Wiktionary talk:Votes/2021-04/Creation of Template:inh+ and Template:bor+

bor+
, why can't we restore the text “Borrowed from ” to borrowed (and add a notext to it), instead of a new template bor+? As it is, bor is used only once in an etymology, so what better is a new bor+ than the existing bor with the text added and an additional notext parameter? 🔥 शब्दशोधक 🔥 07:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Now it is too late to consider your idea, and per your own words: . This is what a BP discussion was for; there without taking part in the crucial discussion, you just kept on  &  &  the ideas raised. Now, for what it’s worth, there are words that could be borrowed from multiple sources, and especially for conlangs, the number of direct sources is often great, so using notext all the time could be toilsome: so bor+ seems to be all right. - ⸘ -  dictātor · mundī  08:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seems alright. Though, the vote hasn't started yet, and you can change it before it starts, I think (this is an example, where the wording was changed, before the voting began), so you can still consider this and it isn't too late to consider my idea. And I agree I should've taken part in the crucial discussion instead of " & & " 😂 🔥 शब्दशोधक 🔥 08:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I suggest removing your words ‘and I'll keep " & & "’ from your support statement. It looks so wry, it might interfere with the success of the vote, especially seeing as you were the first person to cast the vote. - ⸘ -  dictātor · mundī  05:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * That was just for some humor. I'll remove it just now. 🔥 शब्दशोधक 🔥 05:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Does capitalisation need to be considered?
Template:blend has the nocap=1 parameter, for example. Equinox ◑ 07:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right: as User:-sche said before in the BP, there are sometimes instances of ‘Partially inherited from, partially borrowed from’— so nocap is actually needed. I shall edit the vote page accordingly. Thank you for pointing that out. - ⸘ - dictātor · mundī  08:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * After suggesting a nice point, you forgot to cast your vote…? XD - ⸘ - dictātor · mundī  00:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But I didn't really care about this vote. Templates were born to torment me. I do, however, care about getting little technical details right. You know any job openings at the Unicode Consortium? Equinox ◑ 08:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Vote namespace
, I am quite confused, is this a policy vote or a simple vote? I created it as a policy vote, but now I think I got to be sure if I have done it right. Thanks. - ⸘ - dictātor · mundī  04:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a policy vote, because it doesn't require any policy pages to be edited. Also not really something that needs a vote at all, in my opinion, but what do I know — I'm going to oppose it anyway (unless somebody comes up with a really compelling argument). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There were already thorough BP discussions on this, and since there were oppositions to this proposal, a created a vote. - ⸘ - dictātor · mundī  05:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * : You need to add your vote to . —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you please do it for me? I am too unwell to do this… - ⸘ - dictātor · mundī  03:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Already done! 🔥 शब्दशोधक 🔥 03:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Using new templates - re:
Well I think we can, since it also links to the glossary and the majority is voting keep at RFD. It would not be very nice for Victar, PUC, Mahagaja [the main reverters] to revert additions of bor+ and inh+ despite these. 🔥 शब्दशोधक 🔥 14:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please answer these questions: what are you going to do with these templates? Are you going to use them in new entries / etymology sections (don't care), or are you going to replace plain text that's already there with them (like )? And are you going to revert people who replace them with plain text (like )? I still don't understand where you're going with this. 212.224.228.86 14:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @PUC Yes, I'll revert those who actually replace these templates with plain text. When I edit a page (for other purposes than etymology) I'll replace the plain text with these templates, especially if it previously was "from". I'll not change a page only for these 2 templates (like at shave). At one point, I thought of substituting these but then came to my mind a messed up source code. But if someone reverts these templates, like you did, I may start substituting them and then I'll damn care about the mess. 🔥 शब्दशोधक 🔥 15:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't care if you replace a bare "From" by one of your templates, but please don't touch etymologies that are already fine (such as ), even if that's not the only thing you do. That's not what was voted on . The near-consensus you got is only for creating the templates; nothing was said on their use cases, so you currently haven't demonstrated a consensus for those substitutions you're planning to do. (Btw, this is the chief reason why I would have opposed the creation of these templates: I'm not opposed to them per se, but I think your ultimate goal is to have them become the norm and replace and  altogether, which is what I'm opposed to. And you're trying to do that on the sly, by omitting to mention their use cases altogether!)
 * So, to be clear, If you do such replacements, I will revert you (particularly in the languages I work with); I'll also feel free to replace new instances with plain text (particularly in the languages I work with). 212.224.228.86 15:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right. My ultimate goal is to have them become the norm. That doesn't mean that inh and bor are going to be replaced; they'll be used when the text isn't needed. If [you] don't care if [I] replace a bare "From" by one of [these 2] templates, would you approve of them? . 🔥 शब्दशोधक 🔥 07:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)