{{m|la|adesurio}} and {{m|la|abligurrio}}

I removed them because of those categories. They are not suffixed with -turio after all, but prefixed with ad-. The affixation categories concern the process of word formation, not just the presence of a suffix.

That's a subtle point. Desiderativeness is associative with respect to order of affixation whereas most-recently-affixedness is not. I was assuming the goal of the categories was sematic rather than etymological. Both are reasonable if conflicting aims, but since all affixes are not in general associative with respect to order, it makes sense that only most-recently-affixedness is universally useful for all affixes.

The categories are purely etymological, that's why they're placed in the etymology category. If you want to create categories of desiderative verbs, that's fine of course, but desiderativity is semantic and doesn't necessarily have to imply the use of a particular suffix. For example vīsō.

Sematics is too hard for me. That is why I like etymology; so I am happy to keep things as they are.

Sorry to keep asking you template questions, but does this mean the affix template should almost never be used for etymology notes that go farther than the nearest attested form to avoid spuriously filling the etymological category lists?

Pretty much, yes.

Thanks; I need to make some edits then.

Thank you for your help on lectio. Just one question-- are you treating -to and -ito as separate suffixes because they are formed against different stems, and therefore not offering either as a canonical form? This does make sense, especially given the agito exception. To be clear, is it still correct to treat -turio as the canonical form of -urio, for example in esurio, and -sito in haesito as a form of -tito? I misunderstood and assumed you were trying to find a canonical form for -to/-ito as well. I think we were editing at the same time; I hope you know I wasn't trying to engage in an edit fight.

Yes, I'm treating them as separate suffixes, and also -titō. For haesitō, you can think of it this way: Since the supine of haereō is haesum, and we know the ending of the supine is -tum, you can reason that a hypothetical ending -t- alone would give haes- (i.e. removing -um from -tum gives -t-). If you then extend that ending to -titō, it follows that the result must be haesitō. Thus, the first -t- of the ending is "hidden" inside the -s- of the supine. But this doesn't work for agō, because we know that the supine is actum and therefore the endings -tō and -titō would give *actō and *actitō respectively. So the only option is to treat -itō as a separate suffix.

Just to note, though, -itō only applies when -tō clearly doesn't. If we look at habeō, we see the supine is habitum. Applying the rule of removing -um to get the -t- form, we get habit-. We then extend this to -tō to give habitō. So this verb actually has the -tō suffix, not -itō.