been a vote about this in the first place - even that vote's outcome was twenty-to-ten in favour except for AryamanA's vote being late by less than a day. If the editors commit to not replacing the existing inh in pages and only using inh+ for new entries for the sake of convenience, it does no harm. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 00:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the vote needs to be treated as an opinion poll seeing as it isn't required to create a template; as I mention on Inqilābī's talkpage, it seems clear to me that the vote's unusual nature resulted in a misinterpretation of its intentions by some users and so the number of oppose votes don't reflect the actual reception. The fact that the vote didn't pass by 1 single vote, with considerable participation, makes me feel even more confident. This RFD is justified after it has been created, but now people see that they can't possibly be inconvenienced by these two templates, while many feel they are aided by them. I don't see how replacing existing text with the template is going to make anything harder to edit, but neither do I see the point in going around and manually replacing the text. One valid reason though could be consistency, but this seems to be equivalent to making the use of the template mandatory when line-initial, which I wouldn't have any gripes with but also don't think necessary. Brutal Russian (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, RFDs can't overturn actual votes. Only another vote can overturn Wiktionary:Votes/2021-04/Creation of Template:inh+ and Template:bor+, just as only a vote could have overturned Votes/2017-06/borrowing,_borrowed. -- 19:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is this documented? What the majority thinks can always change. If it is not written anywhere that RFDs [can't] overturn actual votes, then I'm not following that. 🔥 शब्दशोधक 🔥 03:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging bureaucrats: . -- 04:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * While it's true that RFDs can't overturn a vote, the application of a given vote to a given item usually requires some interpretation. That's what the RFD forums are for: to allow the community to decide how the rules apply, case by case. You have your interpretation of what the vote meant, but it's not obvious or clear-cut. Not having read the vote or the discussion, I'm not going to weigh in on the issue. I can tell you were looking for a deus ex machina to save you from having to make your case, but I'm neither deus nor machina... Chuck Entz (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "[I]t's true that RFDs can't overturn a vote", thanks for my answer. -- 07:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Then these templates would be deleted no matter how many editors vote for keep? 🔥 शब्दशोधक 🔥 12:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. -Taimoor Ahmed(گل بات؟) 10:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy-delete, as the post-vote discussions have come to naught. Even though there’s supermajority consensus for having the templets, the conviction of the tiny minority also matters. Truly, their creation was a waste of time for all. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  17:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Reinstated my keep vote in light of a sysop’s declaration that the usage of both templets is legitimate. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  14:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have no opinion on whether these templates should exist, but victar's argument is flawed, because we don't need a vote before a given template can be created. I've commented at Wiktionary:Votes/2021-04/Creation of Template:inh+ and Template:bor+ to clarify this. —Ruakh TALK 23:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You wrote that "we don't generally require consensus to create a template; anyone can do so". This is true, but by way of an answer, I would like to quote : "some have brought up that a new template's creation shouldn't need any vote, but I'd argue that since this template is one in a series of arguably most used templates (after head, l and m), any creation of a template that takes over a part of or even the whole function of bor or inh should get a vote". Forking major templates like these should not, imo, happen without some serious discussion. 212.224.224.150 23:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition, as I replied on the vote page, this vote was essentially a rollback of the vote that removed the lead text from the template Votes/2017-06/borrowing, borrowed, and a repeal of another vote demands a vote. -- 00:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That was an unrelated vote in a different circumstance, not comparable to the recent vote. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  00:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure how you can see trying to circumvent the original vote by creating a duplicate template with the exactly same functionally "unrelated", but you do you, bro. -- 01:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That vote was about removing the need to manually delete the text every time it wasn't needed, which was often. Its implementation was flawed in that no optional parameter to add back the text was supplied; if it had been, however, it would have been cumbersome to do. A quick overview tells me that nobody in principle opposed the text - they thought the need to display it didn't arise often enough to outweigh the cumbersomeness of removing it.—The newly-created templates would be rolling back the old vote only if they would have resulted in manually removing the text again; or if the old vote was specifically against the use of the text "Inherited from". As it stands, the old vote's purpose is in complete agreement with the purpose of the new vote - to save keystrokes and make editing the dictionary smoother, which both achieve in my opinion. The text "Inherited from" isn't banned from etymologies, and the automation of its display shouldn't be banned either. Quite the opposite, "Wiktionary is not paper" and "avoid unhelpful abbreviatinos" is consistent with displaying the text whenever possible, and plainly inconsistent with removing it. If we don't assume people to understand these, neither should we assume an exhaustive knowledge of relationships between languages. Brutal Russian (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The vote was to remove the lead text in bor. The rational is a moot point. -- 20:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Compare m+. And etymology templets are not liable to a treatment same as that of ordinary templets. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  00:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See also . J3133 (talk) 05:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, no cogent reason for deletion, that vote does not carry force to disallow the creation or existence of these templates anyway. The bloody sodding thing almost passed with 2/3s anyway, it is utterly ridiculous to read that vote as a consensus for deletion of the templates. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  16:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ (9 keeps — 6 deletes); it has been one month since these were nominated for deletion. Since these are kept, here's what I'll add:
 * Replacing "Inherited/Borrowed from" or "From" (like ) with the new templates is fine as it adds a glossary link.
