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

Creation of Template:inh+ and Template:bor+

Voting on: The creation of the following new templates, {{inherited+}} ({{inh+}}) and {{borrowed+}} ({{bor+}}), which would generate the full etymological statement: ‘Inherited / Borrowed from’ before the term, in keeping with other etymology templates ({{lbor}}, {{slbor}}, {{ubor}}, {{psm}}, {{clq}}, {{sl}}, {{obor}}, {{blend}}, {{translit}}, {{univ}}) that generate a full statement.

Rationale: Once upon a time, {{bor}} generated the text ‘Borrowing from […] ’ until that was changed by a vote, for it to be in line with {{inh}} and {{der}}. Back then most of the other aforesaid templates (that generate a full etymological statement) were not well known to editors, but now that these have seen a rise in their usage in etymologies, it is high time that all etymology templates (but {{der}} for obvious reasons) generated the full text, not only for the sake of consistency, but also on grounds of a proper and logical display of the etymology: a reader should be able to read what the exact mode of derivation of a word is instead of having to see the wikitext or check the categories.

Further details: The templates {{inh}} and {{bor}} would still function as it does now; the distinction without a difference being that, {{inh+}} and {{bor+}} should generally be used at the beginning of the etymology, unless the editor uses some other formatting style, as this. Also, the new templates would have |nocap= as a parameter.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Vote created: -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 00:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion:

• User talk:Inqilābī § Regarding etymologies...
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2021/March § Template:inh+ and Template:bor+
• User talk:Benwing2 § In light of your automated standardisations…
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2021/April § Proposing consistent wording for etymology templets
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/2021-04/Creation of Template:inh+ and Template:bor+

Support

1. Support; this would make things very clear. It would be nice to just type a + sign to make the full text appear instead of |withtext= or something like that. Even the flexibility won't be taken away from the already existing templates. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 01:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Support as creator, though the original proposer is User:Brutal Russian. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 02:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Support for being a splendid idea :3 I think such quasi-aliases are in principle better than multiplying parameters for the same reasons we aren't adding categories to {{etyl}} using parameters (or even manually). Brutal Russian (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Support. Imetsia (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

   To clarify my position and respond somewhat to the opposition, I'm lukewarm on the inh+ template and would prefer it not included. However, I don't think it does much harm to have the extra template; and the addition of the bor+ template outweighs my slight dislike of inh+. Imetsia (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

5. Support I like reading the Etymology section and I believe it would look better with these templates. Birdofadozentides (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
6. Support.--Tibidibi (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
7. Support I think that the largest problem with Wiktionary is that it's very inconsistent in terms of entry layout; take for instance whether definitions should be sentences or individual words, or whether synonyms should be listed with the syn template or with a specific header. I hope this might at least help somewhat fix this problem. Mårtensås (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
8. Support Not so keen on {{inh+}} but for borrowings, a template that produces text is a real convenience. I remember {{bor}} doing so in 2017 and that's how I'm not used to manually entering "Borrowed from". If the text "Borrowed from" is to be considered as important in etymologies of borrowed terms, then it is only logical to make it more convenient for the editor to include that text. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 13:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
9. Support beacuse I always need to check the source to see if inh or der (or a forgotten etyl). Especially for latin-french, latin-italian, the relationship is not clear to me. Also, for inh relationships understood to be evident: they are not so evident to the general public. It might be an internal borrowing, or simply der. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ | 05:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
10. Support because {{bor+}} without {{inh+}} will be confusing, and plain {{bor}} and {{inh}} have their uses. RichardW57 (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
11. Support --Akletos (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
12. Support. To those below saying that our users don't care about this and that it will confuse them, I almost always see Wiktionary referenced by people who have a special interest in language and linguistics. I think we're already filling a certain niche, whether we like it or not, and I doubt the linguistically inclined users will be at all bothered by this change. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
13. Support Can we also make a :Help page with an overview of the different templates and when and where and how to use them? Along with a style guide on how to phrase these things? It's the thing I think I've been most confused and uncertain about ever since I joined this wiki. Specifically how to handle words (or names or proper noun-like terms) that are a mashup of or are inspired by two words, one or both from another language or another era, modified in a way as to make them more recognizable. Think things like any multilingual word pun that caught on, many product names that derive from other languages, the like. How would you mark the changes?! These things would be cleared up with a compresensive overview somewhere, and having all templates consistent with each other is definitely moving in the right direction. 110521sgl (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

