Truncating West Frisian etymologies

Thanks for your recent work on West Frisian, but why did you remove source words at iisberch and geslachtsryp?

Because that just duplicates the information from the Dutch entries. It's a West Frisian entry, so we shouldn't be explaining the origin of words in all kinds of other languages.

How does that differ from tracing an etymology via Latin to Greek in the entry of some modern European language?

It doesn't. You have to think about how many times you're going to have to copy that information, and that each copy has to be kept in sync with all the others. That's why duplication should be avoided. In any case, I consider a borrowing a more significant node in the history of word than mere inheritance. Inheritance basically means "nothing special happened, it just kept existing". That's why I don't find the Middle Dutch form important enough to warrant duplication.

I'd say the duplication argument isn't that pressing for etymologies as the risk of incorrect divergence is in practice smaller than in definitions, though duplicating morphologically identical etymologies (e.g. just an older orthography) should be avoided. There certainly doesn't seem to be any harm in having older etyma when there isn't a dispute about the direction. In any case the older stage in geslachtsryp was also a calque, so that's not mere inheritance.