Template talk:eo der

Template:eo der
Essentially a template similar to that only works for Esperanto. It's not a 'horrible' template, but I generally replace it with term, prefix, suffix, confix or compound which I (and 99% of editors) are more familiar with. Has about 20 transclusions, all of which can be replaced without any loss of information. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Naturally I oppose this. — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 17:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you created it. But why? Was it because couldn't handle it at the time? Because it can now. Another thing, on reflection,  doesn't categorize, but suffix, prefix, confix and compound do. So in fact it's not just redundant, but inferior too. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It was never supposed to be in any way related to . The purpose of it was to show the derivational process of suffixes. It could VERY easily be made to categorize suffixes, but why bother starting with a simple template and adding more facets as they are needed when we can just delete everything that isn't widely used? — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 22:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Irrespective of why it was originally created, why would you want to keep it now? Nobody's say Esperanto derivational process isn't interesting, but the 'term' templates handle this easily. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No they don't. You can do varma: + -eg-: + -a: or, but only one of them categorizes and only one of them visually shows the stem + suffix + POS marker. There is no alt= option for  to show the derivational processes and there is no reason to add them if they'll only be necessary for certain languages. Nor is there a way to separate the derivational suffix versus the POS marker. Granted usually there is only one particularly common POS each, but the fact remains that others in most cases are an open option.
 * handles a very specific method of derivation which as far as I'm aware is limited to Esperanto. I don't understand the need for, which appears to do the same thing as , but I'm sure if I asked Panda, I would find out.
 * might not be well-named or able to do everything that it could or should potentially be able to do, but I know how much you like to delete stuff so =p — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 17:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "and there is no reason to add them if they'll only be necessary for certain languages" do you feel the same way about sc= as well? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, there are hundreds of languages that don't use the Latin alphabet. — [&#32;R·I·C&#32;] opiaterein — 15:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedily deleted by. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)