    @110521sgl: Sure. There is great inconsistency regarding the usage of templets. For example, {{bor}} should be used only for natural loanwords, i.e., loans that one linguistic group has borrowed from another through historical contact, but it’s wrongly used also for transliterations, learned borrowings, etc., even though we have separate templets dedicated to them. I too believe some information page would be helpful; but before that we would need some BP discussion to determine the linguistic margins. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 15:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

14. Support Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
15. Support Absolutely, however I honestly don't understand why this vote was created. New templates that add additional functionality without changing existing functionality shouldn't need a vote. Benwing2 (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

    @Benwing2: Then can we just implement this, even if this vote doesn't pass? 🔥ಶಬ್ದಶೋಧಕ🔥 09:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

16. Support — I often use {{m+}} and expect I’d use this as well. I cannot see an objection; if one does not like these templates, then simply do not use them; how would its use by others be harmful? (And, per Benwing2, why does this need a vote? There was some discussion before {{coinage}} was created, but there was no vote.)  --Lambiam 08:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
17. Support I have found myself telling people to click on "edit" and check if the template used was inh or bor or der, and have found it strange to recommend such a thing at all. This template facilitates display of the relationship between word and etyma, in a non-obstructive way for existing entries.--Ser be être 是^talk/stalk 03:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
18. Support. Not particularly in favour of the new templates and I'm unlikely to adopt them immediately, but I don't see any serious harm in allowing their use. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
19. Support. Why not? We have templates that generate full etymological statements. The ones that do not generate "Borrowed from" or "Inherited from" may still be useful if a clarification (such as "Possibly" or "Probably") is needed before the statement which in these cases should be uncapitalized. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. This seems like templatisation creep; we can and do write it in full when it might be ambiguous, and in the vast majority of cases it isn't. A word that travels directly from Arabic to English must be borrowed, and one indirectly must be, well, indirectly derived. We don't need to write that out, because it's obvious. The templates serve the needs of specific categorisation, but that doesn't mean that readers need to see it written out in most cases. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

   Note to all opposers: this proposal means 2 more templates, but is no way going to change the current templates and one can continue to use the current ones instead of the new ones. This is, imho, no way worth opposing because this doesn't change anything already existing; just adds something. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 16:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

   That's very naïve; this vote will enable mass bot replacement, and it'll probably become standard if it passes. And if it does become standard, I'll use it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

   What I meant was that one would still be able to use other words like first attested as, via, etc. for implying inherited/borrowed since the already existing templates won't change. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 16:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

   Though it is true that giving the first ancestor language makes the relation unambiguous in the majority of cases, this is absolutely not something that is obvious to all readers. Plenty of native speakers of English are unclear about the ancestors of English or about the grouping of nearby Indo-European languages; for many non-native speakers the situation is worse. Making clear whether the first 'transfer' is a borrowing or not adds a lot of clarity for laypeople. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

   I for one started out as a reader here. Reading WT helped me learn about language diversity, if not anything beyond. When I started editing here, even then I knew virtually nothing about linguistics; and my edits during that time were limited to pure lexicographical things. If the presentation of the etymologies had been consistent, it would have steaded me a lot. I living example am I ! -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 17:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

   @Metaknowledge: There’s much reason to distinguish between inheritances, loanwords (and others like learned loans, etc.). Many of our etymologies use {{der}} (either because the editor genuinely did not know about the precise etymology—which is acceptable—, or owing to that infamous botter’s indiscriminate and wilful mass replacement of the deprecated etyl with der), that is why we cannot do without the proposed distinction, lest misguided etymologies be presented. And readers need to see them, all amateur linguists (who make a majority of our readers) would like to have them; those who are uninterested are not even bothered about the topic etymology, and are even more likely to never visit this project again after they accidentally slipped here once ! And what’s more, categorization and presentation are equally important. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 17:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Metaknowledge's reasoning. I don't think the templates will help the readers but will certainly (unnecessarily) affect editors. By the way, although this vote's purpose was bringing homogeneity to the etymology sections, if anything, the templates will probably do the opposite, making sure that some etymology sections use "Inherited from", some "From", some "<"; the reader will get confused as to what means what and new editors will have to choose between five templates, rather than three. Thadh (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

