Template talk:R:uk:SUM-11

• SUM-11 is because there is 20-volume SUM-20 which is not finished yet, with the same name.
• Headwords to online version could be linked directly but this would require Lua conversion Cyrillic->Latin according to the scheme that the web site uses. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Reversions

@Dan Polansky, please stop reverting this template. You're reverting more than just the order. If you think the position of the headword should be changed, that should be brought on {{cite-meta}}. --{{victar|talk}} 16:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

So what is it that gets lost by my reverts to the template? Again, the tradition is to have the headword as the first item, and if those who control {{cite-meta}} cannot get this right, we need to use other means. Furthermore, I am very much opposed by this coup by template introduction. The further reading templates are just fine without this {{cite-meta}} stuff. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You're reverting the year switcher for one. I really don't care what you think the tradition is -- take it up on the {{cite-meta}} talk page -- and if you disagree with the usage of {{cite-meta}} all together, start a vote. --{{victar|talk}} 17:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me put it differently: let those who want to place {{cite-meta}} to every further reading template they can get their hands on show they have at least 60%-supermajority. I oppose this. Let those who want to make a complete rollout of {{cite-meta}} start a vote. We have a tradition and status quo ante prevails. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

What is the year switcher, what use does it have with this template and where is it documented? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

About diff:

It produces the following appearance, which I find OK:

• word in Bilodid I. K., editor (1970–1980) Slovnyk ukrajinsʹkoji movy, Kiev: Naukova Dumka.

It does so by using {{cite-book}} (calling {{cite-meta}}), which is an overkill to produce a very simple markup, and is subject to various unwise changes as we have seen in the past. I oppose the use of the template, but I am not going to revert now. At least the appearance is fine. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)