 * Replacing the new templates with the full text along with glossary link (like ) is fine, as it removes nothing from the entry. However replacing these with "Inherited/Borrowed from" (without glossary link) or "From" (like ) should not be done. 🔥 शब्दशोधक 🔥 07:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, that's not something you can just decide like that. For example, if you change an Ingrian etymology from "From" to "Inherited from" I will personally undo that edit because it's wholly rediculous. If someone doesn't know Ingrian inherits from Proto-Finnic and wants it typed out, maybe they shouldn't be using our etymology sections for that language. Moreover, I'm skeptical this discussion can be closed. Thadh (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What harm does Inherited do? Why can't it be up to the editor who's creating the entry to decide whether or not they want to use Inherited? is now claiming that the term "inherited" shouldn't be used in the etymology sections because inheritance is implied . I think  should be asked about their opinion on this too. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)  08:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I must vehemently disagree with your apparent contention that a user who is ignorant of the relationship between Ingrian and Proto-Finnic is somehow not worthy of having things clearly explained. How else would anyone learn these things?  If I, as someone ignorant of both Ingrian and Proto-Finnic, were to land on the entry for an Ingrian term, how would I understand that "from" means explicitly "inherited from"?  There are many mechanisms whereby a term from language (or proto-language) A makes its way into language B.  Simply saying "from" with no further explanation is insufficiently clear.
 * As the English Wiktionary, we can only safely assume that our readers can read English. We cannot assume that our readers know everything what we know.  Excessive abbreviation and omission creates unnecessary barriers to understanding.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A user should only use the tools they are capable of using. That is why we don't link every IPA character, why we don't link every name of a grammatical case or verbal aspect and why we don't explain the entirety of grammar to the reader: we are not an encyclopedia. If a user doesn't know what Ingrian is, they either don't use that section in our dictionary, or they go to the Wikipedia article or just google it. If they don't know what Proto-Finnic is, ditto. It doesn't take a lot of understanding to get our etymology sections without the linked "inherited" or "borrowed", but those do make it sound like we think of our readers as of idiots. They aren't, and I have yet to see a feedback that concerns this. And for the record, if you're ignorant of both Ingrian and Proto-Finnic, see the terms *kakci and kaks, and don't know it's inherited, you probably don't need that distinction made, because you don't know the difference. This is all trying to please a group of people that doesn't exist. Thadh (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if I have a rough understanding of the relationship between Ingrian and Finnic, such as might be gleaned from a Wikipedia article, where do we (Wiktionary in general) explain what the default meaning of "from" is in etymology sections? I'm not aware of any reason for a user to assume that "from" consistently means "inherited from".
 * The entire purpose of an etymology section is to explain the derivation of a term. I am honestly confused at your apparent opposition to explaining derivations clearly -- even to the point of undoing anyone else's addition of the word "inherited".  If another editor has gone to the effort of inserting this additional detail, presumably they thought this was useful; why remove it if it is correct?
 * You mention linking to IPA or labels for cases or aspects. We do link to the Wikipedia page for IPA in our pronunciation templates for Japanese, as you can see at 膨れる.  This is a simple and unobtrusive measure to improve usability and discoverability -- if a user is curious what IPA is, they only have to click the link to find out.