   There'll be a bot operation to replace 'from's with the new templates. As it is, I've never encountered '<' in an etymology. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 01:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

   My understanding is that using "<" is already strongly discouraged. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

   The only way it will affect editors in is by making it possible to add the relevant text with one button press instead of typing it out. Editors already have to type it out if they don't want to confuse readers, and I don't see how automating this can be seen as unnecessary. The wordings in etymology sections are already inconsistent and the reader is already being misguided, it literally can't be made any more sure than it already is. The aforementioned bot job will make it consistent; the template is to make sure it stays that way. New editors will choose between adding a plus when they need the full wording and not adding it when they don't - not exactly likely to induce existential anxiety in them. Brutal Russian (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

   @Thadh: Your saying about readers / new editors getting confused is wholly absurd. New editors are expected to edit coherently here. Maybe you are recalling the struggles of your early days here as a new user; but as someone who is also not an old user like you, I also (naturally) made some mistakes in the beginning that that I corrected later. And readers who supposedly get confused by the templets would also get confused by etymologies (or any other technical stuff, as the IPA)!! I can bet most of our readers are amateur linguists, who would be happy to see a clear presentation of our etymologies. You are being too stubborn on this, much to the detriment of the wholesomeness of this project. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 17:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

3. Oppose Inheritance is always assumed; an {{inh+}} template would be pointless. I'm more on the fence about {{bor+}}, as, unlike Meta, I always write out borrowed when applicable, even in the middle of a chain. You'd be surprised how many people don't even know English isn't descended from Latin. I am however wary of this trend for {{template+}}, but regardless, since this vote is for the creation of both templates, I have to vote oppose. --{{victar|talk}} 19:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

   Countless entries use 'from' to imply a loan. For example, Hindi सभापति (sabhāpti) uses 'from {{bor|hi|sa|सभापति}}'. We take Sanskrit as an ancestor of Hindi, and so do so many readers - they can assume that this term is inherited. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 01:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

   Using that without the wording "Borrowed from" is simply bad practice, and you should've fixed that as soon as you saw it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

   Ok, but literally a lot of entries use it! It is a widespread bad-practice why can confuse readers, and this proposal will solve that. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 02:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

   Here's my counter-proposal for solving it: fix the entries already! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

   A bot operation like this would be okay, but I can't see why can't {{bor}} and {{inh}} have text like {{lbor}}, {{cal}}, etc. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 03:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

   There are cases where the source of a loan is unknown - "{{bor+|th|pi}} or {{bor|th|sa}}" is going to be quite common. RichardW57m (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

   Change that to “{{lbor|th|pi}} or {{lbor|th|sa|notext=1}}”. But yes, there are such instances for natural loans also… -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 17:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

   I don't see a reason to assume that that's what a lay reader assumes; no less importantly I don't see why an editor should assume this either. To assume inheritance one has to know the relationship between the languages, which is problematic enough for English speakers as regards to Latin or Russian speakers with regards to OCS, forget about it everywhere else. In the original discussion I assumed that borrowing, not inheritance requires no explanation - which I recognise now was also an unreasonable assumption. The current practice makes it impossible even for me as an informed editor to tell what the editors' assumption was - expecting this from a lay reader is mistaken. I'm sure some people fix this when they see it; others don't; the templates are in order to help the editors fix this themselves. This propsal is in line with the website's "Wiktionary is not paper" policy and one of eschewing gratuitous obfuscation and arbitrary unwritten rules when clarification is elementary. Why would one insist on constantly manually fixing the results of introducing arbitrary, unintuitive and most importantly unwritten (or stashed away) rules and the editors not following them? Brutal Russian (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

