Template talk:surface analysis

RFD discussion: October–November 2021

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

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.

---

Template:surface analysis

Yet another. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep for standardising the wording of synchronic analyses in etymology sections. Kutchkutch (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

An unilateral decision to create a template in a bid to standardise the wording is unfair. It’s up to the user whether to write ‘equivalent to’ or ‘synchronically analyzable as’ or ‘surface analysis as’ or ‘synchronically’, etc. If standardisation is desired, then a BP discussion has to be started first, and community consensus is required: given that this will affect all etymologies. Pinging @Mahagaja, PUC, Thadh. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 12:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: 'standardisation' in the comment above does not refer to any compulsion or unilateral decision to use one specific wording. 'standardisation' simply means making whatever wording is desired to be displayed without having to type it out manually every time. Perhaps the template could accommodate for more than one wording. If such a template is kept, it should still be up to the user whether or not it should be used. Kutchkutch (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Surface analyses are a tricky thing and we're not even all on the same page whether we want them in etymologies, let alone what the wording should be. I think this template should've been discussed first, but I'm not against the template itself per se. Thadh (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep provisionally. I like the idea of having this template, but I would prefer the wording "By surface analysis, ..." I'll change my vote to delete if this doesn't get done. Imetsia (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the requested change has been made. Imetsia (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Note that Svartava has already been misusing the concept of surface analysis (see the recent discussions at Talk:देवभाषा#Sanskritic compounds), so having this templet is really not worth the while. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 18:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Inqilābī Very clever.! It is misuse according to you. Even in that discussion Kutchkutch and AryamanA are actually not saying to remove them, and Kutchkutch IS adding them, see diff. but you won't dare object to Kutchkutch and would only accuse me. DO NOT BRING OFF-TOPIC discussions here, our debate regarding surface analysis of tatsamas is irrelevant here. Svartava2 (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Delete: "Equivalent of to" which is used most everywhere, is plainer english and doesn't require a link to explain. --{{victar|talk}} 04:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@victar: If I remember correctly, I have seen you changing other wordings to ‘equivalent to’: but please do not do so, let the wording used by the original editor be kept; there is no need to standardise it. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 07:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

'Weak keep; the wording may be clunky but the idea of a consistent, machine-parseable template for this is good and was requested by someone working to extract/reuse Wiktionary content Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2021/August#Morphology_section. A template would also allow people to customize what wording is displays to them, like the display of "{{,}}" or a few other templates can be user-customized. - -sche (discuss) 08:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Abstain for now. I oppose standardization via imposition of a template. If somebody would rather type {{surface analysis}} than surface analysis that much seems harmless. Don't go changing existing pages to enforce a particular style. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Delete, Needlessly "technical" wording is off-putting, at best a distraction, for normal users; agree with User:Victar. DCDuring (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm uncertain about the exact implementation and style of this template and it may be that its creation cannot be justified on grounds of standardizing the wording alone, I don't know. However the point brought up by -sche about parsability is really good. Compare e.g. testen, verklagen, verladen, verhungern, verlaufen. Fytcha (talk) 10:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep as creator. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 08:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• RFD-Kept: 4-3 (no consensus, 57% keep votes) —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 08:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Svartava2: Isn't the final score 3-4? This is a deletion discussion so the proponents are those that want to delete it. Fytcha (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  Showing the keep before the delete votes is common, and one can just count the votes for themselves. Added the percentage of keep votes in my earlier comment. —Svārtava ^{[t•c•u•r]} 13:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, agreed. Imetsia (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Seems like a focus for bad behavior. DCDuring (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Stricken, already voted. Imetsia (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)