Forum:Transclude Etymology

Forums: Index > Rin's Travel Agency > Archive > Transclude Etymology

		DrakeyC - Crossing the distant night...Wandering the desert sea...The gods' voices are mirages... TALK - 22:53, April 29, 2014 (UTC)
		As I'm sure most know, when it comes to disambig, the Etymology for the term goes off the parent and stays off the tagged pages. What I'm suggesting is we transclude the Etymology sections in these cases on the tagged pages. It's pretty simple, just set it up on Grand Cross and the Ability page as an example. We cool with this?

		23:06, April 29, 2014 (UTC) Technobliterator Talk
		There might be a better way to do it than relying on the transclusion like that. Somehow I can see an etymology template working for settings. Some sort of special box for it? Though I don't know if the etymology sections should be glorified like that. If that was included, then things could be transcluded another way. But I'm actually indifferent to my own idea. The other thing I have to offer would be putting it in a subpage of Grand Cross and transcluding that. But I actually don't think that's necessary at all, since we'll never end up transcluding the disambig pages other than this. It's only something to consider if we do. So: tl;dr I support, but should anything else come up there are workarounds.

Subpages count as articles. So they get bought up in random article and add to article count, which is obviously bad.

The fix is to create an Etymology namespace. Which might not be a bad idea. We can also categorise these pages by name origin and stuff! If I figure out AJAX (and it's about time I did) I could also try to bring up a "pages that embed this etymology" section to these pages.

Back to the original matter sometimes etymology is specific to a version of something, like Midgar Zolom, so just embedding the etym at Midgardsormr won't cut it. It would be unwise to feature the header in the embed. But then we lose out on the edit link. The fix would be to put the embed inside a template which features an added edit link, but then we can't link to the specific section. ?action=edit&section=1 only works on disambigs, for parent pages that won't work. And you can't go to section by name, which would be great (or if you can I've never known about it) but you can't.

Also no boxes.

So an Etym namespace and an Etym template from that namespace is the most efficient method. 89.243.247.221 00:38, April 30, 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea, as all the articles related to a term should specify what the term means (I also love the Etimology section). I'd support any better/easier way to implement it, but it seems this is the best we have at the moment. JC Holy Knight (talk) 01:59, April 30, 2014 (UTC)

		DrakeyC - Crossing the distant night...Wandering the desert sea...The gods' voices are mirages... TALK - 01:31, July 4, 2014 (UTC)
		Unless we want to get the discussion rolling again, I'm inclined to go with the transcluding. There was little discussion on alternate courses of action though so *shrug*.

		Catuse says at 04:12, July 4, 2014 (UTC) "Somewhere a zealous god threads these strings between the clouds and the earth, preparing for a symphony it fears impossible to play. And so it threads on, and on, delaying the raise of the conductor's baton."
		If we're going to the trouble make a whole new namespace just for transclusion, we might as well make a whole 'EndData'(?) namespace that contains miscellaneous content at the end of the parent page -- Etymology, Trivia, References, External Links, and shared categories/sideicons/etc. For example, Tower's metadata page, EndData:Tower (Location), would have the etymology currently given on Tower and Category:Towers. EndData:Cid has the Etymology, Trivia, and {{reflist}} from Cid, and Category:Cid. The EndData template would have parameters for information from individual pages. For example, Cid Pollendina would transclude {{EndData|Cid|etym=Cid's last name is based on a nickname given to Geppetto...|trivia=Cid is either the third or fourth oldest...}} which would return Some of the following information is transcluded from EndData:Cid. To edit it, click here. Etymology "Cid" is a male name of Spanish origin that means "Lord". Cid's last name is based on a nickname given to Geppetto from Pinocchio. Geppetto's nickname (polendina, or corn meal mush) comes from the yellow wig he wears. Cid's surname is especially befitting of him in Final Fantasy IV: The After Years, as he helps Luca repair Calca and Brina and teaches them the Final Calcabrina Band. Trivia A character in Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace was named after the recurring Cid character as a response to the Final Fantasy series taking names from Star Wars characters (e.g, Biggs and Wedge). Cid is either the third or fourth oldest human playable character in any Final Fantasy, behind Strago Magus of Final Fantasy VI and Fang and Vanille of Final Fantasy XIII. In Final Fantasy IV: The After Years, Cid Pollendina is 71 years old, the same age as Strago in Final Fantasy VI's World of Ruin. He is the first playable Cid in the main series. There is an unused command found within the game's data, but it's only named in the original Japanese version, Airship (ひくうてい, [missing rōmaji]?). The command itself is configured to target all enemies, but the command crashes the game when used. Given the name and positioning in the command list, it was intended for Cid. References [[Category:Cid]] This would also solve the Midgardsormr problem. I think it would allow for JBed's AJAX idea...but I don't know AJAX so I couldn't be sure. Maybe I'm just overthinking things, though.

