Template talk:table:colors/ine-pro

..? entries
What’s the purpose of the “..?” entries? Yes, I have seen the deletion request, but if this template is to stay, “..?” should be explained. --  wiki mpan (Talk) 09:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * i just meant that possibly there are more words for "red" and "yellow" but i can't rely on red links .—Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

RFD discussion: March 2018–February 2020
This strikes me as a misuse of this template series. Unlike modern languages the color templates were mainly created for, Proto-Indo-European is unattested and there's no direct evidence as to which colors were called by which name. When you have different branches of Indo-European using descendants of the same PIE word for completely different colors (compare 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬, for instance), any color terminology reconstructed tends to be rather vague. By contrast, this template shows precise colors, with the visual message of certainty overriding any caveats/weasel wording that may be in the text. If this is kept, it will need to be cleaned up. I sincerely doubt there will ever be a name reconstructed for magenta, cyan, or mint green, so they shouldn't be displayed. Even when there are descendants, we should remove uncertain/vague ones like the aforementioned blue/flavus ancestor (if it was even truly a color name in PIE) and stick to a few relatively solid identifications like white, black, red, and possibly brown. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree, this template should not be applied to protolanguages. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Mh, while this one seems too speculative, I'm not sure I'd want to delete Template:table:colors/sla-pro, if only because it's pretty complete. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, Vorziblix has convinced me that that Proto-Slavic template should be done away with as well. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, because is not empty. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom: 'When you have different branches of Indo-European using descendants of the same PIE word for completely different colors (compare English blue and Latin flavus (“yellow, golden”), for instance), any color terminology reconstructed tends to be rather vague.' --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, Template:table:colors/egy also uses a different template, maybe we can take this as a reference to reorganize the PIE template?--AngeCI (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * RFDO-deleted. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If I had seen this, I likely would have voted to Keep. One could make a similar argument against numbers as well in many proto languages. -- 19:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)