4. Oppose: It is far more important to have the correct etymology in the first place. I have come across a number of careless errors recently in older entries, with links to the wrong languages, so I urge all editors to double-check their submissions. This is more important than fussing with the wording of {{bor}} and {{inh}} - {{der}} is a satisfactory replacement for {{etyl}} for most users. DonnanZ (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

   @Donnanz: Agree that the correct etymology is the most important, but I don't see why it should have anything to do with this proposal. And, we're not fussing with the wording of {{bor}} and {{inh}}, we're just proposing to make two new templates for the complete wording - simple by a +. Also, Inqilābī said quite right, 'from' can be confusing as it is used for inherited and borrowed many times. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 16:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

   A big reason for this proposal is that the way you are messing with etymologies is making it sore difficult to undertake etymology cleanup. Your bot work has caused a huge concern about der-cleanup. There’s nothing wrong with the existence of etyl, it should be cleaned up by editors who are knowledgeable about the linguistic history of the language, it’s not a children’s game! You have not stopped your irksome, uncalled-for bot work despite concerns raised by four editors on your talk page. Lastly, it is actually not permissible (see last 3 messages). By the way your allegations are unfounded. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 04:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

   I don't have a bot to carry out bot work with, you're mistaken there. DonnanZ (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

   I was wondering when you would say that. Manual drudge is but an ancient form of bot edits. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 13:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

   I'm not authorised to run a bot, and don't want a bot, and I can pick up more errors by manual editing. Bots don't "fix" all necessary {{etyl}} cleanups, there is usually some mopping up to do. DonnanZ (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

   @Inqilābī From the perspective of "How to Win Friends and Influence People", your conduct towards Donnanz (and to a lesser degree towards Thadh) is less than ideal. Right now you need three more support votes to get the proposal to pass, getting one oppose voter to cross the floor would kill two birds with one stone. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

   @Lingo Bingo Dingo: I don't know how many user names that user has, but I don't believe in DICTATORship. I won't be changing my vote. DonnanZ (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

   @Lingo Bingo Dingo, Donnanz: I harbour no personal enmity against anyone here. I was only replying to MK where I told how {{der}} has got so proliferated in our etymologies thanks to the disruptive edits of our honourable Mr. Don’s (with all respect to him). -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 06:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

   I will gloss over and dismiss the assertion that I make "disruptive edits", but I find his deprecation of {{der}} difficult to understand. After all, every use of {{bor}} and {{inh}} also generates an entry in a "derived from" category, e.g. for deprecate. DonnanZ (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

5. Oppose: This vote should have been split into two options. I am with creating {{bor+}} but {{inh+}} is really unnecessary. — Fenakhay ^{(تكلم معاي · ما ساهمت)} 20:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose both on procedural issue (would have been better to propose them separately) and unconvinced that they are needed rather than just writing it out. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

   @Fenakhay, DannyS712: It is undesirable to create separate votes for this inasmuch as we are going to uniformise most etymology templets through this vote. I think you have not understood the scope of this vote.

   @DannyS712: Those who deal a lot with etymologies will benefit from these new templets— you will get full etymological statements with just an extra ‘+’ sign!— instead of having to write that part manually. Bear in mind that {{inh}} & {{bor}} are the only major etymology templets that do not display the full text. Nothing will change if this vote pass, a bot operation will implement the proposal. You may yet be not convinced, but do you really think you need to oppose the vote when the proposal would not interfere with your editing? -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 07:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

7. Oppose I don’t believe the source codes will be more readable with these templates, but I do expect them to be a source of confusion for newbs and oldfags alike. Now the only thing the etymology templates do is categorize, this is easy to convey, but introduction of the plus templates is a step towards mingling dictionary content and technical execution. Hence it was right to even remove formulation options in the form of parameters. Manaman should little be influenced by templates on how he word etymologies. Fay Freak (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
8. Oppose per my comments in the BP and per Metaknowledge above. - -sche (discuss) 04:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

   @-sche: This proposal is different from the one that was originally proposed by me. There would be no |notext=, only using {{inh+}} / {{bor+}} would generate the text. In cases of partial inheritance & partial borrowing, you would have to use the parameter |nocap= only once in the etymology section (with either of the two templets). Please tell exactly where your problems lie. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 08:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per what has been said, with some elaboration below. The pro's don't seem to weigh up against the cons, particularly in the case of inh+ which seems like it'd introduce a load of unnecessary clutter.