Ah, a grand suggestion. However I do not think there are many Trivia points that would be appropriate for a page and its subpages. I would also say similar for External Links, and References is ultimately just a header and {{reflist}}. With Cid you would expect the point about Star Wars calling a character Cid would only be on the parent, because its a reference to the recurring Cid rather than a specific Cid.

Regarding AJAX, the idea is just to get the Special:WhatLinksHere transclusions list (which I imagine I can get through an API query) and present it on the page in a UL (as simply as needed). The same could apply in any method involving transclusion. JBed (talk) 06:17, July 4, 2014 (UTC)

		DrakeyC - Crossing the distant night...Wandering the desert sea...The gods' voices are mirages... TALK - 19:00, July 4, 2014 (UTC)
		Agreed with JBed's points on limiting this to etymology. As for this AJAX thing... no clue what that's about. But I would agree with making an Etymology namespace. I'm just wondering how it would be organized though. Would we just have pages like Etymology:Cid and do that for all Etymology sections, or would we group Etymology data on several pages in some manner and transclude the appropriate sections of those pages?

The way I imagine it working best:

• We create a page like "Etymology:Odin". This page contains the Odin Etym paragraph, and we wrap that in onlyinclude.
• We create a template called Template:Etymology, or Template:Etym. Then we use {{Etym|Odin}} on pages of things called "Odin" we want to put that Etym on, underneath a ===Etymology=== header. The template is so we can do things like add the edit link.
• On "Etymology:Odin", we also add categories like, "Norse Origin" or "Names of Norse origin", or something.

The kind of Etymology that needs a page are:

• Borrowed names (things not originating from SE, so plays on words wouldn't).
• Things that recur (like Malboro).

Anything else can just go on the page. Like small notes about how "Midgar Zolom" is a variation of Midgardsormr. So Midgar Zolom's Etym would be:

==Etymology==
The name "Midgar Zolom" is a variation of "Midgardsormr". It is named so as it resides in the swamps near Midgar.

{{etym|Midgardsormr}}

-- 2.102.231.208 18:25, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

		18:37, July 10, 2014 (UTC) Technobliterator Talk
		I like the Template:Etym idea. Creating an "Etymology" namespace doesn't seem necessary.

Why not? JBed (talk) 18:41, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

		18:53, July 10, 2014 (UTC) Technobliterator Talk
		A few reasons: I've always objected to the idea of creating tons of pages for something that one can be used for in a more practical way. Putting etymologies on a single template is an example of doing that, as opposed to creating several etymology subpages. Creating a namespace, as far as I am aware (may be different on this wiki), requires contact Wikia, waiting for a response, then setting it up, and then having users constantly move pages from the mainspace to the new namespace because everyone creates them in the wrong place. From reading what the plan is, it just seems to be creating tons of work for something that could be basic. Writing several lines of code and correcting them when we can produce the exact same result another way, and it is arguably easier, does not seem useful. Unless the content in this Etymology namespace will mean we have to add nothing to the pages then it is redundant. I previously alluded to a laborious task of writing tons of code and correcting it for something that could be done another way. But the thing is, it would require more work than is even necessary. Even if the new Etymology namespace idea results in us adding nothing to the page, and it just staying that, then it not only requires maintaining, but it does not actually reduce work. We would still have to remove any "Etymology" sections when we edit pages to implement an idea anyway. So replacing content with {{Etym|Odin}} or removing it, you're not making things easier. It just seems like it's not doing a lot that cannot be done another way much easier.

"Putting etymologies on a single template is an example of doing that"

That is not what the template is for. And I hope you don't mean what it sounds like you mean, because that template would need to be a {{#switch}} statement with 1000s of options.

"[..]requires contact Wikia, waiting for a response, then setting it up, and then having users constantly move pages from the mainspace to the new namespace because everyone creates them in the wrong place."

