Template talk:X-SAMPA

The only usage I can imagine is that the editor can practice converting IPA to X-SAMPA. X-SAMPA representation can be safely generated from IPA one (a Lua code for doing this is ready and we can use it right now), so we shouldn't add it in page's code and therefore don't need this template, unless a contributor can only add X-SAMPA representation but not IPA, which is probably never going to happen.

However, I think there's almost zero demand for X-SAMPA while an IPA version is there, so why not get rid of that altogether? --Z 16:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd rather get rid of this. It's just a question of how many users find this useful. I haven't seen anyone advocate it. For what it's worth, the French Wiktionary got rid of X-SAMPA years ago. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Orphan and delete. Everyone who can read X-SAMPA can read IPA, but the reverse is not the case. IPA is now well enough supported by fonts and browsers that X-SAMPA is no longer necessary as a workaround. —Angr 18:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion via RFDO. This proposal seems to be to remove X-SAMPA pronunciation markup from Wiktionary entries rather than merely removing a template that helps doing that. This template is used in over 10 000 entries; thus, X-SAMPA markup is present in over 10 000 entries. RFDO is a wrong channel for removing a class of markup from so many entries. This is for a vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see why. It will just been the same people commenting but on a different page. a camel is a horse designed by a committee and all that. So I oppose your opposition. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Votes are highly visible, in contrast to RFDO. The "same people on a different page" argument is fundamentally flawed, IMHO: it denies any meaningful distinction between all the discussion pages and channels where people vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. I support deleting the template as well as X-SAMPA in general, but we already have a module in place that can generate X-SAMPA from the IPA. So either way, this template isn't needed. 19:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You cannot orphan the template without knowing whether you want to ditch X-SAMPA altogether or just replace the call to the template with a call to a module or whatever action you have in mind when you mention modules. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete the template and ditch X-SAMPA. --Vahag (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Dan Polansky is right – we can’t delete this template without agreeing to make a substantial change to our entry layout, and revise WT:ELE. This has been suggested before, and I recall there was opposition. If and when someone adds this to the BP, you have my permission to register a Delete vote in my name, in case I am not around. —Michael Z. 2013-09-10 00:28 z 

Ok, for the record, I won't oppose if anyone move this discussion to WT:VOTE. --Z 16:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

RIP
/r\Est In pi:s/ --WikiTiki89 18:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 19:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)