Template talk:rfp

Is this for symbols?

I'm not sure of how to pronounce these words in every dialect except for mine. I agree that it would be practical to have auditory pronunciations, though, for the utterly clueless.

Galactiger 12:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and add {{rfp}} and/or {{rfap}} to each entry you'd like to hear. --Connel MacKenzie 19:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Extra parameter

No reason is needed for a pronunciation request. Eventually, all entries should have IPA + audio. If the parameter is desired, it must be optional or it messes up existing pages. --Connel MacKenzie 19:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, why so long?

This used to fit on one line? Why is it half a screen now? It is not that important. --Connel MacKenzie 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If this isn't shortened soon, I'll just revert it back to the last one-line version I can find. --Connel MacKenzie 05:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the shorter version. You may be thinking of another template. --EncycloPetey 05:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Lang= parameter?

Could be useful for users who'd like pronunciations of foreign words... \Mike 03:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Added. H. (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

ebosh

What is /eboʃ/? Something Polish?--Jackofclubs 20:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Where did you see it? I don't understand why you're asking on the talk page for the pronunciation template. --EncycloPetey 22:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about this . --Jackofclubs 07:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK. That's an image to illustrate a generic pronunciation; to depict visually what the request is looking for. As far as I know, it is a random set of IPA symbols. --EncycloPetey 15:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the image's description, it's a broad transcription of the French word ébauche (stub). ;-) --Afc0703 05:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

current discussion in the Grease pit

See [[WT:GP#rfp to categorize by dialect?]].​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Later archived to [[Wiktionary:Grease pit archive/2010/December#rfp to categorize by dialect?]].​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

lang=en

Why lang=en parameter doesn't work? Maro 21:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it did work until recently, but the template documentation always indicated people should not use it. Therefore, people didn't. Therefore, most English requests for pronunciation weren't in the English category anyway. Therefore, I didn't feel bad about making lang=en not work (which is what I did recently; I also changed the documentation to not discourage use of lang=en, since it doesn't do anything now anyway). I don't mind making it work again (nor if someone else does), but then (a) the documentation should tell people to use it and (b) preferably KassadBot (our current autoformatter) should add lang=en to each English rfp, something he currently does not do.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I used it. And I was adding lang=en to English entries.

After your changes to the template, we have something like this:

• Entries with lang=en parameter are not in the category Requests for pronunciation (English) but in Requests for pronunciation
• Entries with lang= parameter other than 'en' go to the Requests for pronunciation and Requests for pronunciation (Language) category as well.

So, in the Requests for pronunciation category we have 1,725 entries from all languages.

How an English speaker who wants to add pronunciations to some entries can do that?

There should be a separate category for each language like we have for example in

• [[:Category:English terms needing attention]]
• Category:Requests for etymology (English)

We don't put English terms needing attention to Category:Terms needing attention by language, do we?

I think this template/category should work as {{rfe}} – one language-one category. Maro 19:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said, although, yes, lang=en did (until recently) add words to the English category, that was not much use, as most English requests for pronunciation weren't tagged lang=en. But fine: I'll now revert my removal of them from that category.​—msh210℠ (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Since (per this discussion), English terms are in the English category, I've now added lang=en to every time this template was called in an English entry (and the right code for other languages also), so that Category:Requests for pronunciation is now empty of entries. (Well, it has one, which is translingual and I didn't know what to do with.) Now we can treat that category as a cleanup category. The question is, how do we get users to start putting in lang to this template (and {{rfv-pronunciation}}, which categorizes the same way this template does)? If set the default (no language specified) category to Requests for pronunciation (no language specified) instead of Requests for pronunciation, I think that would help. Thoughts?​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

{{look}}

I personally would have Category:Requests for pronunciation as the default and encourage people to add lang=en. FWIW for {{rfdef}} the relevant category is Category:Definitionless terms (language unknown). I'm not too fused as long as whatever it is, works. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the prologue of Category:Requests for pronunciation to indicate that people should use lang.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's ok. Entries with no lang= parameter should go to the category Requests for pronunciation. Maro 18:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The user behavior issue seems to be that:

1. contributors sometimes forget to put in the language code or
2. they can't figure out what the language code is.