No? Yeah, you need to contact Wikia, so it takes a couple days. And no, why would people be creating the pages in the wrong place? The average user isn't going to write Etymology, or if they do they're just going to hard-type it to the page. Which isn't a problem that's not going to exist. Right now we revert uses from adding Etym to pages saying "it goes on the parent".

I don't understand most of what you said. It doesn't sound like you have a solution to the problem we are talking about. JBed (talk) 19:16, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

		19:28, July 10, 2014 (UTC) Technobliterator Talk
		To your "And no, why would people be creating the pages in the wrong place?" point, that's the exact same question I ask myself everytime someone does that and I have to move it. Whether it's walkthroughs on this wiki, or any of the extra namespaces on other wikis, it happens all the time. The whole point of the template namespace across all of mediawiki is transclusion, and not needing to write "namespace:" before whatever it transcludes. We do not need to create a new namespace for the same transclusion purpose. And if it's what I imagine it is from what I have read, it is just a fancy way of achieving the same transclusion process. My argument is, what's the point? What does it add if we do it that way? If there is a major benefit, if it adds other bonuses, then I understand. But the way I see it, it doesn't do anything in particular that transclusion does not. Might I ask what is wrong with a "{{#switch}} with 1000s of options"? Okay, maybe it slows things more than I expect. If so, okay. But do you still have to create a namespace? What is wrong with making each etymology a subpage of Template:Etym? It's {{Eytm/Odin}} vs {{Etym|Odin}}. Which is better? And if we do use subpages that way, we don't need to create a new namespace, which brings me back to my point that a namespace for something like this is unnecessary.

"What does it add if we do it that way?"

Organisation. Templates aren't meant to transclude content, they're meant to be templates. The Etymology pages will serve a purpose alone even if they are ultimately for mainspace pages. They are their own type of page.

"Might I ask what is wrong with a "{{#switch}} with 1000s of options"?"

Simply, it won't work. The template would be too big for the page not only to load, but likely also save. Then we're dealing with how {{#switch}} works. It goes down the list and checks every option (IIRC it's not linearly, but I can't remember the genius witchcraft {{#switch}} is often programmed to run like). But in some cases it will be running hundreds of unnecessary processes. Not to mention the code is stupid difficult to maintain.

But there's not much argument to make. It's like arguing to use

<strong> over

<b>; or that there's no point in using an ID if it's not for JavaScript. There is in fact very good reasons to do both those things, but people will say it isn't necessary and we can already do things without. Yeh, you can, but in doing so you miss the entire point in semantics.

In this case you overlook the purpose of a namespace because... what? We don't need one?

Not to mention your arguments don't make much sense. You talk about moving pages to a different namespace, but how do you think template subpages are going to be different? We're still requiring the creation of pages. JBed (talk) 19:49, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

		20:02, July 10, 2014 (UTC) Technobliterator Talk
		Hmmm. The Etymology pages will serve a purpose alone even if they are ultimately for mainspace pages. They are their own type of page. I suppose I see why? Well, I understand where you are coming from. But again, what about them being their own type of page demands so strongly that they get their own namespace? If they are to be used on the mainspace, then they are practically templates. If they are to work as articles on their own, they are practically mainspace pages. Not to mention your arguments don't make much sense. You talk about moving pages to a different namespace, but how do you think template subpages are going to be different? We're still requiring the creation of pages. Creating tons of pages that any random person understands the purpose of as opposed to creating tons of pages that serve the same purpose while still being slightly more understood. Anyway, my point was not so much an argument as just an expression of my frustration of moving pages to Fanon, Content, Walkthrough etc spaces across various wikis because a random person decides to make it there. So my only real similar point is not so much that but that this encourages creation of several etymology pages of which not all will have a major purpose. Creating a namespace for something encourages more of that type. A walkthrough namespace on this wiki encourages someone to write a walkthrough, whereas if everyone did it just in their own userspace, there would be less incentive. Well, it's a ton of other stuff... actually at this point I'm just going on about random stuff so bleh just ignore that. If you're sure that putting in the extra work and creating an etymology namespace really is helpful, then I won't oppose it. To me it just seemed initially like overcomplicating things that would not have an overall benefit. If there is one, then I will support a new namespace and be happy to help move content.

