Template talk:US
Request "US" label be US to allow users to look up "US" as "American English".
The is done at the "British" template: Template:British. Facts707 09:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Bad idea, because then you'll be linking the label used for words in Category:American Spanish to a dictionary entry for American English. Even if you resolve this, our labels should link to the Glossary or an appropriate help page, to explain the specific meaning of our language labels, rather than a generic definition. —Michael Z. 2010-02-07 17:33 z
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others (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.
These have twice been deleted by User:Kephir, both times without discussion. I think that this deletion was a mistake, particularly twice without any discussion at all. I think that there are uses enough for (US) and (UK) in contexts where you wouldn't use Template:Label to justify this being kept. It's also a template that uses less characters; and a template that makes more sense to the layman. There's no need IMO to have these merged into the label. At worst, a redirect shoulda been left behind. Purplebackpack89 14:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Can you give an example of a context where you would use (US) or (UK) and not use
{{label}}? — Ungoliant (falai) 14:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)- Whenever you use those outside of a definition. Label is for definitions. Purplebackpack89 16:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Would you have these templates add the entry to Category:American English/Category:British English? — Ungoliant (falai) 16:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Didn’t think this through, did you? Keep deleted. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Here's an idea, Ungoliant...stop making baseless assumptions about how much thought I put into this. I believe that this is useful because it does the same thing as context, us with only six characters. Merging everything into
{{context}}means a lot of things take considerably more characters to get it done. Purplebackpack89 19:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)- You said that these templates can be used in definitions and outside definitions, which is impossible since the templates used in definition need to add categories while those used outside definitions need not to add the categories. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- Here's an idea, Ungoliant...stop making baseless assumptions about how much thought I put into this. I believe that this is useful because it does the same thing as context, us with only six characters. Merging everything into
- Didn’t think this through, did you? Keep deleted. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- However all other context labels now need
{{context}}, and outside of definitions we use{{qualifier}}. I disagree that this is however without discussion; it was discussed months ago and the consensus was to always require{{context}}. I disagreed but I didn't feel strongly enough about it to start a vote on the matter, so I'm not going to dig it up again a couple of months later. Keep deleted; if we are going to restore this, the discussion should be about all context labels used as qualifiers (which this discussion is). Renard Migrant (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Would you have these templates add the entry to Category:American English/Category:British English? — Ungoliant (falai) 16:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Whenever you use those outside of a definition. Label is for definitions. Purplebackpack89 16:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. Things that need to be labeled US or UK can be so tagged with
{{context}},{{label}},{{qualifier}}, or{{a}}(though the last one should be avoided since neither US nor UK is actually an accent). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)- Why use an 11-character template when you can use a six-character one? Purplebackpack89 19:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- It does complicate things if the next person wants to add another context. In general, though, a single template is easier to maintain/keep in synch than multiple ones (to a point- we don't want Template:everything, with 37 different parameters that do the same thing as 37 different templates). Chuck Entz (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- IMHO, Template:Context has become a Template:Everything. Context is fine for multiple contexts, but I think people should have the option of a solitary template for a single context. Purplebackpack89 23:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
- It does complicate things if the next person wants to add another context. In general, though, a single template is easier to maintain/keep in synch than multiple ones (to a point- we don't want Template:everything, with 37 different parameters that do the same thing as 37 different templates). Chuck Entz (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Not restored. — Keφr 00:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)