Template talk:R:uk:SUM-11


 * SUM-11 is because there is 20-volume SUM-20 which is not finished yet, with the same name.
 * Headwords to online version could be linked directly but this would require Lua conversion Cyrillic->Latin according to the scheme that the web site uses. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Reversions
, please stop reverting this template. You're reverting more than just the order. If you think the position of the headword should be changed, that should be brought on cite-meta. -- 16:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So what is it that gets lost by my reverts to the template? Again, the tradition is to have the headword as the first item, and if those who control cite-meta cannot get this right, we need to use other means. Furthermore, I am very much opposed by this coup by template introduction. The further reading templates are just fine without this cite-meta stuff. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You're reverting the year switcher for one. I really don't care what you think the tradition is -- take it up on the cite-meta talk page -- and if you disagree with the usage of cite-meta all together, start a vote. -- 17:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me put it differently: let those who want to place cite-meta to every further reading template they can get their hands on show they have at least 60%-supermajority. I oppose this. Let those who want to make a complete rollout of cite-meta start a vote. We have a tradition and status quo ante prevails. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the year switcher, what use does it have with this template and where is it documented? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * About :
 * It produces the following appearance, which I find OK:
 * word in Bilodid I. K., editor (1970–1980) Slovnyk ukrajinsʹkoji movy, Kiev: Naukova Dumka.
 * It does so by using cite-book (calling cite-meta), which is an overkill to produce a very simple markup, and is subject to various unwise changes as we have seen in the past. I oppose the use of the template, but I am not going to revert now. At least the appearance is fine. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)