		DrakeyC - Crossing the distant night...Wandering the desert sea...The gods' voices are mirages... TALK - 20:11, July 10, 2014 (UTC)
		I would prefer to create an Etymology namespace to a template. The reason being, unless I missed something, is that it's gonna be one big honkin' template with dozens perhaps hundreds of etymologies in it, and editing it would be a pain. EDIT - Techno has explained his idea to me better. I would prefer subpages of the main articles to be transcluded on them to a new namespace or template. Though if the latter can be done effectively I would be fine with that too.

@Techno: On second thought, my opinion in creating a namespace is more about my own vision. Because they could only serve a utility purpose for embedding and be fine in templatespace. Well, I don't see it as fine, I see it as disorganised, and thus something that needs to be organised and is best organised with a namespace.

And a namespace offers the opportunities in categorising by name-origin which makes for interesting things, making it easier to observe on a larger scale where FF gets its name roots from. And then it also makes targetting easier because we're not searching for parts of a page name, but instead an entire namespace.

So eh, this is more about my subjective opinion than I originally thought. Though I still believe using a namespace is the best choice. JBed (talk) 20:16, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

		20:32, July 10, 2014 (UTC) Technobliterator Talk
		New suggestion: An alternative to namespace is an Etym template that searches for an "Etymology" subpage of {{{1}}}. Would not use {{#ifexist}}, just a normal parameter. So {{Etym|Bomb}} will automatically transclude "Bomb/Etymology", and if that page doesn't exist, it should. Thoughts?

Subpages count as articles and things to be transclused are not articles. From both your utility perspective and my organisation perspective, this idea satisfies neither. This just sounds like a way to avoid creating a namespace, which I don't get. Template subpages is at least more agreeable.

There was a second point, however it may not matter depending on how people want to handle this. JBed (talk) 20:44, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

		20:50, July 10, 2014 (UTC) Technobliterator Talk
		What exactly is wrong with them counting as articles? Does it make a hugely significant difference? And what about the Etymology does not make it an article? It is a page containing content and information. What about an Etymology subpage does not do that? Just because it is also transcluded, it is no longer worthy of being called an article? And if it is of a certain type, what exactly is wrong with [[Category:Etymology]] at the bottom practically categorising it? And why can't we do it like how a Disambig is done? The only difference would be that the Disambig is not transcluded and an etymology is. Before I continue; "On second thought, my opinion in creating a namespace is more about my own vision. ... So eh, this is more about my subjective opinion than I originally thought." Are you absolutely certain you're not just your perceptions again? And yes, I will agree it is also mine, and everyone else'. It satisfies both. And avoiding creating a namespace seems to be the ideal objective. My opinion, and I believe that of the others, is that if this can be done without going to the hassle of creating a namespace specifically for it, then why not?

"Are you absolutely certain you're not just your perceptions again?" I am certain. We are not talking about how we are perceiving etymology, but instead how namespaces and MediaWiki was designed to aid content. You misunderstand the purpose of namespaces in creating these pages in mainspace.

I shall give you a list of reasons:

1. The purpose of mainspace is articles about our chosen topic. That is Final Fantasy. These Etymology pages are articles that only state Etymological origin, and should make no reference to FF at all. These are two very easily defined types of "article". Etymology is not
2. Counting non-article as articles. Yes, this means a lying page count but if you intend to tell me that you don't think the count matters then save your words, it's not just that. Etymology is for transclusion purposes. This etymology page lives to be transcluded. It is not a page for people to visit, we expect people to go to the pages it is transcluded on. It is not even an article. Taking a section out of an existing article and duplicating it somewhere else doesn't make it article. It makes it redundant.
3. Articles are intended to be linked to and linked from. Etymology does not contain language links and have no reason to be linked to. We would sooner link to the section on the parent, though more likely just the parent as a whole itself even if we were referencing it from an etymological perspective. Orphaned pages or something. I could trail on similar points but it all comes down to etymology alone does not make an article, and things whose purpose is transclusion is at most an article-part, not an article.
4. And a point for a namespace: Etymologies would be transcluded in a similar manner to how files are transcluded. Files get their own namespace. The parallels are clear. Template subpages is more agreeable, but mainspace is certainly not.

Your point on disambigs does raise an interesting point. Hmm, I wonder what past discussions would have said about this. this is a thing. I wonder why disambigs aren't treated in a similar manner to redirects by the software.

