Template talk:t2i

Deletion debate

The following information passed a request for deletion.

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.

---

Template:t2i

It is a very bad idea to attempt to render words in images. It especially hurts accessibility a lot as you can't copy or search for text in images. -- Prince Kassad 20:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow yes, I'm sure Ivan will tell us why he created this, but I really don't see the point. Perhaps because a lot of users don't have the fonts necessary to view all these scripts. But I don't get it, to me, using the actual script is fine. Why do we want to take something simple and make it more complicated? Mglovesfun (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

And yes that would have been my point; often with non-Latin scripts, as using any other method is tedious, I copy and paste them to search for them in Wiktionary, Wikisource, Google (etc.) As pointed out, this system stops that entirely. You even have to know the original script to use this template, which makes it even more odd, as if you know the original script you can just type it! Mglovesfun (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I can definitely see using images of single characters on those pages, as has been done for a long time. Words are an entirely different story. Definitely the way this template is used now should could be deprecated, but that doesn't preclude a compellingly valid use. I just can't imagine any. DAVilla 21:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep. It looks like this is only being used on headword-lines to display the headword, so I don't see how it affects search: the page will always contain the headword in <h1> tags, no matter what we do. As for copy/paste — if we specify alt= for the images, then Firefox will copy them correctly. Dunno about other browsers. But even if does break copy/paste in some/many/most browsers, again, the plain-text headword will appear in <h1> tags. (That said: another option is to do this in client-side JavaScript, as a WT:PREF or Gadget.) —Ruakh_TALK 21:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess the logic is that most users won't have the fonts installed to view these scripts, but they can view images. Seems like an ugly, ugly solution to the problem, so I'd rather delete it. Hopefully in the long run, these problems will become a thing of the past. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This seems likely to be useful for fonts that virtually nobody installs. Can it be extended or replaced in such a way as to allow an entry to be searched in the font (for all users) and presented either using the user-side installed font or using the slower font-image system? Please forgive my lack of understanding and vocabulary for this. DCDuring TALK 15:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Kept.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)