Template talk:la-decl

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Colors[edit]

The coloring hides redlinks: it is not visible that a link is a red link. I think this is unwanted behavior. H. (talk) 08:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this behavior has been discussed and accepted. The previous discussion(s) reached no consensus. --EncycloPetey 16:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Design[edit]

Well, what was wrong with my design? IMHO, it was prettier than this and corresponds to the colors of our other declension templates. Any non-design related issues I don't know about? --Vahagn Petrosyan 16:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The Latin declension templates should not collapse; they're not long enough to warrant it. For short declension tables I much prefer them to be visible, especially for a language like Latin. (2) It does not match the other Latin declension templates. (3) The color scheme was invisible; grey is drab. Two of us spent considerable time picking out the current color scheme. (4) The font size was too small for the visual distinguishing of macrons. --EncycloPetey 22:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Summary: I really dislike the current color scheme, while I can live with the template's being non-collapsible. Color scheme: I prefer the color scheme of this revision over the current strong and dark colors; the color scheme that I prefer is used for the inflection templates of many languages in Wiktionary. Collapsing: I prefer collapsing of inflection templates, even for templates that have only six content lines such as this Latin one. Font size: I am indifferent about font size. --Dan Polansky 13:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't go with that color scheme, since the colors are invisiblly light. --EncycloPetey 22:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, colors can be customized in user's style sheet:
table.inflection-table { font-size: 90% ! important }
table.inflection-table th { background: #EFEFEF ! important }
table.inflection-table th i { font-style: normal ! important }
table.inflection-table th { border: 0px ! important }
table.inflection-table td { border: 0px ! important }
I don't know how to make the table collapsible using style sheet, though. --Dan Polansky 11:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't either, but if you know how to make the colors user-customizable, then I can really use your help in a few weeks when I start to revise the coding of all the declension templates. There are a bunch of templates, and they'll all need to be coordinated and there are a few tables that haven't been created yet but are needed. I'd rather do the whole set in one go, if possible, so that we don't end up with two (or three) styles of templates. I say "in a few weeks" because I won't have time this weekend, or the next two weekends either, to do that much concentrated work. --EncycloPetey 14:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure whether I understand correctly what you are saying, but the colors already are user-customizable. What a user has to do is to place the lines that I have posted above ("table.inflection-table { font-size: 90% ! important }" ...) to his "monobook.css", and tweak these lines as he sees fit. The key idea is that inflection tables are identified using the CSS class "inflection-table", which already makes it possible for any user to override the appearance of these tables. --Dan Polansky 08:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If grey is bad, there is also light blue, light green, etc.
Re the current color: in addition to my and Dan's dislike of it there is also this comment of a 3rd user after I edited this template. --Vahagn Petrosyan 10:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the choice of hue that is problematic. The problem is that the color is too washed out in all three cases. I can hardly tell there is color along the left-hand side unless I look at my monitor at just the right (awkward) angle to see that it's there. --EncycloPetey 13:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty confident your monitor is abnormally bright. That's why you chose that dark color for the first row; so that it would compensate extra-brightness and look normal to you. But to be sure that it's not just my and Dan's monitors/color perceptions that are unusual, maybe we should do a mini-poll in Beer Parlor. And if we decide to switch to lighter colors, you can always tweak your "monobook.css" the way Dan described above. --Vahagn Petrosyan 14:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFM discussion: September–November 2014[edit]

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (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.

Should these be moved to use "la-" rather than "Latin-", since our usual naming scheme seems to use codes rather than language names? Are the templates still used / useful? We do have quite an extensive set of Template:la-decl-1st, etc. - -sche (discuss) 01:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --WikiTiki89 20:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Not sure why you didn't just rename them without any discussion. Is there any realistic prospect of opposition here? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea. —CodeCat 17:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so tell me. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well there are certain users here who oppose even the most trivial and obvious things. So renaming without discussion would presumably trigger more protests from them. —CodeCat 18:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we need to impose the 'reasonable person' clause; a change so obviously good that no reasonable person would object to it. And there are a few unreasonable people around here. That's why invoking it would be a good idea. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Because there is a definition of reasonable person that every reasonable and unreasonable person will accept, even if it excludes them. — Keφr 23:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Case in point, the discussion about merging Template:conjugation of further below. —CodeCat 16:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for great justice! — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


RFD discussion: April 2019[edit]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

This is only used on a few pages, and we handle Latin declensions with modules now. So this should be replaced on those few pages with a call to those modules. —Rua (mew) 19:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pages are not supposed to directly call modules. It appears this template is used only for misc. irregular nouns, so I would rather suggest renaming it to {{la-decl-noun-irreg}} to make it clear that this is its purpose (compare {{ru-decl-noun-irreg}} for the same purpose). Benwing2 (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Benwing2 But there are so few instances of these, that they could easily be included in the existing inflection module for Latin. It already covers some existing irregular nouns like domus, so adding these extra few shouldn't be hard. That makes this template unnecessary. —Rua (mew) 17:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JohnC5 Given that you did a lot of the work on Module:la-noun, do you think it's possible to include support for the few nouns that currently use {{la-decl}}? Then we can delete that template. —Rua (mew) 21:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rua: I've cleaned it out; you may delete it. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 23:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as now orphaned and no longer necessary. —Rua (mew) 10:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:la-decl&oldid=52809956"