Maybe I had something else to say, don't remember. But I think there is something that needs to be made clear. Creating a namespace is not a hassle. Don't say that. JBed (talk) 21:08, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

		BlueHighwind Q? 21:12, July 10, 2014 (UTC) TALK - So if you care to find me, look to the Western Sky!ツ:
		EDIT CONFLICT: I don't think we'd want to have a whole bunch of articles specifically for Etymology, but for selected ones, I like the idea of the Etymology space. Its not like we have an upper limit on the namespaces we can create. I guess its assumed that if we have too many namespaces it will be messy and tough to organize, but lacking a way to transclude page sections, its our best bet. This really shouldn't be on the mainspace. And I assume if we want Namespaces gone, we can do that too - remember the Walkthrough namespace? Does that exist anymore? (Brief checking shows that indeed it does, even though we don't really use it.) Anyway, the advantages of this would be that we could selectively lock those pages if the Etymology section gets too full of natter, as I've seen happen on the Versus XIII/FFXV pages. The other option, I suppose, would be to host all the Etymology sections on User Pages. Or Templates. I know that's not the perfect elegant solution people want, but it does work. Inelegance behind the scenes is fine if the pages come out looking fine. Really the most organized option is the Etymology space. Also, Wikipedia does have a power where you can selectively transclude (I love this word) sections of pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Labeled_section_transclusion I'm guessing we couldn't add that tech in our arsenal without Wikia help.

Some Color Mage / Talk Contribs / / 23:15, July 10, 2014 (UTC) It's Blog namespace that we got rid of, Blue. Anyway, if we want to go with the Wikipedia way, the extension is Labeled Section Transclusion, but really, it'll be easier to just get a new namespace added and there are no technical issues to having a new namespace. Subpages would also work, but, eh, I'm not a big fan of inflating our article count adding a mainspace page for every single etym.

Bump: are we in agreement to go to Wikia for an Etym namespace? C A T U S E 04:59, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. Drake Clawfang (talk) 05:07, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

Right so with etym namespace, here is my proposal:

The Etymology pages:

• Content: Pages in Etymology namespace focus on a name and its origin. The rules for writing these pages still apply from [[Help:Tags and Disambiguation Pages#Etymology|here]]. Wikipedia links encouraged where appropriate.
• Name: For example, "Etymology:Minotaur". Pages are unlikely to be tagged, though is is perfectly possible. Tags can be decided simply from origin.
• Structure: The etymology will be surrounded by onlyinclude tags.
• Categorisation: Etymology is categorised by its word origin. For example, "Words of Greek Origin" or something to that effect.
• Creation: Any name SE took from somewhere else should have an Etymology page. For example, even though Baalzephon appears in one title, it would still get an Etymology page. Any name SE made up but still has origins, like plays on words, has an article if it is used more than once. For example, "Etymology:Sabotender" would exist because a number of enemies appear with that name (in Japanese).

The Etymology template:

• To transclude etymology we will create a template at "Template:Etymology" (or "Template:Etym", unimportant).
• This page will roughly contain the code {{Etymology:{{{1}}}}}, and in addition to this it will also contain an edit link that takes an editor to the edit page of that etymology. It also means we can make other changes to display as we like.

Etymology on pages:

• The Etymology header is put on the page.
• If the enemy name matches etymology, then beneath this is simply the template for the word. So for example, Wyvern (Final Fantasy)'s section:

  {{Etymology|Wyvern}}

• Explanations of how the Etym matches the thing in question is also added to the page, so for Doomtrain:

Doomtrain's name in Japanese is Glasya Labolas.<!--we could put the next paragraph on the same line if we prefer-->

{{Etymology|Glasya Labolas}}

Blah written about in The Lesser Key of Solomon. Doomtrain is obtained from the Solomon's Ring.

[and the rest of Doomtrain's etym]

• Things with multiple etymology would just be like this, so Cobra (Final Fantasy):

{{Etymology|Cobra}}

{{Etymology|Asp}}
<!--i don't think adding the "it is named Asp in the original NES release" is necessary-->

At first we may just categorise all the pages as "Etymology" while the namespace is being set up, and they can then be categorised in greater detail later.

If you disagree with anything feel free to discuss. We need to agree on everything before we start using the namespace. JBed (talk) 07:30, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

Works for me; make sure to add {{reflist}}s to pages that have etymologies. C A T U S E 23:59, July 21, 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia links are done like "{{w|Odin}} is a blah from blah". So not as a reference. JBed (talk) 00:08, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

Alright, so Tim Quievryn emailed me this morning:

At this time, Wikia can not offer to create non-content namespaces due to a technical logic bug we are having with our advertisements. I can offer to create this namespace for you, but it will be a content namespace. You could then write in later, when we are able to once again offer non-content namespaces, I could flip the switch to make it non-content without affecting any of the current pages (just the page count). Let me know what you would like to do.

