Module talk:alternative forms

Typing dial1=, dial2=, ... dial19= is annoying. In an ideal world this template would take positional parameters as dialect names. --Vahag (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Dialect modules

 * Do you know if all the dialect modules are categorized under Category:Dialectal data modules? — Eru·tuon 00:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That is my assumption, but I will check when I get home in a few minutes. — JohnC5 00:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe I got them all. — JohnC5 00:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I created the category, but wasn't sure how to find the remaining modules. — Eru·tuon 00:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The secret is to do something like this and then just check. — JohnC5 00:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Call dialects modules outside of alter

 * I think it would be a good idea to be able to call up the dialect modules outside of alter, ex. grc = . If we do that, I think that function should also be moved to Module:Dialects, and perhaps the submodules should be moved there as well, ex. Module:Dialects/grc. --Victar (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should be call the label-making function outside of this module, but I would rather not move it to a dedicated module until we figure out how to unite the dialect labels of, , , , , , and whatever else, as discussed at . (See also my outline of the label templates at User:Erutuon/labels.) The name Module:Dialects (it should actually be lowercase, Module:dialects) would be misleading, if this module were just an adaptation of the label-making function in Module:alternative forms. If it is only going to be used in and derivative templates such as , the function should stay in Module:alternative forms. Hope this makes sense; the situation is maddeningly confusing. — Eru·tuon 21:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As mentioned at some point, it would be better called Module:lects if anything. — JohnC5 21:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That would imply that it's be used for full languages, instead of just dialects, which I don't think would be the case. --Victar (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * But we do use chronolects all the time. — JohnC5 02:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't deal with a lot of chronolects. What would an example be? Homeric Greek? --Victar (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose any stage in a language could be called a chronolect, i.e. Latin Latin, Middle Latin, etc. --Victar (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a lot of Latin is chronolects. — JohnC5 03:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear that nobody, including myself, wants q to be touched in any way. And even if we saw some merges, that doesn't mean we need to do away with the templates themselves. In very best case scenario, I see dialects simply becoming a shortcut for lb. So I say, we start on that basis, create dialects, and let the merge happen whenever it happens, if it ever does. --Victar (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Umm, not nobody; I am in favor of changing the behavior of to make it more like . And yeah, I wouldn't do away with the existing templates. Again, the template would have to be, since it includes chronolects. — Eru·tuon 02:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Besides you obviously, per your argument, but that's a fight you would lose is spades. --Victar (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I'm just not sure one can enforce a split between and . Frequently  has both a lect-related label and another label; would we require someone to, for instance, split  to  ? That would be weird. Or would we have to do, including the non-lect label in the lect template? — Eru·tuon 03:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * en is certainly the better option. Is qualifier a better name for such a template? Maybe, but I don't think it matters too much. Even if we coopted qual for our purposes, we would still then need to create a new template with the current functionality of qual for things like possibly and spelling influenced by Latin.... For now though, if we could just get a templates that does grc, that would be a great first step. --Victar (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's create lect than. It's going to be created regardless. All we need to do to get it to work is make the needed function in alternative forms public. Then at least we can have something to play with and improve on. --Victar (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Links

 * Shouldn't line 270 check if the target language is the same? Because this doesn't generate a link for Laz, which could be problematic for big pages. კვარია (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)