Template talk:k

Archived from RFD: September–September 2013

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Template:k

Do we still need this? It seems like it is well intentioned, but in reality having yet another linking template only confuses things more. —CodeCat 19:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure we ever needed this. Did you orphan it or was it just unused? It seems like quite a bad idea, because if you want to make a linking template that simple, it's less useful than linking using square brackets. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It had about 10 transclusions, which I edited out. —CodeCat 19:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I found six in Special:Contributions/CodeCat. Please don't orphan immediately as it gives would-be commenters a chance to see how the template was used. Especially when there are so few transclusions as orphaning with a consensus is so easy. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

In the past, people have opposed deletions purely because they were transcluded. —CodeCat 19:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Then they're idiots, what can I say? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete, I don't think it was ever needed, it was an experiment. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete. We already have the l/ templates for efficiency. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 20:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

In its original form it required no Lua or template calls etc. It simply linked to language sections. It provided all the required functionality for all terms that used the default (Latin) script of this wiki. Many seem to prefer totalitarian uniformity at any cost in complexity. DCDuring TALK 22:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

That might make sense if this were a matter of freedom of expression. But to me, more templates adds to the mental burden of editing Wiktionary, rather than removing from it. You have often complained about template-itis. Is creating another template that duplicates the purpose of an existing one not an example of that? You think having many templates that fulfill the same task makes things easier? —CodeCat 22:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you claiming to have eased the cognitive burden? As with {{context}}? and {{l|en}}, or is that {{l/en}}? and requiring lang= even for lang=en? Some easing. DCDuring TALK 23:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how lang=en makes the template harder to use. And {{l/en}} was... maybe not as useful as we thought. I am not sure if we still need it, in any case. If typing too much is a problem, then use {{label|en|...}} which is shorter than {{context|...|lang=en}} and only one character more than {{context|...}}. —CodeCat 00:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding extra parameters tends to make things harder to use. Editors only editing English would previously not have needed to know that the lang parameter even existed. --Yair rand (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

And {{context}} was designed so that one only had to type "context" when one was doing something not covered by the substantial number of labels for which templates were available. Were English contributors "spoiled" by having it too easy? Probably, though they ended up having to add lang= parameters to the items that were wrongly categorized as English. I find myself avoiding adding labels because of 1., the extra typing, 2., the ridiculous categorization based on the continuing ambiguity (or conceptual confusion?) between usage context labels and topic labels, and 3., the instability of our template behavior. I really have no interest in sorting out technical questions, but they do keep on interfering with ordinary contributions in English, IMO. That is the biggest reason why I have spent most of my time on taxonomic entries, which is a much simpler realm, which has little need for {{context}} and could have even less.

Further, I have never seen benefit, only cost, from requiring all links to have lang= parameters, other than to directing users following links to the proper L2 section. The script-setting was never relevant for any language using the default character set. English term links would benefit much more from a well-developed system of links to Etymology, PoS, and individual senses than anything else. The benefits would apply to the glosses that appear in non-English term translations, which remain riddled with erroneous and ambiguous glosses and use of terms that are not idiomatic, obsolete, archaic, dated, rare, or "false friends". {{sense-id}} is underused and lacks some capabilities, like operation with popups that would speed the evaluation of linked terms in glosses.

The extra typing is a pain, yes. I think it would make sense to assume a lang value of the current section's language as a default where no lang= is specified. Equinox ◑ 04:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

That would be ideal, but it's not currently possible because templates have no "knowledge" of the page that they are added to. So they're not able to see what language section they are in. Something we could try, though, is making this a bot task. Editors could leave out the language, which would cause the template to withhold back some of its functionality (that which depends on knowing the language, like choosing a category name), but it would also add the template to a cleanup category. A bot could then regularly go through this category and add the language as necessary. I have already been doing this on a semi-regular basis with {{context}} and {{etyl}}. —CodeCat 15:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete --Z 06:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. Keφr 15:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)