Thread:User talk:CodeCat/Templating forms between protolanguages

I've been meaning to ask: is there any particular reason you've been wrapping intermediate phonological forms in etymologies in, as e.g. here? Things like these are after all not quite from whatever language is under discussion, but from an older stage. (The "early Proto-Germanic" and "early Proto-Finnic" forms also could be called "late PIE" and "late western PU" just as well.)

As long as we're not linking them to anything, what's exactly the benefit to this encoding? Machine-readability, arguably sometimes, but conflating different stages of development might also be detrimental there, depending on what one tries to machine-read.