Template talk:word

RFD discussion: September–December 2021
Like Template:PIE word & Template:PIE root, also redundant. Why the hell do we need such specific templates when der, root, inh serve the same job? ·~  dictátor · mundꟾ  11:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. der, root, inh do not serve the same job of categorisation of terms by words which are not from roots. This template is just the non-language-specific version of PIE word (which currently has more keep votes than delete votes). Svārtava2 • 13:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, but my point for consistency between PIE words cat and other languages stands, so I'm not going to use t:PIE word either. Svartava2 (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * . ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  13:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This will as it is have very less uses in the languages I edit, as most of them derive from roots (whether borrowing, inheritance, or anything else). It will be quite useful in some other cases though. Svārtava2 • 14:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you blithely unaware of the fact that you get the cat. Category:Hindi terms inherited from Proto-Indo-European by using inh? ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  14:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Inqilābī Not a word-specific cat. A word/root-specific cat shows the end of an etymology. For example, Category:Assamese terms derived from the Proto-Indo-European word *pótis shows that the term(s) in it end(s) at the PIE word. Similarly, a term should be in Category:Sanskrit terms derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *pewH- when its etymology cannot go any further. Svārtava2 • 15:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to see documentation before I vote. If it remains undocumented I will vote delete.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like is intended as a counterpart of, just as  is the counterpart of  (now deprecated). Based on my comments in the previous section, before deciding whether  should be deleted, the prior question that needs answering is whether we should continue categorizing entries into specific categories in the form "English/etc. terms derived from the Proto-Indo-European/etc. word XYZ", or whether "English/etc. terms derived from Proto-Indo-European/etc." is sufficient. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion we should not generally have categories for terms derived from a single word. The Reconstruction namespace page should have the descendants. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * well, that requires a separate discussion. "Category:Terms by Proto-Indo-European root by language" and "Category:Terms by Proto-Indo-European word by language" have numerous subcategories in multiple languages. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Many entries in Category:Terms by Proto-Indo-European word by language shouldn't be in there, but instead in Category:Terms by Proto-Indo-European root by language. -- 22:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * User:The cool numel has been going around adding to entries even though the words have PIE roots. --  00:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't I? It's like making a category for roots that in and of themselves come from a different root. The cool numel (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure if there is written guidance on this, but I would think that one should only state the ultimate PIE root or word from which a term descends. — SGconlaw (talk) 09:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Then a categoy like English terms derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *strew- shouldn't exist? because *strew- is an extension of *streh₃. -- The cool numel (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * perhaps it shouldn't. I'd take my cue on this from editors who work regularly with PIE. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Compare, you added en, but the ultimate root exists and therefore en would have been the appropriate template to use. --  17:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know, but then I also went and added the category of terms derived from *bʰértis as a subcategory of terms derived from *bʰer-. The cool numel (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not the intended use of PIE word. -- 18:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete -- 22:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; surjection &lang; &rang; 18:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I do agree that this template for ALL languages may be excessive, but what about reserving it for protolanguages, like at ? This way there would be some consistency between PIE and other Protolanguages. Svartava2 (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * On a related note: it's not obvious, but mos needs to be fixed as well. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * RFD-resolved; see . —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 11:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

-nopro option
In my local Wiki, I've added the -nopro option that suppresses the  prefix and the   suffix. The new cats are automatically handled by (for free).
 * yes
 * Used for non proto-languages only when their etymology is undecided. If the derivation becomes decided, this could be changed to or.

Example
places the page into Category:English terms derived from the Latin word quaerō and Category:English terms derived from Latin.

In my case, I wanted every English word to be found in the oldest set of decided ancestors, and many do not make it as far as proto-languages (for all affixes). In one sense, these highlight the current limits within the comparative method, or areas of further study. Note that whatlinkshere/quaerō does not work on many words such as inquisition that have a see... Dpleibovitz (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)