Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Module talk:etymology/templates. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Module talk:etymology/templates, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Module talk:etymology/templates in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Module talk:etymology/templates you have here. The definition of the word Module talk:etymology/templates will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofModule talk:etymology/templates, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Links to the same page
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Erutuon: Right now, {{desc}} works in a very different way to {{l}} when the link points to a different language section on the same page. At chwerw#Middle Welsh, under Descendants, if I write "Welsh: {{l|cy|chwerw}}", I get a link to chwerw#Welsh; but if I write "{{desc|cy|chwerw}}" I get bold-face chwerw with no link (as if it were a bare link ]). Can this be fixed so that a link is created? Thanks. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Erutuon! I think the template should always have a colon, as per the nature of the template. An alternative could be {{etyl|sh|nocat=1|nolink=1}}: but I think {{desc|sh|-}} is more appropriate in this use and simpler to boot. --Victar (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
(I realize Middle Persian is written in Book Pahlavi among other scripts, and that B.P. isn't in Unicode, but there are Latin-script entries for these words as a workaround.) — Eru·tuon18:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
No, this would be used in descendents in descendent lists with multiple scripts:
@Victar: Ahh. Well, currently {{desc|language code|-}} calls the function in Module:links, which adds the bit as well as the other information in brackets. I'd rather add this feature here than modify that module. How do you want it to look? — Eru·tuon22:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Erutuon: Well, {{l|pal|-|t=high|tr=/buland/}} yields -(/buland/, “high”), so the solution might just be to allow |1=- to pass through to {{l}}, and then filter the - out when it comes back into {{desc}}. --Victar (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Victar: So, do you mean Middle Persian: (transliteration, “gloss”)? That's badly punctuated; the colon shouldn't have anything following it on the same line. — Eru·tuon23:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Victar: Okay. Well, I don't like that format, but it would be best to templatize this so that it can be standardized. Creating a link and then deleting it is too hacky; I'll have to come up with another method. — Eru·tuon23:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Erutuon: I was alternatively also thinking I could do something like {{desc|pal|-}}{{translation|high|tr=/buland/}}. There are cases then as well, were I'll be not needing |1=, ex. {{translation|tr=/buland/}}. Perhaps we could integrate that module into {{desc}}, which might be less "hacky". --Victar (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
There also is a potential need for a {{translation}} template when you have multiple non-Latin terms on a single line, and you want to associate the translation and translation with all the items on that line, i.e. 𐫟𐫇𐫏𐫁𐫢(xwybš), 𐫟𐫇𐫏𐫢(xwyš /xwēbaš/) → 𐫟𐫇𐫏𐫁𐫢(xwybš), 𐫟𐫇𐫏𐫢(xwyš) (/xwēbaš/). --Victar (talk) 04:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'm tracking the alts parameter to try to find examples of the problem. I don't know why it would suddenly stop working when it worked before. — Eru·tuon18:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Victar: Heh. The problem was the hyphens in the language name and code (Proto-Germanic, gem-pro). It was trying to find ProtoGermanic, ProtooGermanic, ProtoooGermanic, ... and gempro, gemmpro, gemmmpro, .... Escaping fixes the problem. — Eru·tuon19:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
From {{etyl|sla|ro}} '']'', comparable to Russian {{m|ru|товарищ|tr=továrišč}}.
but
From {{inherited|ro|sla|tovarištĭ}}, comparable to {{cognate|ru|товарищ|tr=továrišč}}.
gives an error message about The language or etymology language code "sla" is not valid., because line 181 explicitly disallows language families:
181 local source = fetch_source(args, "no family")
See:
From Lua error in Module:etymology/templates at line 20: The language or etymology language code "sla" is not valid., comparable to Russianтоварищ(továrišč).
Whereas
From {{derived|ro|sla|tovarištĭ}}, comparable to {{cognate|ru|товарищ|tr=továrišč}}.
is not recognising that I've passed in the term tovarištĭ; it's just outputting ]
"Slavic" is a language family, not an actual language, so it doesn't actually have terms. You probably meant Proto-Slavic? —Rua (mew) 12:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
The alts parameter creates an error message instead of just no text if it cannot find alt forms (example), which renders the entire parameter moot. I'd like to understand why that is the case, and get it fixed. Korn (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Korn: The assumption seems to have been that you wouldn't use the parameter unless there was actually an Alternative forms section for that language. I suppose it is easier if you can add the parameter without checking for alternative forms. — Eru·tuon21:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Well, if I have to regularly check for whether there are alt forms on my own and then add the tag manually only when I find them to be there, I've gained no benefit of automatisation from the module. I cannot tackle this myself, I don't understand the jungle of modules our local coding coven has made mainly for their own administration. Korn (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
This requires that we move the existing 3= to alt= and the existing 4= to t=. I don't think there are all that many existing uses of 3= and 4=, so this shouldn't be too hard. What do you think? Benwing2 (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
because the 'bar' and 'baz' terms will end up after the whole tree and badly formatted, instead of before the tree on the same line as 'foo'. Benwing2 (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure why that's a relative motivation, but no one should ever need to do {{desctree|LANG|foo}}, {{l|LANG|bar}}, {{l|LANG|baz}}. People should be filling in {{alter}} on the relative page. --{{victar|talk}}03:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Victar The original motivation was that I was trying to obsolete {{etymtree}} and in fact the usage you claim should not be needed is quite common, and the terms aren't always suitable for Alternative forms. Benwing2 (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Victar This is really ugly syntax, as for that matter is the very common {{desc|LANG|foo}}, {{l|LANG|bar}}, {{l|LANG|baz}}. It's even worse if LANG is an etymology language, because then the {{l}}'s have to use the parent language. I still don't see why you prefer this syntax over the simpler syntax {{desc|LANG|foo|bar|baz}}. This works very much like {{alter}}, which replaced earlier invocations of {{l|this}}, {{l|that}} in a similar fashion. Benwing2 (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: You are, of course, welcome to that opinion, but you should revert your changes and start a discussion first to gauge support for their implementation. --{{victar|talk}}05:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Victar I just saw all your messages and reverts; real life intervened in a big way. I did not intentionally remove any functionality and I'm not terribly happy that you feel the need to force this issue over some added functionality that (modulo a few accidental edge cases) caused you no harm. I will definitely be starting a BP discussion. Benwing2 (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: I figured real life snagged you, which I why I didn't wait on you. Hope everything is OK. @Erutuon guessed that the above was unintended. It really does affect me considerably because filling {{desc}} term requests is something I often do and visually seeing if a term in nulled out with {{desc|lang|-}} is really helpful. I'm not totally opposed to multiple terms -- my largest argument against it is I don't want to promote people being lazy and not using {{alter}} on the proper pages. I look forward to the discussion. --{{victar|talk}}21:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
{{desc}}: moving alts after translation; automatic transliteration; multiple-form translation
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Would moving alts after the translation be possible and agreeable? The usual and expected approach in etymology is to list all the forms and then give a translation, and that the translation currently preceeds the alt forms is confusing; doubly confusing if you add a qualifying text after, so that it's impossible to tell which of the forms the qualification belongs to.
Come to think of it: currently alts=1 automatically gives transliteration, but not the default - this doesn't seem helpful. Is there a reason transliteration shouldn't be made automatic for main forms as well?
In case of several forms, all with transliterations, I think it's desirable that the translation be given in separate brackets with the text "all meaning X" - otherwise it will again raise questions as to which forms the translation belongs to.