Template talk:cog+

RFD discussion: October–November 2021
Another experimentation by Svartava. ·~  dictátor · mundꟾ  12:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Kutchkutch (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. C O G N A T E vs B O R R O W E D. The latter has just 1 more letter than the former, and that's enough for 's keeping and 's deletion? is also similarly for saving keystrokes, the same purpose as . I can tell this is a bad-faith RFD nomination, out of personal problems; ironically by the, the templates which inspired this one. This isn't any kind of "experimentation" as falsely stated above. Svartava2 (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete!! This is getting rediculous. Also, it feels like Svartava is being very POINTy. Thadh (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even as a supporter of the bor+ and inh+ templates, I do agree that this one goes too far. Principally, it actually changes something from the user-side in how cognate relationships are displayed (unlike the aforementioned templates). A discussion on whether to incorporate some other text in the template by default is a better place to start. (I would rather support "Compare..." than "Cognate with..."). Imetsia (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The wording should definitely not be standardised: different wordings used by us include ‘cognate to’ and ‘akin to’. Furthermore, to cut down on the lengthiness of the etymology, cognates are avoided (unless the etymon is a redlink), thereby making this template useless. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  18:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete -- 05:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. PUC – 15:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Svartava2. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧ Averted crashes 02:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Where is the consistency in deleting this? Are we going to delete bor+ too then? --Kaunuss (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  22:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Svartava2 sock? -- 03:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No. I checked. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete to avoid edit wars over use of the template. If there is community consenses on formatting of etymology sections we can revisit the template.  In that case I would make it take a list of cognates as long as we think such a list should be allowed to be.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment/Abstain for now. I'm not sure where my stance is on this. The previous templates, sort of had a purpose. For me, when I use 🇨🇬 I don't always necessarily write "Cognate with" as I might write "Compare with" instead (though I'm not sure whether that's good practice or not). I would, however, like to see a template which could potentially let me list multiple cognates within a single template, without having to rewrite 🇨🇬 . -Taimoor Ahmed(گل بات؟) 07:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Even though this template is pending an RFD and is a majority delete so far, User:Svartava2 continues to add this template to entries. I'll repeat, this user should be prema-blocked, for the good of the project. -- 03:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * if I'm not mistaken, whatlinkshere tool usually shows the latest link (including transclusion) at the bottom. Per पांनी is the most recent entry to transclude  where the template was added on 7th Oct. Could you please point out any instance of myself adding this after its RFD nom? (Now I've not gone thru all of my contribs after 9th Oct) Svartava2 (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You are indeed mistaken. of you adding cog+ even after you replied above. --  06:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Victar reverted now. Svartava2 (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - harmless, although I will oppose its imposition over the original cog. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 11:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 06:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)