September 6
Template:Aragonese dialects
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Aragonese dialects (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Created in 2009, yet nearly all links are still red, and some of the few blue links are RD's or do not link to a dialect article. — kwami (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there actually that many Aragonese "dialects"? I'd be astonished. It looks a bit like someone's taken every district in Aragonese Aragon and stuck Aragonese for the language to the back of it. — Lfdder (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Austria bids for the Olympic Games
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 16. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Austria bids for the Olympic Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Bids for the XXXX Winter Olympics
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NENAN. Most of the templates contains only one blue link, except ((Bids for the 1992 Winter Olympics)) (3 blue links), ((Bids for the 2010 Winter Olympics)) (2 relevant blue links) and ((Bids for the 2018 Winter Olympics)) (2 articles are linked on it, the Annecy and Munich bids are redirects). Armbrust The Homunculus 11:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete navboxes from 1928 to 1988 and from 1994 to 2006 as they only include red links.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. The bidding process (including the individual bids) are valuable encyclopedic content. There is clearly enormous potential for each of these templates and the associated articles. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, better to use a category or a see also section for these. Frietjes (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Transl (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
With the removal of lang/xml:lang, all this template does is add a title attribute with the name of the translit scheme used (sometimes); and no help cursor, no dotted underline, no nothing, and no screen reader support and no support for mobile. I think it should be made to have the kind of translit used in text, wikilinked, before the translit itself and the translit lang-tagged again. If this is not desirable, we should just nuke it. — Lfdder (talk) 10:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree this is legacy and should be phased out ... people should use ((lang)) always.
- The idea was to add metadata as to which transliteration scheme is being used (there is no ISO way of doing this, because ISO is itself one of the possible choices), but this clearly is asking too much, we can be more than glad if people only mark language. --dab (𒁳) 12:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- People also shouldn't use lang for this purpose btw. It's equally broken. There is currently not a single browser in the world that would treat ru-Latn anything other than russian language cyrillic script, it simply ignores the postfix (often resulting in worse performance for both readers and users who rely on audio representation of the text). There are a few 'hardcoded' exceptions for languages that are written in 2 scripts, but that is about it for as far as the script extensions of the lanugage codes goes. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- then change the template's behaviour, people can still put the information "ru-Latn" in the template, if for nothing else for future reference, and the template can put out something that agrees with current day browsers. Once the browsers or the html standards change, change the template, while leaving the actual source (wiki markup) of the article alone. This is the entire point of writing in wikimarkup as opposed to html directly. --dab (𒁳) 08:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Pages like this, which use the International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration (IAST) (or other systems), may suffer. Future edits may be tedious as a lot of Sanskrit and Pali texts are solely available in IAST (or similar) format and not in the original script. — Kenfyre (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? I'm not proposing to remove transliterations from Wikipedia. — Lfdder (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Removal of the template will affect hundreds of Sanskrit and Pali articles already using the template with IAST. I support your dotted-line and wiki-linking proposal instead. — Kenfyre (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it won't. The template will be removed from all those articles before it's deleted. Dotted underline, wikilink will work for the first instance of the tpl in the article and for short text, but we can't have entire paragraphs prefixed with 'IAST:' and dotted underlined; it'd look ridiculous. — Lfdder (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What I meant was, Template:IAST uses Template:transl. If Template:IAST is modified to be independent of it and use Template:lang or something instead, I have no problems. I don't think there are entire paragraphs in IAST on a Wikipedia article, a few words or at most a whole sloka. Anyway, lets leave the visual frills and ugly paragraphs part out of this, I'll look it up with other editors who work on Sanskrit or Pali articles. —Kenfyre (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can some one of sufficient competence fix this please? Right now, there are thousands of pages with heavy use of IAST (for single words and phrases) that have become unreadable. Thanks! rudra (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- nobody suggested the deletion of ((IAST)). If transl is deleted, IAST will just have to be adapted to keep behaving as it already does. The point here is just that we do not want to recommend that people use ((transl)) directly, they should use either ((lang)) (in the generic case), or in special cases dedicated templates such as ((IAST)). --dab (𒁳) 08:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Templates in wide use, like Template:Infobox SMS station, will suffer as these templates (with the ((transl)) template) are used on hundreds of pages. For example, if the "Revised Romanization" parameter used in the SMS (Seoul Metropolitan Subway) infobox were replaced with the ((lang)) parameter, then we'd have over 300 pages without the Revised Romanization entry unless someone tried to fix it. Instead, I propose slowly phasing ((transl)) out over a period of several months (with a grace period) for people to switch over to the new ((lang)) parameter. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 13:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh? Transl would be changed with lang in the template; you don't have to change the name of the parameter. — Lfdder (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly like this. — Lfdder (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And like I said above, this template would obviously never be deleted before all the calls to it are removed from article space. — Lfdder (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, provided that all the uses of this template are replaced with ((lang)) before deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is there this condition? I mean, it can be reasonably replaced with ((lang)) in most cases, but simply removing ((transl)) won't degrade anything. — Lfdder (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination, provided that all the uses of this template are amended (either replaced with something like ((lang)) or deleted) before deletion. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep To say it doesn't have a use is not correct. It identifies pieces of text in our wiki that have a certain encoding. Usually we DO something based on this coding, here we explicitly stopped doing something. The whole beauty of templates is that we can go back and easily 'restyle/reformat' large blocks of text when we think that is useful. To replace this with lang doesn't necessarily seem as a better solution if you ask me. In that case i would just remove the template and put back in the raw text. Replacing this with lang indicates a failure of understanding the original problem. Also, can you actually indicate the type of transliteration system that you using. Would we bring back ((ArabDIN)) to indicate that the DIN system has been used ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I personally think I am too new to Wikipedia to have a worthwhile opinion but having this discussion visible in the template is incredibly obnoxious and disruptive. Just take a look at the second paragraph of Takbir. There are literally 8 "See Tfd" notices in it. I would like to forward the idea that "See Tfd" be removed from the template for the time being. I would be WP:BOLD and do it myself but it's locked. ירק (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A straight replacement of this template and ones that depend on it (like ((IAST))) with ((lang)) will result in an error if the lang template ends up in the title parameter of a citation. The error is "Wikilink embedded in URL title". See, for example, the citation for Witzel 1999 (currently here) in Indus Valley Civilization, which currently produces this error because of this TfD discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The purpose of this template is to add metadata indicating which transliteration scheme was used, when there are multiple transliteration schemes for the same language. A lot of editors have carefully added this to transliterations they introduced over the course of years. I see no reason to throw away this metadata and introduce confusion. It would be a loss of information with no clear gain. Replacing it with "lang" is not a solution, unless we add parameters to the lang template to indicate the specific transliteration scheme used (and then it would be the same as this template, in effect). Yes we are not doing anything very visually obvious with this template right now, but we could (dotted underlines or something) in future. If we throw away the information about transliteration method used, we can't. Also, just because there is no strikingly apparent visual artefact of this template doesn't mean it's "useless": at the least, it's useful for other editors (to get at the original text, say). Shreevatsa (talk) 04:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Meanwhile, can we PLEASE REMOVE the TfD note from the template? It's very disruptive and obnoxious; and as ירק says above it's already causing errors in citations. And people have already started removing this template to fix those errors. (E.g. [1].) Let's remove this, please. Shreevatsa (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and close ASAP This TfD is causing problems in all usages of ((IAST)). FA Ganesha is looking terrible https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ganesha&oldid=572123741] (See image not displayed in section "Etymology"). First replace Transl in IAST and then nominate. Redtigerxyz Talk 05:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Take your grievance to the Tfd template's talk. This !vote should be ignored. — Lfdder (talk) 08:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- um what, he said keep, and he has a point. There is no consensus here, and the tfd template messes up article space. So close the tfd for now and take the proper time to discuss this in an informed manner. --dab (𒁳) 08:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- not relevant anymore, notice has been put inside noinclude. — Lfdder (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- this is templates for discussion, the place to discuss it in an informed manner...if it weren't for the usual rush to !vote. — Lfdder (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.