Template talk:semantic loan

RFM discussion: January 2018–May 2020
Should we perhaps rename these to match Template:borrowed? At the very least I suggest that is renamed to. —Rua (mew) 21:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about this. I know we went down the other route already, but I'd prefer we use nouns for all of them; I feel it makes more sense on a conceptual point of view.
 * We'd keep these as is (or > ? Is that used?), and change those:
 * > (that sounds rather clumsy though)
 * sounds clumsy; (or ?) and  are passable.
 * And we have, , etc. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If we must have consistency, I think it would be less confusing for them all to be nouns rather than all adjectives, so we should move borrowed to borrowing, derived to derivation, and inherited to inheritance. However, I actually don't see that consistency is required here; I find nothing wrong with having some of our Foreign derivation templates being adjectives and others being nouns. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 11:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And we have, , etc. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If we must have consistency, I think it would be less confusing for them all to be nouns rather than all adjectives, so we should move borrowed to borrowing, derived to derivation, and inherited to inheritance. However, I actually don't see that consistency is required here; I find nothing wrong with having some of our Foreign derivation templates being adjectives and others being nouns. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 11:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Not moved. User:Per utramque cavernam, feel free to propose moving the other templates to nounal titles if you feel consistency is desirable. - -sche (discuss) 17:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)