Template talk:onym

Discussion

 * See: Grease pit archive/2007/October

Template:onym
Completely redundant to. --Yair rand (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen this template and often wondered what it's for. Reading the documentation, you'd think it was literally copied and pasted from . Are they compatible to the point that one could redirect to the other? PS Grease pit archive/2007/October. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are three differences that I can see: supports a g= parameter while  does not,  places glosses and transliterations in separate sets of brackets while  places them in the same set, and  works like  when the first parameter is blank, displaying the term unlinked. --Yair rand (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If those are in fact the only differences (I haven't checked, but will take your word for it), then I'd be fine with either fixing 's deficiencies and changing into a (deprecated?) redirect, or vice versa. —Ruakh TALK 00:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this template should be deleted, as long as supports everything it does. —CodeCat 21:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a difference, o/p from each:
 * shouldn't rfd be removed &mdash; Saltmarshαπάντηση 04:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Those appear to be precisely the differences enumerated by Yair rand above. The reason for deleting  is not because it is identical to  (which it most clearly and demonstrably isn't), but rather because it offers no useful functionality that is not already covered by either  or  -- and thus has no real reason to exist, as best I can tell.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * shouldn't rfd be removed &mdash; Saltmarshαπάντηση 04:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Those appear to be precisely the differences enumerated by Yair rand above. The reason for deleting  is not because it is identical to  (which it most clearly and demonstrably isn't), but rather because it offers no useful functionality that is not already covered by either  or  -- and thus has no real reason to exist, as best I can tell.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Another difference: italicizes the transliteration (like ), whereas  does not (like  and ). —Ruakh TALK 15:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That difference really is trivial, it doesn't change what the template actually does. 16:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nu, so? If/when we merge the two templates, every difference between them — no matter how trivial — will have to be merged in one direction or the other. —Ruakh TALK 14:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's true, but something like an italic transliteration really doesn't seem like a big issue. Personally I think consistency is better, so they should either all italicise, or not at all. 15:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete/merge+redirect (per Yair). DCDuring said about a different set of templates that "a system that is too complicated will not be implemented correctly by anyone other than the developer of the system and perhaps an acolyte or two", and I think any effort to use, and  distinctly is futile for just this reason. - -sche (discuss) 08:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For some reason, I find myself agreeing with -sche with particular enthusiasm.
 * The name doesn't seem constructively suggestive of function, purpose, or scope of desired application, either (like ), nor is it usefully brief like or . If anything the name seems misleading. Delete (I could imagine the name being possibly useful for something so redirection seems only a temporary expedient, though "temporary" may be a long time given its widespread transclusion [~6,000].) DCDuring TALK  17:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that is mostly just used in French-language templates, why not just keep it and rename it or something? DCDuring TALK  18:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer to delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've started changing simple uses of onym to l (or, in a few cases, to term). - -sche (discuss) 01:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There are about 200–300 transclusions left, some of which use it via . - -sche (discuss) 08:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I've orphaned, although we should wait for the software to update the Whatlinkshere. So that would continue to work, I moved  to . - -sche (discuss) 16:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this ready to be disposed of yet? bd2412 T 21:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because it's still used. Someone needs to bot-change it (AWB might be best) to everywhere, even old discussion pages, except in cases where  itself is being talked about. I'll do it sometime unless you want to do it first. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure I understand what needs to be substituted for what. Do the templates need to be substituted? bd2412 T 02:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, we're keeping that. It's this simple: needs to be replaced with . —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)