Template talk:t-SOP

Automatic transliteration

I was pointed out to the unexpected behaviour of my edit to add automatic transliteration.

Unlike {{t}} (also {{t+}} and {{t-}}), this module creates links to romanised Russian, e.g. sostojánije neopredeljónnosti

{{t}} (no link)

• Russian: болторез m (boltorez)

Or:

• Russian: болторе́з m (boltoréz)

This template links to sostojánije and neopredeljónnosti:

• Russian:

How do I remove the link? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried removing [ [ ] ] from Module:ru-translit but the result was worse:sostojanije|sostojánije neopredeljónnostʹ|neopredeljónnosti. Will try adding {{delink}} to get: sostojánije neopredeljónnosti. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

{{delink}} worked, see: --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

RFD discussion

The regular translation templates now support "smart" link formatting just like {{l}} and {{head}} already do. That means that this template is no longer needed because the others can fulfill their function. They correctly handle the interwiki links as well. When the translation contains links of its own, the interwiki link is automatically omitted from the translation (like {{t-SOP}} already did). Technically that means that you can replace {{t-SOP}} with any of {{t}}, {{t+}}, {{t-}} or {{tø}} because the presence of the link will override the choice of interwiki display. So they will all behave identically in this case, but {{tø}} is the obvious preferred choice as the replacement. Alternatively, it could be made so that {{t}}, {{t+}} and {{t-}} display the interwiki link as usual (after stripping out the links), in case we ever want to show a translation-interwiki to a term that is SOP on our own Wiktionary? —CodeCat 21:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is {{tø}} the obvious preferred choice as the replacement? Doesn't it depend on whether the language in question has its own Wiktionary? And isn't anything that's too SOP for inclusion here also too SOP for inclusion on other languages' Wiktionaries? Can Lua make {{t}} strong enough to obviate the need for {{t+}}, {{t-}}, and {{tø}} altogether? In other words, can Lua make {{t}} itself detect whether (a) the language in question has its own Wiktionary and (b) if so, whether the word in question has an entry at that other Wiktionary? —Angr 08:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The difference between the templates is basically the colour that the interwiki link is displayed in. {{tø}} omits it altogether. {{t}} displays it in default colours, {{t+}} makes it blue, and {{t-}} makes it red. The templates (or module) can detect whether an interwiki is valid (making {{tø}} somewhat redundant), but they can't detect whether an entry is present or absent on the foreign Wiktionary. I don't really agree with this practice either, but for now this is what we have (a BP discussion would probably be needed to change it). {{t-SOP}} displays no wikilinks at any time, so {{tø}} is its most direct replacement at the current time. —CodeCat 10:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but won't this require a change in the operation of Rukhabot? I don't know specifically how Ruakh programmed it, but my assumption is that it'll have trouble now in its zeal to change such {{tø}}s into {{t-}}s. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep. The template works much better than {{l}} and it's easy to convert to it from accelerated translations. I don't know why it should be deleted. I use it quite often now. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why you'd want to keep it. It's redundant. Why not use {{tø}} instead? See here for comparison:

• {{t-SOP|nl|[[gebakken]] [[ei]]|n}} > Template:t-SOP
• {{tø|nl|[[gebakken]] [[ei]]|n}} > gebakken ei n

—CodeCat 10:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The result is indeed identical:

• {{t-SOP|ru|[[домашний|домашнее]] [[хозяйство]]|n|tr=domášneje xozjástvo}} > Template:t-SOP
• {{tø|ru|[[домашний|домашнее]] [[хозяйство]]|n|tr=domášneje xozjástvo}} > домашнее хозяйство n (domášneje xozjástvo)

Only most people don't have "ø" on their keyboard and "SOP" has a meaning, which fits here. Besides, {{tø}} is normally used for solid words and supports alt=, which may become messy, if one tries to use with multipart words with both links ([ [ ] ]) and the alt= parameter. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I've long been bothered by the fact that {{tø}} uses a non-ASCII character. Can't we move it to {{t0}} (using a zero), or at least create a redirect from {{t0}} to {{tø}}? —Angr 12:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't really seem relevant for wanting to get rid of {{t-SOP}}. If you can't type tø then just type t instead, it will work the same (so yes, not only is this template redundant to {{tø}}, but {{tø}} is redundant to {{t}}!). As for confusion between SOP links and the alt parameter, that problem also exists for all the other translation templates and for {{l}}, {{recons}} and so on. So that's hardly a reason to keep this template. Like I demonstrated above, it's completely redundant, and even if this template is not deleted, I will redirect it to {{tø}} because they do the same thing. I hope that point is really clear by now. —CodeCat 13:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't realise that {{t}} behaves the same way as {{t-SOP}} when multiple [ [ ] ] are added. I'm confused why the template existed in the first place. Anyway, I change to delete only if all instances {{t-SOP}} are converted to {{t}}. I also think that we don't need {{t+}} and {{t-}}, since they seem to be set once and never change but that would be another rfd. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

{{t0}} now redirects to {{tø}}. —CodeCat 13:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete, but inform owners of the translation-template-bots before any changes. I don't know how they work exactly but for example, they should consider t0 a valid translation template. --Z 14:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Which bots should be changed? —CodeCat 23:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Ruakh needs to know if his bot should remove any of the templates from the mix it uses, though I think it only uses tø, not t-SOP. And Kephir has a translation-formatter script, which might create instances of t-SOP. As long as Template:t's documentation is updated, everyone else should be able to work out what's up from that. - -sche (discuss) 23:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete as no longer has a purpose not filled by another more widely used template. Note the French name for {{tø}} is {{t--}}; much easier to type. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Also [1] --Z 19:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

{{t}} works in most cases, including SOP translations (or any with [ [ ] ]). It's also easier to convert from {{t|blah|sum of parts}} to {{t|blah|[[sum]] [[of]] [[parts]]}} than to {{tø|blah|[[sum]] [[of]] [[parts]]}}. Is there a reason for having {{tø}} to work with SOP's when {{t}} works the same way?

The template is now orphaned in the main namespace and and my reformatter no longer creates new instances; hard-refresh if you still have an old version cached which does that. Keφr 16:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason, but the purpose of {{tø}} is to display no interwiki link. SOP translations never have an interwiki link ({{t-SOP}} did not display one) so {{tø}} seems like the closest replacement. I think that we may not actually need {{tø}} anymore either, if Module:translations can reliably detect which terms/languages should get interwikis and which should not. —CodeCat 16:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I (nearly) always use {{t}} and leave the rest for bots to sort out. So do as you please with {{tø}}. Keφr 16:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)