 * I strongly feel we should do the same for case and aspect labels. English readers can be assumed to understand basic grammatical vocabulary used to describe English, such as  or .  But what is, as used for Hungarian nouns such as hal?  Hungarian templates link through to the appropriate entries.  This is a simple and unobtrusive measure to improve usability and discoverability -- if a user is curious what  means in the context of Hungarian inflection tables, they only have to click the link to find out.
 * By contrast, we have the -TʼEʼ entry. The tables here have opaque and unclear labels, and tables have unexplained variations in the labels, such as MOM, NEUT, ABS, COMP for the first table, or MOM, CONT, REP, SEM for the second.  From other studies, I think MOM means, and NEUT means  (indicating a particular kind of defective verb inflection paradigm).  But I'm not entirely sure what the other labels expand to.  Nor do I have a full understanding what  and  mean in the context of Navajo verbs.  Adding links from these labels through to pages that explain them would be a simple and unobtrusive measure to improve usability and discoverability.
 * Your position seems very dismissive and hostile towards learners. I hope I am merely misunderstanding you.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Every language has its own basic set of vocabulary a learner ought to know before being able to use a dictionary. That's been the case in any print dictionary as well: A native monolingual speaker of Afar won't know what an adjective is, or a numeral, or even an article for that matter, and to use an English-Afar dictionary he would need to. An English reader may not know the concept of a grammatical case, or alienability. So it is for our dictionary, too: You are expected to know the basics of the grammar and history of the language you want to read the entry for, and that's true for beginners and advanced learners alike.
 * Now, I believe that an etymology is the study of the origin of the word, so if an etymology says "From Fooish bar", it seems reasonable that it means "[This term comes] [f]rom Fooish bar". Ask yourself this: How many of our readers that don't know anything about historical linguistics and wouldn't be able to understand what this sequence of words implies would actually bother to try and understand the etymology sections, even if they were expanded this way? Thadh (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think your operating assumptions are setting too high a bar. As I stated above, we can only assume familiarity with English.  We need not, and should not, cater to Afar speakers, any more than we cater to Ingrian speakers, or Klingon speakers.  We need, and should, cater to English speakers.  In that, I must disagree with your contention that "You are expected to know the basics of the grammar and history of the language you want to read the entry for" -- our audience is readers of English, not readers of the target language.  While there is inevitably some specialized terminology used to describe any language, that terminology should be explained somewhere, and that explanation should be discoverable with minimal effort from the entry page for any given term in that language, as I tried to illustrate above with examples from Japanese, Hungarian, and Navajo.
 * Regarding your etymology example, if an etymology section merely says "From Fooish bar", this does not provide the level of detail required to understand clearly what the actual relationship is -- was this term borrowed? Calqued?  Inherited?  Otherwise influenced or inspired?  The addition of a mere word or two could easily clarify this unnecessary ambiguity.
 * I don't understand your apparent demand that users arrive here already equipped with specialized knowledge, and your seeming insistence that we not provide simple and unobtrusive aids to the learner. I argue that omitting such aids is harmful in that it makes Wiktionary harder to use, for no benefit I can see.  What harm is there in adding the word "inherited" to clarify that certain Ingrian terms are inherited from Proto-Finnic?  What harm is there in linking grammatical terms in inflection tables to their respective entries here or on Wikipedia?
