Template talk:stylized root

Documentation

About

This template is intended for use on form-of templates, which it automatically categorizes as such. It is included in the new form-of entry template.

Use {{subst:new form-of|descr}} to create a new “descriptive form of” template, where descr is the abbreviation of the description. For more information on the standards for these templates, see Wiktionary:Form-of templates.

Mechanics

There are six unnamed parameters. The second, third, and fourth parameters are the linked root, the name displayed, and the transcription, respectively. The fifth parameter is the script. These parameters are required, but can be blank.

In the usual "form of" construction, the second parameter equals {{form}} of, and the first is the description, everything before "form of". In certain constructions, the second parameter is the general type, everything from the first "of" onward, including a trailing {{form}} of, and the first parameter is the specific type, everything before the first "of", excluding {{form}}. Note that if the root is blank, only the the specific type is displayed.

See also

• {{lc of}}
• {{form of}}

Comments

Mentions in and out of "form of" definitions

Much to my chagrin, User talk:DAVilla#Orthography of mentioned words suggests that we need a different fromat for mentions of roman script terms and phrases from inside definition lines and mentions of roman script terms and phrases in running text elsewhere. Hopefully, we can select one default style for mentions and a small number of other styles for mentions that appear in specific locations. To achieve this, we'll need to split the CSS class 'mention' into something like 'mention' and 'mention-from-def'. Since {{stylized root}} appears to be intended for use within definitions, we should probably the class it uses from 'mention-roman' to something like 'mention-from-def'. Note also that the current 'roman' suffix seems redundant, since all mentions in non-roman scripts that should be stylized by one of the Category:Script templates. Rod (A. Smith) 00:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Besides, the ISO code is 'Latn'. Rod (A. Smith) 00:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have changed it to mention-from-def regardless of script. This template is not yet widely implemented, so play around with it if you like. DAVilla 06:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks DAVilla. After implementing the default “form of” style in MediaWiki:Common.css, I remembered and confirmed that CSS allows one to specify styles for nested style classes (which is part of the reason for the “C” in “CSS”). So, it turns out we don't need the style class “mention-from-def” because we can define a CSS rule as “.use-with-mention .mention { font-style:... }”. I'll now experiment with {{stylized root}} with that in mind. Rod (A. Smith) 17:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I apparently don't understand well enough how this template is supposed to work. I see templates that use it, but they don't seem to be working. For example, “# {{nth s sim pres of|talk|nth=3}}” produces this:

1. Template:stylized root

Did I break the template or am I missing something? Rod (A. Smith) 18:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, crud. It's not been thoroughly tested. Give me a minute. DAVilla 20:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fixed a change you had made. DAVilla 12:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Name

Should this be {{stylized base form}} instead, or maybe something else? The root isn't always a word. DAVilla 06:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Why linked root?

It is very annoying that one has to enter the linked root. Surely templates should be able to do this for you, right? H. (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it stems from Connel's insistence that short, non-lemma entries include a link in the wikitext to force the MediaWiki statistics to count the page as an article. From my point of view, MediaWiki statistics are insufficient grounds to so burdon editors, but sometimes it's easier just to acquiesce. Rod (A. Smith) 16:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then make it a possibility to enter a linked form (with {{w}}, I think), but not a requirement, and make sure experienced editors know they should enter that link if the page only contains the template. Often, pages are large enough to count anyway (e.g. marche). H. (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Some experienced editors just don't care. -- Visviva 12:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

About the statistics or the issue? I'm sure there are editors in both camps. DAVilla 22:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's as Rod says, though I'm with you. The other thing that should be done is simply leave the dot out. What burden is it to place a dot in the article text, compared to the burden of passing and evaluating another parameter? Even if it is accidentally omitted, is that so appallingly incorrect? DAVilla 22:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

mention class?

Does this templates use use-with-mention and mention? It doesn’t look right according to my preferences. H. (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The script template {{Latn}} is meant for mentions of Latn script terms within running text, but not within “form of” definitions, which seem to need a unique style according to feedback. Assuming we must maintain those different styles, we should clarify the CSS class currently named ".mention" by renaming it to something like ".mention-definition-Latn" (or some similarly named class that indicates it only styles mentions of Latn script terms within definitions) to MediaWiki:Common.css. This template, then, would change as follows:

Current: {{{{#if:{{{6|}}}|{{{6}}}|Latn}}|{{#if:{{{4|}}}|{{{4}}}|{{{3}}}}}}}

To apply “form of” mention styles, it should say something like this:

New: {{#if:{{{6|}}}|{{{{{6}}}|{{#if:{{{4|}}}|{{{4}}}|{{{3}}}}}}}|<span class='mention'><span class='mention-definition-Latn'>{{#if:{{{4|}}}|{{{4}}}|{{{3}}}}}</span></span>}}

New: {{#if:{{{6|}}}|{{{{{6}}}|{{#if:{{{4|}}}|{{{4}}}|{{{3}}}}}}}|{{Latn|<span class='mention-definition-Latn'>{{#if:{{{4|}}}|{{{4}}}|{{{3}}}}}</span>}}}}

When we settle on the CSS class name, we can add it to MediaWiki:Common.css. Then, when we migrate the existing “form of” definitions to this new system or otherwise modify {{form of}} and its progeny, and when a month has passed so that readers' caches of Common.css are updated, we can abandon the ambiguous ".mention" CSS class. Does that make sense? Rod (A. Smith) 19:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)