Template talk:etystub

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search


Use this template if the etymology of an entry is missing or you think it is incorrect.

This template takes the lang= argument, just like {{rfe}}.

Consider instead {{rfe}}, which allows both a language and a reason.

Note that both this template and {{rfe}} are used.



The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

etystub, rfe[edit]

The templates {{etystub}} and {{rfe}} probably should be merged. They have the same function and the same parameters, so a simple redirect would fix it, if we could all agree. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

They aren't quite identical. {{rfe}} says "this has no etymology", {{etystub}} says "this has no etymology or an incomplete etymology" and is used where we have a stub of an etymology but more is wanted. What might be better would be clarify the function so we have one template where there is no etymology and one where there is a basic one but nowhere near complete. This would allow an easy split (or a future easy split) of the etymology request categories.
If the usage of the two is conflated (not unlikely), then the simplest thing to do would probably be for a bot to look at all the etymology sections that contain one of these templates. If it's the only thing in the section then replace {{etystub}} with {{rfe}}, if it isn't the only thing in the section then make the opposite change (where necessary for both of course). The wording of {{etystub}} could then be simplified to say "this entry has an incomplete etymology..." only. Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
So far, I've redirected {{etystub}} to {{rfe}} and nobody's undone it, but I don't want to close this debate yet based on Thryduulf's comment. I still favor a single template though, lacking etymology to me can mean lacking a whole etymology or part of one. I don't think we should differentiate between the two with regards to our templates. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
My redirect has been undone (justifiably) by msh210. Still, I think the issue here is not so much if these templates are distinct, as whether people use them as such. If people only used {{rfe}} when there is no etymology, and only used {{etystub}} when a partial etymology is there, this could make sense. Since they don't, merge 'em. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe redirect rfe to etystub, i. e. the other way around? -- Prince Kassad 16:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't realize that your (Martin's) redirect had been due to this discussion, which I hadn't even seen when I reverted. As noted in my reversion edit summary, I think the templates are good for different things: rfe for missing and etystub for incomplete etymologies. PK's solution, just above, sounds good to me, though.​—msh210 (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I said that, just people don't use them that way. They tend to always use one or the other for all situations. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Not sure what people tend to do. (Stats?) I know I use them as I described.​—msh210 (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I try to use them based on the presence or absence of a preexisting etymology content, consistent with the message they send. I have used them this way for several months at least, probably dating from the opening of this thread. DCDuring TALK 18:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No consensus, striking. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)