These new templates would introduce inconsistencies in etymologies across mainspace: bor and inh now never generate text and are quite rarely introduced with manually added text (a status quo I am happy with), and more specialized templates such as lbor more or less always generate text (notext is rarely used for them). This means there is currently not much inconsistency in how each of these types of etymological derivation is handled and displayed - it's usually just a chain of "from"s with more specialized templates where applicable, with all etymology templates but der, inh and bor being considered specialized. Adding these templates in some entries but not others depending on editor preferences would break that consistency in the handling of inheritance and borrowing and render the formatting of our etymology sections less predictable. (I think the uniformization rationale for inh+ and bor+ is weak btw - comparing inheritance, a very general and common type of derivation, with the relatively specific (semi-)learned borrowings, is comparing apples and oranges.)

There seems to be a slightly stronger case to be made for bor+, but even where that'd be useful (rarely - imo we should assume that the reader can generally distinguish between borrowing and inheritance), it seems preferable to add the text manually or at most add an optional text=1 (or tx=1) parameter to the extant bor template instead of creating a new template. (That way, the added complication of having inh/inh+ and bor/bor+ template pairs where the other templates have no such "plus" equivalents is avoided, too.)

Resolving the inconsistency introduced by the proposed templates would entail either using inh+ or bor+ virtually everywhere or not using these templates at all (cf Metaknowledge's oppose rationale). Since I oppose the former, particularly inh+, I oppose this vote to discourage the introduction of new inconsistencies. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mnemosientje: I do not find your objections meaningful. inh+ & bor+ are to be used generally at the beginning of the etymology, and everywhere else the use of inh & bor would be retained. These new templets have been proposed so that the full etymological text is displayed with the addition of a + sign (inspired by {{m+}}); a provision for |notext= has not been made for the obvious reason that it would irk the editor to use it all the time (some people actually did call that parameter objectional in the BP discussion), and hence this compromise in the form of these new templets. To add the text manually, needless to say, is tiresome. And, I do not believe your claim that ‘the reader can generally distinguish between borrowing and inheritance’: only people with a knowledge of linguistics can do so, and a vast majority of our readers are linguistics-illiterate. Furthermore, the display of the full etymological statement would help (to-be) amateur linguistics greatly at understanding the types of etymologies, there’s no point in showing some while hiding others (however basic be inheritances and loanwords). -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 00:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mnemosientje: The template will mainly be used at the beginning of the etymology, the rest of the "froms" being unaffected. The specialised templates are mostly used in single-term statements, and the + templates will make inherited and borrowed single-term statements consistent with those. In my editing practice I've found this sorely missing, and I assure you that there's currently a lot of inconsistency in spelling this out. I've been doing it everywhere myself, and I think the need for 95% of readers is obvious. The idea came to me when I discovered {{m+}}, and herein you have another consistency argument. Again, the "virtually everywhere" will mean "beginning of etymologies" - which is again consisten with the "virtually everywhere" of all the other etymology templates except der, inh and bor. Please, if you think my arguments have merit and if you believe there might be a not inconsiderable number of people who might agree with me and find the new templates useful, consider at least changing your vote to "abstain". Brutal Russian (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

1. Oppose Instead of adding more text (our etymologies are already too long), and have more templates, couldn't we include (sort-of semantic) CSS classes to the terms, and then have some preference/gadget generate emoji arrows/tooltips/etc. to indicate the details, for those who always want to see them? – Jberkel 13:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

   @Jberkel: The text will generally be added just at the beginning of the etymology - surely it's a modest sacrifice in the name of clarity ("Wiktionary is not paper"). Don't you agree that the great majority of readers, having no knowledge of linguistics and only a vague conception of the relationship between various languages, will by default want to see these clarifications? There seem to already exist customizable templates ({{BCE}}), and if necessary this text could be made removable. With this in mind, would you please consider at least abstaining? Brutal Russian (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

