User talk:173.206.11.7

Etymologies
Hi Before we get into an edit war, I'd like to
 * 1) Ask you to please make an account!
 * 2) Explain some issues with what I call "chain" etymologies

Editors have different opinions on how etymologies should be written. My problem with having chains is that it's not rigorous - you can very easily create long chains explaining every morpheme, which is actually something that happened, as a Norwegian editor made such etymologies. There is a golden middle ground, but the lack of rigor is what I find troubling - it also means that you have to copy and paste everything on every lemma that could be effected, and we want to reduce that as 1) it can lead to more human error and 2) it means more maintenance if something ever changes. The current etymologies are very unlikely to change and are stable while still getting the reader to the PS entry, hell, most of the time they don't even have to open a new page. Vininn126 (talk) 10:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * But it's not a long chain. The PS form is just basic etymological info. I don't understand why this is causing so much debate. It takes up very little space, doesn't produce a second line, and allows readers to go directly to the PS page (not everyone's interested in Old Polish). If the Proto-language forms are not controversial on other languages on Wiktionary, why are a couple Polish editors raising such a fuss over this? Please see Etymology. 173.206.11.7 11:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I also wrote my explanations on Organella's page but the user blanked it. Here's the older page
 * 173.206.11.7 11:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not the issue - the issue is the extreme that this can be taken (and has been taken to). Like I said, there was a Norwegian editor who took each morpheme all the way back as far as it could go, this means wydawać would share the etymology of, dawać, -w-, all the way back to PIE, etc. I'm not saying it always has to go there, the problem is however that someone could (and sometimes does) argue it should be taken that far. Without criteria to establish what should or shouldn't be included in these chains, I feel much more comfortable providing a single step and a surface analsysis. Perhaps it's a bit of an extreme precaution, but you'd be surprised how often people can take chains back 6-7 steps making a ridiculously repetitive etymology (since each step is repeated at each other step) as well as cluttery. Vininn126 (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If someone chooses to take it to extremes, that doesn't mean we need to take things to the opposite extreme. Why not just set a basic rule of including only Old Polish and Proto-Slavic? This "chain" is just two links. 173.206.11.7 12:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There's still the matter of the morphemes. Should we give *vy- + davati, from *da(ti) +‎ *-vati? This is all within PS, so within bounds. Also why should we copy content to a whole bunch pages? Duplication itself is problematic in terms of maintenance. Vininn126 (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous. I'm simply saying deleting one additional link is a waste of time and does not aid readers. Wiktionary does not consider the inclusion of Proto-language forms to be controversial. So why are we creating a controversy where none exists? 173.206.11.7 13:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is something editors regularly do. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just trying to be rigorous to avoid headache otherwise. I'm not trying to stir up a controversy either. Please assume that I really am trying to be cooperative, I'm just asking questions. Vininn126 (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best to start a separate discussion about how to treat situations like *vy- + davati. It's not a topic I care about myself but perhaps other editors are interested. I'm just baffled at why the inclusion of PS has become such a point of controversy when similar proto-forms are not controversial elsewhere. 173.206.11.7 13:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's the duplication - before these chains were necessary for categorization, but for a while editors were complaining that they had to copy paste everything into dozens of entries duplicating information needlessly, which is exactly why was made. If The Polish etymology takes you to the Old Polish etymology which takes you to the PS one, what's the big deal? Why have the same information on a single page twice? If you open "wydawać" and see Old Polish inherited it from PS and that it gave Polish and Silesian words, can you not assume that they also came from PS? This one is only two steps but it's not hard to imagine someone coming along suggesting we add yet more information to ALL the children, so you get a bunch of repetitive etymologies, dozens, all saying the same thing. This is something that happens, unfortunately. And again, duplication is generally a bad thing. Vininn126 (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Also it's hard to know what ALL readers want a link to - why should we assume that all readers only want PS? There are probably quite a few that also want PBS, etc. They might come along and say "well it's not that much longer of a chain, just include it". Vininn126 (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not assuming that readers only want PS. That's why OP and PS should both be included. Including only OP is assuming that readers are only interested in OP. 173.206.11.7 13:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You are, what about PBS and PIE? What about the morphemes? Why should they be directed to those but one group gets to have a special link? By having one-step etymologies we reduce duplication while still getting the reader to where they want to go and treating groups equally. Vininn126 (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Then start discussions about those topics. 173.206.11.7 13:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this not a discussion then? Vininn126 (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I already stated that other editors might be interested in it and that I'm not. 173.206.11.7 13:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have started a Beer Parlour discussion - large groups of editors are for this style of etymology and others are not, it's very divided and no one can agree. I do recognize the downside of making people click links - I'd ultimately love to have a link in every etymology that takes you to a browsable etymology tree where you can see all the chains and have one-step etymologies. Vininn126 (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * To be specific - in that thread everyone but one editor supported one step etymologies. Vininn126 (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is said thread if you were curious. Vininn126 (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Old Polish lemma isn't necessarily on the same page. And if someone comes along suggesting we add yet more information, simply point out that OP and PS are sufficient. 173.206.11.7 13:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * But why? Why exclude one group and not another? It seems like we're giving preferance to one group while telling the others they don't matter, with an explanation of "just cause". Vininn126 (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The same could be stated about only including OP. You've chosen to exclude PS, giving preference to one group while telling others they don't matter, with an explanation of "just cause".173.206.11.7 13:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I provided an explanation - it removes duplication. Furthermore, it is still blind to group preferences, because it provides a single step for EVERYone. Vininn126 (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The duplication is a grand total of one extra link. If editors want additional links, such as PBS or PIE, a separate discussion can be started for that. 173.206.11.7 13:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Only on some pages if we take your arbitrary rule, but very easily people will want to change that rule using the same logic you are using. Vininn126 (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)