 * If you can explain what harm you see from measures such as these, I would appreciate an explanation of your viewpoint. Honestly and sincerely, I do not understand where you're coming from.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * LMFAO! -- 19:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It may be "rediculous" to you to specify explicitly whether a term is inherited or borrowed in a language like Ingrian vs. Proto-Finnic, but it's far from ridiculous in a language like Italian vs. Latin or Hindi vs. Sanskrit, where terms can be both borrowed and inherited from the same language and it's often far from obvious even to an expert which one is the case. I see no harm, and a lot of good, in using these templates in cases like this. Benwing2 (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your comment is proof that one should never put something off until tomorrow what they can do today; I wanted to comment this as a reply to Bhagadatta, but I put it off to today :/. Anyway, while I can indeed see the benefit for a handful of mother-daughter language relations, I think what Sodhak is proposing is absurd and harmful for the majority of languages. They propose to standardise the usage of these templates for ALL languages, irrespective of the community's choice. And, on the whole, I believe that normalising the usage of "Borrowed from" and reserving "From" either for inheritances or obvious (from context) derivations is a far more effective way to deal with these language relations. Thadh (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And yet, Italian has managed to not write "inherited from" in their etymologies. I do absolutely agree that "borrowed from" should also be written out when applicible. -- 06:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Proposing to standardise the usage of these templates for ALL languages may be a step too far. When Sanskrit is involved in the etymologies of Indo-Aryan languages, "From" can be ambiguous, so explicitly indicating which process occurred at which stage is more helpful than trying to eliminate any possible redundancies. In addition, there are cases in which Indo-Aryan terms can be inherited from borrowed terms.  Kutchkutch (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar enough with Indo-Aryan languages to be able to either support or oppose this. I've only ever edited Garhwali, but I don't have any particular opinion on this matter. For Romance languages, however, I think "inherited from" is overkill, because most words are inherited, while the borrowed words are in my experience mostly either scientific, religious or some other way not part of the day-to-day vocabulary. Not to mention the fact we already distinguish Latin, Vulgar Latin, Late Latin, Medieval Latin and Ecclesiastical Latin exactly for the purpose of dating the borrowings/inheritances. Thadh (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Tatsamas from Sanskrit aren't any different than learned borrowings in Romance languages from Latin. They don't require any special treatment. -- 20:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Finally detagging the templates, as no-consensus. Victar conveniently dismisses any valid argument in favour of something he wants fucked: . 🔥 शब्दशोधक 🔥 10:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. The creator of a entry with an RFD shouldn't be the one to remove it 2. The vote to stop their creation of these templates was Wiktionary:Votes/2021-04/Creation of Template:inh+ and Template:bor+; this request was merely a formality. -- 19:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , vote to stop their creation of these templates is wrong. And this stupid rule creator of a entry with an RFD shouldn't be the one to remove it is clearly your invention and I'm not stupid enough to follow it. . 🔥 शब्दशोधक 🔥 13:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Now that User:PUC has cast a late vote to show their opinion on the templates, I call upon other users to cast belated votes as well: . ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  08:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not how this works. PUC was active during the time of the vote, and following it closely, and according to him, he would vote if Aryaman weren't too late as well, so his vote is symbolic for the fact that Aryaman's vote can't be used as an excuse. None of the users you just pinged were part of the discussion (either then or even now) and as such don't prove anything. Thadh (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have already said that PUC was editing as an IP during those days, and so it’s wellnigh impossible for him to have cast his vote. AryamanA’s vote matters; and of the users I have pinged, Taimoorahmed11 has voted keep above. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  12:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I did cast my vote at the time, was I late in casting my vote? -Taimoor Ahmed(گل بات؟) 12:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Was not talking of this RFDO vote, but the original vote where PUC belatedly cast his vote. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  12:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, templates are harmless and useful at least in languages I edit (Sanskrit, Kashmiri). Not that my vote carries any meaning :(. Rishabhbhat (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, if votes are still counted, This template is incredibly useful for me, as an Urdu contributor. -Taimoor Ahmed(گل بات؟) 15:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Struck because already voted. Imetsia (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Delete. It links to lame texts in the glossary which should also be deleted. If somebody didn’t have an idea that words can either be inherited or borrowed, as two main ways words pass into a language, he will not learn it from there. Which leaves us only the argument that these templates save keystrokes. But editors can add every nonsense to their interfaces (on Wiktionary and the software whereby the access it) to save keystrokes—this should be supported, not cluttering other peoples' editing windows with ever new templates. As a reminder, my main reason for voting oppose on these templates is a concern with the source code readability, its elements becoming less distinctive by templates looking so similar in the source but so distinct on the reader’s side. This may appear to some as an obscure argument but in the event if we have these templates then there are tons of cases where one also has to correct instances of and  attempted to be used where perhaps something will have to be done about 1 or other parameters etc. Beware of making it complicated, the temptation for infinite expansion is great. Our editing windows are not or  to have a power-user combination or template for every repetitive text. Like with those who first encounter, the prime question of editors will be “how to quit” this straining website. Fay Freak (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * RFD-passed finally. It has been over a month, and the discussion is stagnant. The community and even the opposers have accepted that these 2 templates have passed RFD, but the debate/controversy on their usage remains. Svārtava2 • 09:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)