   @Jberkel: But the reality is that there are already at least 10 templets that use the etymological text; you are of course welcome to make a proposal about dealing with these, but this is not the appropriate place to do so! If you remove your oppose vote, then we shall be glad to consider your opinion— after all you would not be achieving any long-term goal by opposing this proposal. Besides, why our etymologies are so long is because many of them have not been updated for years: for example, even when the etymon’s entry is created, the cognates are not deleted from the etymology section. Also, some people like User:Sgconlaw are fond of writing unnecessarily huge etymologies by surface-analyzing Middle & Old English words in the English entry itself (which could be shown in the respective entries), by lengthily dwelling upon PIE roots, and abruptly ending the etymology chain and then starting ‘The Middle/Old English word is from […] ’ instead of simply using ’from […] , from […] ’. So you see that our inherent problem is the editing style, rather than the etymology itself. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 01:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

   Re-reading this a proposal again, it seems to be mostly about reducing the "tiresomeness" of manually adding the text, saving keystrokes at all costs, in the same vein as those cryptic 2-letter shortcuts. I think one reason of removing automatic texts was to push the decision to the editors, to let them choose the appropriate wording (which might not be the same in all cases). – Jberkel 07:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

   @Jberkel: Not just about tiresomeness, it’s more about inconsistency: if 10 templates (ironically they are used the least) can generate the text, then inh & bor should be no exception. We can come to your idea of ‘hiding’ the text somehow, later on. For now, please do not oppose the proposal, for, if we do not achieve this consistency across all templates, it would be difficult to get to your innovative idea. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 16:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

   @Jberkel: For "letting them choose the appropriate wording", the templates {{inh}} and {{bor}} will remain untouched. 🔥ಶಬ್ದಶೋಧಕ🔥 07:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

   Why new same-but different templates? "This is, imho, no way worth opposing because […] [it] just adds something" – that's exactly the problem. We are creating a culture in which redundant/overlapping templates are added because no consensus can be found on the existing ones, fragmenting the whole environment. – Jberkel 08:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

   @Jberkel: We already have {{m}} & {{m+}}, for the record. Overlapping templates are there for flexibility, it’s up to the editors to choose which one they will to use. There’s nothing wrong with them, because it gives us the option to have the text generated or not. And why we are proposing the new templates is because parameters like |notext= were frowned upon in the BP discussion. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 16:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose. These are unnecessary. If you want to say "Borrowed from" or "Inherited from", just write it in. No reason to complicate things by adding two new templates. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Abstain

Abstain ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

1. Abstain Not particularly inclined for or against the proposal. Kutchkutch (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

   @Kutchkutch: A bit unexpected vote, since I've seen you use the full text manually many times. Don't you think this would make it easier? 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 12:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

   I am also taken aback at Kutchkutch’s not supporting this vote. After all, he was an early user to have used ‘Inherited from […] ’… Seems like he’s not properly considered the vote. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 16:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

   @Inqilābī, SodhakSH: I remember when MewBot added withtext=1 in November 2017 and WingerBot removed withtext= from {{bor}}/{{borrowed}}/{{borrowing}} in June 2018, and I was aware of the linked discussions as they were happening. Of course, the proposal would make it much easier to display the etymological text by simply adding +. However, having the etymological text written out it is more meaningful than a shortcut, and as Fay Freak said I don’t believe the source codes will be more readable with these templates. Regardless of outcome, your efforts are much appreciated. Kutchkutch (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

2. Abstain moved from oppose. Was under the impression that this was to be used throughout the ety, not just at the start of the ety. (So Inherited from x, inherited from y, borrowed from z .. ) which would be weird af (so I opposed). The inconsistency argument I made earlier still holds, but tbf I don't oppose it strongly enough to keep the oppose vote. In any case, as some others have pointed out here, a vote on the creation of a template like this seems a bit unorthodox (usually people just create 'em), although surprisingly many people seem to have opinions on the matter... (A vote on how we want to standardize etymologies would be another matter, but this appears not to be intended to standardize all etymologies according to its premise, but merely to facilitate one editing style in a status quo that has multiple different editing styles existing side by side.) For the record, I still think specifying inheritance is really unnecessary for most (if not all) languages. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

