Wiktionary talk:Votes/2011-05/Replacement for Xyzy, langscript, langfamily, langprefix and others

Split into separate votes?
I think it would make more sense to have each of these changes have separate support/oppose/abstain sections, so that voters have the option of only supporting some of these changes. --Yair rand 12:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds ok, I was thinking of doing that too. I was afraid it would make the vote too complicated. —CodeCat 12:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

sc2 et al
Do we really want to have second and third scripts for all languages? Even though the vast majority only needs one? None of these subtemplates will be optional, so that we can avoid using ifexist. So if one language has one, they must all have it. —CodeCat 15:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the secndary scripts are used for now (in ), but assuming they're needed, can you think of a way to use them besides /sc2? &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Category:Saurashtra language displays 4 scripts with the help of . --Daniel. 17:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If the top category of the language is the only place all the scripts are needed, couldn't they be added as a parameter to instead? It would save a lot of work. —CodeCat 18:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Having only one list of all scripts makes it easier to edit many of them at once. Having the documentation together with the list of scripts also makes it easier for people who are learning how to do it, especially because there are some situations that are a little (very little) complex, such as languages with two scripts. In fact, I clearly remember that when the language family was an argument of  rather than listed at, the results were much messier and harder to edit at once. I, personally, like the big lists and have these and other reasons to think they are better than the thousands of tiny templates, so for now my instance is of opposition to this vote. --Daniel. 10:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't have to vote in support for all options. Any option that has a majority will be implemented. But having a list of all scripts makes it redundant to the /script subtemplate of this vote (which is intended to replace Xyzy, which failed RFD). —CodeCat 10:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For templates like, you'll probably want a single default script for each language. And to override that, say for Azeri or whatever, you'd have to specify the script (sc=Latn, etc.). So something like , you'd almost never use it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Abbr.'s
anc? I would never vote in favor of this proposal with all of these abbreviations. Also, I'm not sure that all of the possibilities have to be spelled out in this vote, in case we might find a more fitting value than apdx. DAVilla 05:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the names with full words. —CodeCat 10:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Good idea taken too far
I have no problem with. It's short enough to make a much more cumbersome solution. This should be checked for the others as well. I'm sure there's an elegant way to do multiple scripts, which only applies to a handful of languages. DAVilla 05:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I counted. There are 37 languages with two or more scripts listed now at . --Daniel. 10:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"hard to maintain"
Among a number of other statements against the current system, this vote says that the current templates are "hard to maintain".

Please explain what makes them hard to maintain and the proposed system easier to maintain. --Daniel. 04:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

New templates
CodeCat, the votemaster, said that "None of these subtemplates will be optional, so that we can avoid using ifexist."

Does this rule apply to all 7600+ language templates (resulting in 38000+ new templates)? Alternatively, perhaps, does this rule apply only to the 850+ languages with categories (resulting in 4250+ new templates)?

Anyway, it's important to know that, so I think it should be mentioned in the vote. --Daniel. 04:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

script subtemplate
Just a minor point really, but what would the templates' names be? , for example? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The names are mentioned in the vote. would not be one of them, but  would. --Daniel 10:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)