Whether a namespace is "content" or not is not semantic. Content namespaces determine our page count, appear in special:random, special:allpages and other lists of pages, and whatnot. However there's no harm in temporarily having Etymology be content while we transition over to using the new namespace instead of just having them at the bottom of disambiguations. C A T U S E 21:32, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

... fecking Wikia. Making something simple even harder.

I don't understand their reasoning, why would a bug prevent them adding new non-content namespaces? Surely the bug already applies to existing non-content namespaces anyway? JBed (talk) 23:13, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

First, let's ask a very important question: does the Wikia staff know what Wikia does, is, and is supposed to do? Or are they acting blindly? On the more serious side, I like the idea of Etymology namespace.—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) ∙ 23:25, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

Etymology namespace is now up and running. C A T U S E 17:07, July 23, 2014 (UTC)

Idea: create a page similar to Project:DidYouKnow and transclude into the main page(?). Viewers seem to comment on etymologies a lot compared to other sections of the wiki, right up there with battle strategies. (I've actually wanted to compile stats about the wiki's pages and viewers for a while, but it's just so much work to get a good sample size...) C A T U S E 04:32, July 24, 2014 (UTC)C A T U S E 04:32, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

Looking good. What does the "purge" option do? I like the idea for "DidYouKnow" etymology but is there room on the front page?Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 20:28, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

Purging a page clears the cache, in case it doesn't change when you edit it (often happens with templates/mediawikispace). And there's space in the right column I suppose, since the left one is just so much longer. C A T U S E 20:38, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

There should be one on the tnavbar too in my opnion instead of "discuss", but that's for another discussion.

Questions and splitting things up

		13:52, August 4, 2014 (UTC) Technobliterator Talk
		So there's been talks about splitting categories up by (language?) origin. I was just wondering firstly when we'd begin that, but also, could there be a navbox for etymology pages? And also, how about a "substetymology" template like "substdisambig"?

		Kaimi - Let's keep smiling! It really helps! TALK - 15:24, August 4, 2014 (UTC)
		"subsetymology"? I have no idea how useful it would be actually. As for "Etymology per origin" categories I see little problem with that since we tend to put quite many of those even on images. But there is a question: how would be the naming pattern look like? "Category:Origin: <word>", "Category:Source :<word>", "Category:Derivation: <word>", or something entirely different? Is there an article you think is of an exceptional quality? Vote for it here!

Etymology would need one category each, and based on origin. Simply, "Words of Greek Origin" et al.

We can begin whenever. I was thinking of waiting until Etymology isn't a content namespace anymore though. Strictly to allow for MW querying the number of pages in the namespace, which I don't believe is possible any other way.

We could have a navbox, added via the JS (or AJAXd via the JS). Categories should be simple enough to navigate. Including links to specific etymology pages on a nav would be too much of a waste of time and not that useful... because categories. Unlike other namespaces, Etymology doesn't have any hierarchy at all, all Etymology pages are standalone, no parent-child relationships. Although again, I can just AJAX a list from the categories the etym page is in and generate the content's of a navbox on-load.

substetym, whatever makes it easier for you. JBed (talk) 19:22, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

		19:37, August 4, 2014 (UTC) Technobliterator Talk
		AJAX sounds good. We should probably also AJAX the template in Drake's sandbox. Failing AJAX (very unlikely though), pywikibot can add it automatically, and the substetym could add navbox and the template each time we create it. To naming category, "words of x origin" is good to me.

I didn't even bother with AJAX, it's already there. JBed (talk) 19:46, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Oh, but not on Chrome. I knew I added it wrong, but Firefox let it work :p JBed (talk) 19:46, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Oh, the problem was not what I expected (although it could be a potential problem, hasn't been yet), but some JS I used was FF only it seems. JBed (talk) 19:59, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

		20:08, August 4, 2014 (UTC) Technobliterator Talk
		It does look super sweet. Would it be possible to JS the links inside a navbox? Possibly more complicated though.

Well as I was saying, I could check what categories an article is in (wgCategories[]), and then AJAX return the list of its members and simply put that in a navbox format via JS. JBed (talk) 20:20, August 4, 2014 (UTC)