@Inqilābī: There are many who are supporting {{bor+}} but opposing/are not-so keen for {{inh+}}. Sad, but seeing the current votes, it seems unlikely that this vote will pass. Do you plan on creating another vote only for {{bor+}}? Also @Metaknowledge if this vote doesn't pass, would it still be okay to use the full text manually for {{inherited}} as currently on many entries? 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 12:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Writing out the full text is always encouraged where it removes confusion. As you pointed out, many Hindi entries have failed to do this. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: It is too tiresome to write the etymological text, and hence this vote (among other reasons). I hope you understand this simple language. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 16:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

For Hindi, you can use {{lbor}} anyway. Also people like to write something is “a tatsama” rather than “borrowed”, or even in addition to it, as on तजना (tajnā) which is “borrowed from” and then “a semi-tatsama“. I didn’t want editors to be influenced on wording etymology by these plus templates. Whereas {{lbor}} and {{slbor}} exists because of perhaps explaining less known processes by linking, while to link the terms “borrowed” or “borrowing” would be overkill—it wasn’t but about tiresomeness. Fay Freak (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I have now fixed Hindi तजना (tajnā). I was the first Indo-Aryan editor to have systematically begun using {{lbor}} & {{slbor}}; and upon my urging, others have also started using them. It will take some time for the nonstandard terminologies to go away. But {{bor}} is used a lot for adstrate words; {{lbor}} and {{slbor}} are reserved for superstrate words. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 17:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@SodhakSH: I am not keen on having only either of the two proposed templets. It makes no sense to me to make a compromise: I do not believe {{inh+}} should be left out. Let there be no consideration for those people who crave {{bor+}} alone and have drowned the whole proposal owing to {{inh+}}. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 16:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, maybe what makes sense to you is not what's best for the dictionary. If a supermajority supports a certain outcome, then we should probably find a way to make it happen. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• I still can't understand the point of this vote. It's much more wiki-style to just create a damn template, use it, and hope you don't screw things up. Indian subcontinent (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Indian subcontinent: I don't understand what you mean (and perhaps you don't know much about votes); for such a change which is opposed by many a vote is needed. Whatever, go ahead and consider supporting this vote for the reasons above — and would 2 extra templates do any harm? 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 04:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  Even as the 5th most prolific Wiktionarian ever, I'm not allowed to vote, sadly. There was never a formal vote banning me from voting, though, which I could use as a strong argument one day. You know, sometimes I want to start a vote "Permit Wonderfool to vote", mostly just to take the piss...Indian subcontinent (talk)

  Why aren't you allowed to vote? Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  Bloody hell, I should've checked who were you. Never thought a user called "Indian subcontinent" could be WF. 🔥शब्दशोधक🔥 13:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@victar, Fenakhay, DannyS712, Mnemosientje, -sche: Hey, thank you guys for voting. I see that some of you see one of the proposed templates as more welcome than the other. However, consider that the very purpose of this proposal is to give people an option to add the relevant text in one single button hit, and thus ease the life of those editors like me who care about clarifying borrowing vs. inherited confusions, and especially those great majority of readers who would lose nothing, but potentially gain ease of mind, if nothing else, after seeing the exact way of derivation spelled out for them. Doing this with both inh and bor seems the right thing to do - I would find it hard to explain to a new editor why this convenience option has been given to them in the case of one, but barred in the case of another. So, even if you don't think that one of the templates will be useful to you, but you might use the other one, and if you believe there are editors and readers out there who will find either one of them useful (have a look at all those new "support votes"!), and if you don't specifically believe that having both will interfere with reading and editing Wiktionary - please consider at the very least casting an "abstain" vote instead. —Also, -sche, just to clarify, this is indeed an entirely different proposal from the one you opposed in BP and will not affect the currently-existing templates or require setting any parameters. It will encourage following the "Wiktionary is not paper" guideline more closely, but it also makes doing this as easy as hitting the + button once. Brutal Russian (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Decision

• No consensus: 19–10–2. Imetsia (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

  I thank everyone for having backed this proposal; we almost won it! It is upsetting that people flocked together to oppose a harmless proposal, but what’s most weird is that User:Donnanz was the only one without any reason for his opposition. Wish you all the best for a better Wiktionary. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 11:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)