Template talk:got-decl-noun-table

Transliteration
Are the tr= parameter really necessary? As I see it the automatical one is fine as it is and in that case all this does is fill up the "Terms with manual transliterations different from the automated ones" category. Mulder1982 (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If they're appearing in that category, then there must be a difference, right? —CodeCat 01:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, usually it's just a missing macron over the e or o or hwair not being used or whatever. I still have to check to be sure but I can from this computer since it doesn't display Gothic letters. That said I still don't get why there's a need for a manual transliteration in this template, when the automatic transliteration system is fine as it is. Mulder1982 (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that it's not, since it can't tell long vowels anymore than transliterations for Ancient Greek can. —CodeCat 22:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the automatic transliteration overrides the manual one for most cases so while a manual transliteration is missing the macron, the template still shows the transliteration with the macron and the article ends up in the cited one. What's the point of that? Take albergue as an example. This manual transliteration is missing the macron but the page shows the macron. I'm pretty convinced that this template generates a lot of these exact things. Hence it's pretty pointless to have a manual transliteration in this template when the automatic one is perfectly fine. Any missing things (lengths or what have you) should preferably be noted in the Pronunciation heading in the article itself. Mulder1982 (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So you think that should instead be ? I disagree. —CodeCat 22:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like we're going to get into a raw vs. normalised transliteration fight. ;) Personally, I'd prefer a 3rd way which made manual transliterations redundant but still showed said length. Similar to how stress is shown in Cyrillic Slavic languages. Otherwise, I'd say yes to your question, because if manual transliterations are going to be used anyway, then what's the point of an automatic one? Mulder1982 (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Further, it's not more different than Latin which never shows length except in the header in the article itself and in the pronunciation heading. This'd work just fine for Gothic too. Mulder1982 (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, we always include macrons for Latin in all cases. We could use macrons for Gothic script text, but I have no idea if that would even look ok: —CodeCat 22:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? I find it extremely rare to find Latin texts with macrons. (My personal quirkiness would also include writing u's as v's but I won't go there right now). And if Gothic with macrons is doable, then let's go for that. (concerning your sample I can't see it right now, I'll let you know in a few hours) Mulder1982 (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)