Talk:antipyretic

@Atitarev: You've duplicated the Russian translation. Was it for displaying the alternative translit/pronunciation? PUC – 17:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@PUC: Yes, it was intentional. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Atitarev: Mh, ok. I think it looks a bit weird to have the same word twice just for that but... PUC – 23:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@PUC: I think there is no right answer here. Words can have alternative stresses too. I think User:Benwing2 prefers it this way too. —Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Atitarev: If Benwing and you prefer keeping it this way, all right. But honestly I would much prefer not to have Cyrillic links duplicated like that. The cost is greater than the benefit imo: it makes it look a bit silly (especially in declension tables: see антипире́тик (antipirétik), бизнесме́н (biznesmén)) just for the sake of having an alternative transliteration. And it's not necessarily obvious why we do that either, for people who can already read Cyrillic and don't look at translits at all.

Isn't it possible to have a single link output two different translits (by way of a parameter, for example)? I think it'd be a more elegant solution. PUC – 00:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

(And sorry for the flurry of pings!) PUC – 00:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@PUC: Perhaps it's best to leave just one reading in the translation table when the stress is the same and handle multiple readings in the entry. It's not such a big deal. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@PUC, Benwing2: We have a little inconsistency when there are multiple pronunciations between say Arabic and Russian. Compare for example Russian бизнесме́н (biznesmén) (comma-separated translits) and Arabic مُوسْكُو (mūskū) with multiple headword variants (the Arabic spellings, including diacritics are the same). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@PUC, Atitarev I actually prefer the following:

{{t+|ru|антипире́тик|m|tr=antipirétik, antipirɛ́tik}} --> антипире́тик (ru) m (antipirétik, antipirɛ́tik)

That way you don't duplicate the link. Similarly, we should maybe avoid duplicating the Arabic spellings when the diacritics are the same. However, this brings up a complication of what to do in the case where we have, say, two different Arabic spellings mapping to three transliterations. Should we display something like مَوسْكُو or مُوسْكُو • (maskū or mūskū, moskū)? Possibly the best thing is مَوسْكُو or مُوسْكُو • (maskū or mūskū or moskū), but (a) that would require a few changes to Module:headword (not impossible by any means) and (b) it isn't so clear which spellings map to which transliterations. Benwing2 (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@PUC, Benwing2: Thanks. That's why the way it is now with Arabic makes a little bit more sense and I don't want it changed. It's not that the Russian headword is wrong.

I Think you, @Benwing2 disliked it when there are multiple stresses used simultaneously in the same Russian word (in translations, not headword), so I made a wrong assumption here.

I'll stick to comma-separated transliterations for Russian, if you both prefer it that way (that was my original way for a long time). Note that the regular reading with automated transliteration will not be used in that case. I also think some people dislike comma-separated transliterations very much but we can't make everyone happy. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@PUC, Benwing2: What's your opinion on different stresses, e.g. Ukrainian че́рга (uk) (čérha), черга́ (uk) (čerhá)?

Also, please note that even all the Russian entries with alt. translits has differences between the headword and the declension tables. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@PUC, Atitarev In that case I think you should use two calls to {{t}} or {{t+}}, one for each stress pattern, e.g.:

{{t+|uk|че́рга}}, {{t+|uk|черга́}} --> че́рга (uk) (čérha), черга́ (uk) (čerhá)

Essentially, treat them as two different words. Benwing2 (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Atitarev, Benwing2: I agree with Benwing. Since there's a difference in the Cyrillic, having two links makes sense imo (and in fact I prefer that to having a single link with two stresses). PUC – 11:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)