Template talk:clipping of


 * I see you've requested a merge with, but is meant to be used in definition lines (with italicisation), while  is an etymology template (without italicisation), so they shouldn't be merged. Or do you mean to get rid of "clipping of" from definition lines, and move all instances to etymology sections? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Aaand it's the first line of both templates. Woops. I do think those two uses should be separate, but from the names the distinction wasn't readily apparent. Thanks for pointing out the difference. Ultimateria (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

RFM discussion: March 2019
I prefer the parameters of (which has the language code as the first parameter) and the formatting of  (which uses italics), but it's absurd that we should have both of these equivalent templates. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: the merged template should probably be called, in line with other similar templates. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. One is a definition template and the other is for etymologies, hence the difference in formatting. —Rua (mew) 19:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Rua. Compare / . Chignon – Пучок 19:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn. I saw both on a definition line and didn't read the documentations. The distinction is fine, but someone should clean up the misuses. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, right. — SGconlaw (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW Part of my form-of cleanup work was adding support for having the language code as the first parameter to all of the form-of templates, which includes . They still support lang as well. I'm in the process of cleaning up the documentation of all these templates to reflect the preference for language code as first parameter. Benwing2 (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)