Template talk:blend

Bold vs. italics

Copied:

Alternate spellings and inflections are headwords. The blends fit the example of other words of origin in the etymology better... unless you want to bold all such English words in an etymology. Davilla 05:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The new user-customizable Category:Form of templates let readers customize how all such templates display the used and the mentioned words. {{blend}} seems to be able to benefit from the same functionality. I propose reverting {{blend}} to this version in order to take advantage of that new functionality. Rod (A. Smith) 00:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Wiktionary:Etymology these should be italicized. Can I change it again, or do we have to bring this to a vote? DAVilla 17:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold and made the italics changes.--Williamsayers79 08:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Now spanned by use-with-mention, so italics/bolding is automatic. DAVilla 01:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(Discussion on this topic has been overtaken by events.)—msh210℠ 22:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: Category:Form of templates is now at Category:Form-of templates. - dcljr (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Three suggested changes

They are that:

1. A period be added to the end of the sentence the template creates, as in other etymologies, definition lines, et cetera;
2. The nodot parameter be made available; and,
3. The category name be changed to Category:Portmanteaux.

† Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 09:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Missing language, gloss, transliteration, script

I can't used this template to create, e.g., the following (at Franglais). —Michael Z. 2008-08-07 20:04 z

From {{etyl|fr}}, [[Appendix:Glossary#Blend|blend]] of {{term|français||French|lang=fr}} and {{term|anglais||English|lang=fr}}.

An alternative would be to allow its use without parameters. This template would still supply the link and categories, but an editor could format the terms in any way they wanted. The current version is demonstrably inadequate: it forces the replacement of two instances of {{term}}, but doesn't actually include any of the functions of {{term}}. —Michael Z. 2008-08-21 22:42 z

I suggest separating template:portmanteau from template:blend so that portmanteau can function as you desire. 76.66.193.90 12:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this needs gloss1=, gloss2=, like {{compound}}. It probably needs lang= and may need tr= and sc=, but I don't have direct experience with those. DCDuring TALK 01:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It has had lang, tr, and sc, but I've added glossn now. Please undo if I've broken anything, of course.​—msh210℠ 16:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't needed it very much until just recently. No reason for it not to work like {{compound}}. Thanks. DCDuring TALK 17:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

additional words

This should be expanded for additional parameters, if the portmanteaus are created from more than two words. 76.66.201.179 11:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Done.—msh210℠ 22:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Actual portmanteaus

I understand the point that all portmanteaus are blends, but what about actual portmanteaus? Why shouldn't the more restrictive term be used in those cases where it is appropriate? Ohms law 01:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Multiple languages

What do you do if it’s a blend of words from multiple languages? 〜britannic124 (talk) 05:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Grease pit convo

• Wiktionary:Grease_pit/2017/May#.7B.7Bblend.7D.7D_should_add_categories_for_prefixes_and_suffixes.2C_like_.7B.7Baffix.7D.7D_does

--Barytonesis (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)