Template talk:romanization of

by original author

While a tad verbose, I felt that this represented specifically that the given form was a distinction purely orthographical and not in any way a Latin form of said word. Medellia 05:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with it. "Romanization" by itself seems too generic. "Orthographical romanization" may be a tad less verbose than "Orthographically romaized form" but who's keeping track? DAVilla 14:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion debate

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Template:romanization of

Unused. Romanizations don't meet CFI as they aren't words. I don't see how this can ever been used apart from wrongly. Perhaps I should have just deleted it on sight. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete per MG. Can be restored if people start using it, and explain why entries that use the template meet CFI. --Dan Polansky 10:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete. There are thousands of romanizations here on Wiktionary, but they simply have the their writing systems displayed by other means (such as other templates), without any help of this unused template. In addition, the output of "Template:romanization of" is ugly to my taste: "Orthographically romanized form of". I don't like it. --Daniel. 00:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

RFM discussion: March–April 2019

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits ([[Special:PermanentLink/59042277#Template:FOO-romanization of_->_|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.

---

{{FOO-romanization of}} -> {{romanization of}}

We have a bunch of language-specific romanization form-of templates that can be merged into one:

• {{ban-romanization of}} -> {{romanization of|ban|...}}
• {{got-romanization of}} -> {{romanization of|got|...}}
• {{jv-romanization of}} -> {{romanization of|jv|...}}
• {{mad-romanization of}} -> {{romanization of|mad|...}}
• {{map-bms-romanization of}} -> {{romanization of|map-bms|...}}
• {{pal-romanization of}} -> {{romanization of|pal|...}}
• {{pal-romanization of Mani}} -> {{romanization of|pal|...|sc=Mani}}
• {{pal-romanization of Phli}} -> {{romanization of|pal|...|sc=Phli}}
• {{pal-romanization of Phlp}} -> {{romanization of|pal|...|sc=Phlp}}
• {{pal-romanization of Phlv}} -> {{romanization of|pal|...|sc=Phlv}}
• {{pgl-romanization of}} -> {{romanization of|pgl|...}}
• {{rej-romanization of}} -> {{romanization of|rej|...}}
• {{sas-romanization of}} -> {{romanization of|sas|...}}
• {{su-romanization of}} -> {{romanization of|su|...}}
• {{xlp-romanization of}} -> {{romanization of|xlp|...}}
• {{xpi-romanization of}} -> {{romanization of|xpi|...}}

All of these templates are copies of each other and all do precisely the same thing except for specifying different language codes (and in the case of Middle Persian, different script codes). The definition of the base Middle Persian template {{pal-romanization of}} explicitly specifies |sc=Phli, but the template is totally unused so I've rewritten it more sensibly (not that it would matter ...). Benwing2 (talk)

Benwing2 (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Support, I think. Pinging @Mahagaja, Mnemosientje as frequent users of the Gothic template. Chignon – Пучок 09:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support too; there are all sorts of languages we have romanization entries for. (However, I don't actually use {{got-romanization of}} much myself; when I work on Gothic I work on entries in the Gothic alphabet, not on romanization entries.) —Mahāgaja · talk 13:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

{{got-romanization of}} adds a category, which is important. —Rua (mew) 14:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rua Which category? Category:Gothic romanizations without a main entry is the only one. Corresponding categories are added by all the templates above and {{romanization of}} will do the same thing. Benwing2 (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. All uses are renamed and all templates deleted except for {{got-romanization of}}, which is deprecated since it had almost 10,000 uses. Benwing2 (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Benwing2 The Gothic category is almost empty now. I did say it was important... :/ —Rua (mew) 19:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rua There was a mistake in Module:form of/templates at the time my bot ran, so the pages weren't properly categorized then. I've since fixed the mistake and the category will fill up again over time. If you want me to speed this up, I can do null edits on all the pages (or you can run this yourself). Benwing2 (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it will be that urgent, but pinging @Mnemosientje just in case. —Rua (mew) 22:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rua, Benwing2 Sorry, haven't been very active lately so only just now noticed this. As far as I'm concerned all's fine as long as both Category:Gothic romanizations and Category:Gothic romanizations without a main entry continue to function as they previously did. If the latter cat needs some time to fill up again that's fine, I haven't been able to do much lately anyway due to real-world obligations so it won't slow me down if it's empty or near-empty. So yeah, to me there doesn't seem to be a pressing need to do null edits on all the romanization entries, that sounds like a lot of effort for something that I think should happen automatically over the next couple of weeks anyway. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 08:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

error when used

I tried on the main page sirah

{{romanization of|su|{{der|en|sw| ᮞᮤᮛᮂ ||head}}}}

1. Romanization of Swahili ᮞᮤᮛᮂ (“head”)

And got the error

Lua error in Module:form_of/templates at line 225: attempt to index a nil value

But did NOT get an error on this page Talk:sirah.