Template talk:mention

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Italicizing proto-terms[edit]

Asterisk is there to maintain use-mention distinction, and a lot of these reconstructions are much less legible italicized with their special diacritics and characters. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

RFDO discussion: September 2013–April 2014[edit]

Keep tidy.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others.

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.

(Listing here because CodeCat has already begun bot-orphaning it for deletion. Previous discussion: Wiktionary:Grease pit/2013/September#Template:term/t.)

  • Keep, at least for the next several months. This has been a very widely-used template, and people are likely still using it; it would be folly to eliminate it overnight. (I'll abstain, however, on the question of whether it should be kept permanently.) —RuakhTALK 06:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
    That's OK if people keep using it as a gender template for some time: when we orphaned the template, we will use it as {{term/t}}, and {{term/t}} has several required parameters. On the other hand, when {{m}} is used as a gender template, it would be used without specifying those parameters, so (for now) the module can simply return the old content of {{m}} and add the page to a cleanup category if no parameter is specified. --Z 07:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should have a single {{m}} template with two unrelated purposes. We've done it before when there were excellent reasons (e.g. when we had to migrate from {{see}} to {{also}} because the language code see was assigned), but the reasons in this case do not seem to be so good. —RuakhTALK 07:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Orphan and then delete. I do think that bringing {{term}} in line with {{l}} is a good thing, and we know two things: {{m}} is a short name like {{l}} is, and we can't use {{term}} because the parameters are incompatible. Z is right that there is no danger of confusion. Someone who uses {{m}} as a gender template once the change has been completed will trigger a script error, so they will be notified of the problem and we can easily trace it. The suggestion of making {{m}} dual-purpose would not work, though, because it accepts parameters of its own, {{m|f}} for example. If this were done with the new template, the result would be a script error saying "f" is not a valid language code. —CodeCat 15:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
    Actually we could special-case for that, but I agree that it would not be feasible. Keφr 15:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Keep, orphaning it so we can use {{m}} for the name of {{term/t}} is madness; can the template {{o}} because it's the next available letter alphabetically after {{l}} that's not already in use as a template name. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
That's actually not the only reason to do it. But it's a reason to do it now rather than later. The truth is we don't need these templates anyway. Look at the code inside {{m}}, {{f}} etc and you'll see what I mean. They're all identical. —CodeCat 16:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete, as well as any other stupid one-letter-name template. {{g}} should be named {{gender}} to force editors to specify gender sparingly on its own, and instead only within proper templates with support for positional or named (g=) parameter for genders. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually that's quite a good point. Though not a reason I don't think to make the name of the template longer. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Orphan and delete. --Vahag (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep until people demonstrably have quit using it.​—msh210 (talk) 08:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Honestly, I think this deletion debate is a bit premature. We haven't even made a serious dent in all the transclusions yet, and existing transclusions are most likely part of what is keeping people using it (they see it used, so they keep using it). So I think we can only really judge how many people still use this after it has been orphaned. —CodeCat 16:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't follow. Your stated reason for orphaning this template was that you want to delete it; so the RFDO discussion should come first, to determine whether that deletion is desired. I get the impression that you'd want to orphan the template even if we weren't going to delete it, so an alternative approach would be to start a BP discussion about orphaning it; I just figured it was simpler to combine the two discussions at RFDO. (That's a common practice, both for templates and for categories.) If you'd like to start a BP discussion, please be my guest. —RuakhTALK 20:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Changed my mind based on what Ivan Stambuk said; delete as then editors will not be so quick to user genders outside of templates that support them. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I think there are four deletes and two keeps, both of which say that it should be deleted only if nobody uses it anymore. I think that's enough of a reason to at least try to orphan the template, which in turn would affect how many people use it (they use it when they see it used elsewhere). —CodeCat 20:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete. But first deprecate, then finish orphaning, then wait another month or so before deleting. --WikiTiki89 20:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete (as a gender template). Has been orphaned for some time now. - -sche (discuss) 18:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. Finally. —CodeCat 14:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

RFM discussion: May–June 2014[edit]


The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).

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.

"term/t" was ment to be a temporary name, this new name is more descriptive. It also matches the shortcut, {{m}}. —CodeCat 16:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I can use m instead of term/t? Sick! That will save me a ton of typing. Thanks. Have we given up on migrating {{term}} to always use language as its first parameter? I thought that that was the original notion. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, the proposal in the BP last month had some opposition. So maybe if you counter-oppose, it can be done. —CodeCat 20:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Good gravy, if that's not a complicated web of topics and opinions. I think I'll let that simmer a bit before I step into it. Might I suggest that future progress will probably be more likely to happen if we restrict ourselves to one change at a time, lest discussions become utterly unfocused, as those seem to. Removal/reformatting of the third parameter, necessary use of the language as the first parameter, moving from term to mention, using dual names (one descriptive, one short), using a recently orphaned (formerly widely used) template as a redirect......these are all complicated issues. They simply cannot be broached all at once. For what it's worth, I think you have the right idea on all of them, but convincing the community will only be accomplished in a step-wise manner. Regarding the specific proposal of moving term/t to mention, I won't oppose it, as I think it's a step in the right direction, but I won't support it, as I think it's a step taken in the wrong order. {{term}} and allies need to be sorted first, lest we create additional fragmentation and confusion. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
But that's a much harder change to get support for, I imagine, because use of {{term}} is ingrained much more deeply. We also can't orphan it yet anyway, while there are still thousands of cases that use it without a language (because {{term/t}}/{{m}} requires one). {{term/t}} to {{m}}/{{mention}} would probably not get as much opposition because it was clear from the start (and quite obvious, I think), that {{term/t}} would be a temporary name. The process of moving it to its final name was just delayed a lot because we couldn't settle on what to call it. —CodeCat 21:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
re "Good gravy, if that's not a complicated web of topics and opinions": I was particularly impressed that there wasn't even agreement on which venues it was acceptable to have the discussion in, LOL. In the various threads, some users opposed discussion in the WT:BP and demanded discussion occur in WT:V, other users opposed the idea of discussion in WT:V and insisted discussion take place in the WT:BP. - -sche (discuss) 21:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Support moving {{term/t}} to {{mention}}/{{m}} (but not orphaning {{term}}). - -sche (discuss) 21:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I've moved {{term/t}} to {{m}} and orphaned the former. We should probably keep it around for a while so that editors can get used to the new name. —CodeCat 11:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


If this template is to supersede {{term}}, then it really needs proper documentation. It may not be a big deal to experienced editors who will know most of the syntax by heart, but to those of us who are less seasoned, this is a problem that should be addressed before {{term}} can be phased out. —Pinnerup (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

What template to use for uses?[edit]

For example, words in quotations and definitions that would benefit being linked?


No example using |tr= in the doc. --Jerome Potts (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. --WikiTiki89 18:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Arabic letters are rendered in isolated forms in desktop display on iPad[edit]

There seems to be a bug in how the template renders Arabic letters, please refer to the discussion at Wiktionary:Grease_pit/2016/June#iPad_bug_re_Arabic_characters. Dan Pelleg (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

wikidata ids in other languages[edit]

d1g (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Same story with Template:link d1g (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
My bad, copy pasted en without adaptation d1g (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)