Having something ugly and obvious happen when there is no lang= code addresses 1 but not 2. Unfortunately it addresses 1 at the cost of a noticeable amount of extra typing for a large number of contributors. Moreover, it risks adding frustration for newer English-language contributors.

Some language should get the benefit of not having to type in the language code. As this is English Wiktionary, there is an obvious choice. We could easily have User:Bequwbot (which handles etyl templates) do the same thing for rfp and rfe, to wit, periodically identify those rfps and rfes that do not have a lang= parameter that does not match the L2 header, based on a processing of the XML dump, I think. This seems like a straightforward solution that lets one group of contributors benefit from typing economy, while not letting misclassifications remain for long. I suppose "missing" lang= parameters could be added in this way as well, though the ugliness of the huge number of subcategories could be handled in other ways, such as User:Leolaursen's suggestion (made for a parallel situation, AFAICT) of creating a category that includes all RfP categories and disincluding the non-English rfp (and similar) categories from the "no lang=" RfP category.

Let the technical adepts and categorizers serve users and contributors, not the other way around. Let's not have the tail wag the dog. DCDuring TALK 23:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

[[:Category:English terms needing attention]]

This template should not categorize in this category. The change already worked for {{rfd}} would seem applicable. I'll work up the courage to do it in a couple of days or possibly revert to an earlier version that doesn't do this. DCDuring TALK 23:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't; edit the template, do contol + f (find) and search attention, the word does not appear! Mglovesfun (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It took me an hour or more over two days to find {{attention}} in the entry. Sorry. DCDuring TALK 17:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Playing well with rhs ToC etc.

This template generates a great deal of whitespace when used near the top of the page if a user has opted for ToC right. Not every template does, so I assume it would be fairly straightforward to change it. I noticed it when adding it to acquis#English. DCDuring TALK 20:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Problem only arises when {{rfp}} does not begin the line. Obviously, one solution is to correct that. I wonder whether it would make sense to have {{request box}} handle that situation better. DCDuring TALK 20:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Accent as numbered parameter

Accent should not allowed to be a numbered parameter. The problem is that comments sometimes appear in the position assumed to only be occupied by an "accent" name. This seems to me to be a bad template programming practice. Alternatively all of the rfp template instances that have something in that position that is clearly not an accent name could be marked for cleanup. DCDuring TALK 21:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:accent:This_is_not_an_IPA_pronunciation. and lines containing "accent" at Special:WantedTemplates. DCDuring TALK 03:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The benefit of having accent as {{{1}}} is that the practice of using "US" or "UK" (or, yes, other, lengthier, comments) as {{{1}}} predates the coding (in rfp) that adds a category based on {{{1}}} and is entrenched, and there's really no good reason to change it — and getting people to add another parameter simply to categorize when it duplicates the parameter they've been adding all along is likely to fail. (As an example, see WT:TA: just about nobody uses topic= in {{attention}}. Had I somehow rigged WT:TA to use attention's second parameter instead of a new one (not that I think that'd be possible), it would see much more use.) The detriment of having nonexistent templates show up on whatlinkshere lists and wantedtemplates seems to me to be a very small price.​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This continues to mistreat comments. Request templates don't usually require this. See lines containing "accent" at Special:WantedTemplates. The detriment is that it makes detecting blunders of various kinds harder to detect. The least that could be done is to manually insert "comment=" and make sure it is handled properly OR to extract the comment and insert it as an HTML comment or equivalent}}. DCDuring TALK 17:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Either not generating categories OR documentaion is obsolete

This template does not seem to generate any categories; either that, or the documentation is no longer accurate and I have not used it correctly. Please see a' bhreac which I used as a test.Kibi78704 (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)