Template talk:litety

RFD discussion: October–November 2021
I don't like this. It's making the code needlessly opaque. What is wrong with writing "literally, ..."? PUC – 14:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, useless. Thadh (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. It does serve a purpose, helping to templatize and standardize etymologies — if nothing else, consider the "more loosely translated..." parameter, which is useful. And I don't understand the argument that it "mak[es] the code needlessly opaque." (Maybe it's a good argument, but I genuinely don't understand what you mean by that). Imetsia (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You assume we even want a full standardisation of etymologies. Languages are wildly different, so are expectations of an etymology per language, so I don't think it makes sense to create one strict style for all languages.
 * Moreover, if this template isn't forced upon editors, and it isn't, it doesn't fulfill its purpose. Thadh (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't want full standardization of etymologies, but this particular aspect can and should be further standardized. I doubt the way literal translations are handled on, e.g., a Russian entry is radically different than on an Italian entry, a Sanskrit entry, etc. And if there is some particularity that editors of those languages would like to add, the template can be improved to include additional parameters.
 * Secondly, these templates aren't forced on anyone, in the same way the en-noun template is not forced on anyone. Templates are typically made standard via bot edits en masse, and sometime in the distant future we can consider doing that for litety. Consider it-noun, which is currently the norm for formatting headwords for Italian nouns. I still find remnants of the old it from time to time, but that doesn't mean we should abandon our new template or go back to the old way of doing things. Imetsia (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I like Inqilābī's repurposing of lit, and this one now serves no use. Delete. Imetsia (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Imetsia - weird template name. —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 17:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. We templatise so much that it can become easy to lose sight of why we do it. Templatising for the sake of templatising is not why. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Only tangentially related: How did the practice of putting the period inside the quotation marks become standard? To me it just looks illogical but maybe I'm missing something. Fytcha (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Svartava/SodhakSH continuing to waste people's time. -- 10:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I was only trying to help and not waste anyone's time. By the way, I do remember how much you wasted my time with the / issue. —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 11:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep as creator and per Imetsia. —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 11:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , ehh Delete. –Jberkel 17:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why did you choose such a wierd spelling? I would support the template if the spelling is made proper: something like lit or lity… ‘litety’ is too big and I would rather manually write that part if the name is not amended.  ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  14:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support lity. lit is not an option, since it is already taken and serves a different function. Imetsia (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Does really serve a different purpose though? See e.g. how it is used in البحرين or ചെറുനാരങ്ങ. Fytcha (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For the great majority of cases, lit is not used in etymology sections. By its design, it's also not meant to be used in etymologies. The entire thing is parenthesized, quite an awkward choice if someone wanted to use the template on its own in an ety section. The "literally" is also not capitalized, again quite strange if it is to be used by itself in an etymology section. Imetsia (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see and I agree. Maybe having a documentation for would clear things up? Many of the misuses come from Malayalam entries where   would have been the correct choice as far as I can tell. If  survives the RfD, we could also make clear in its documentation that it is only to be used for phrases and that other constructions should use   instead, if I'm right in assuming that this is what this template was intended for. Fytcha (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like litety & lit to be merged. Or at least, the one intended for use as an etymology template should be 3-letter shortcut. Maybe we can use a parameter to signify non-etymological usage (having a different design). doublet was rather big, so I created a shortcut (dbt) some while back (and I did announce in the BP). Even Wikipedia uses templets to a great extent, including stuffs like literal meaning, and even non-Latin script terms (!). If the two are to be merged, then a bot could be hired for adding the needful parameter outside etymologies. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  14:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Inqilābī I support that merging. I checked some uses of, they're mostly in etymologies (wrongly) and need cleanup and in definitions where they should be instead shifted to the etymology section. We both did originally think of , but seeing it was occupied,  was created. —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 14:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I never realised the name was lit ety 😅. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  14:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, the template lit, currently the shortcut for qfliteral, could be claimed as the new etymology template. If need be, qfliteral could have its new shortcut: qlit. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  15:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. With the repurposing of lit, this template is now redundant. Also, overwhelming consensus for deletion (including by the template's creator). Imetsia (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)