Template talk:deseret
RFDO discussion: February–April 2014
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
This is being used as a pronunciation template, along with IPA and enPR. Deseret script sees no mainstream academic usage as a notation for English pronunciation, and I think it's rather inappropriate to use it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Edit: I have added {{shavian}} as a subheader. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem to be doing any harm, though; no more so than
{{shavian}}at any rate. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)- Well the problem is the overcrowding of the pronunciation section. We don't want people to be able to just glance at it and not have to read through all our various transcription schemes until they find the right one. --WikiTiki89 15:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- We could put Deseret and Shavian under alternative forms instead, though obviously without links since I suspect we all agree there shouldn't be entries for them. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well the problem is the overcrowding of the pronunciation section. We don't want people to be able to just glance at it and not have to read through all our various transcription schemes until they find the right one. --WikiTiki89 15:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Orphan and delete this (and
{{shavian}}) per nom; they are decidedly not pronunciation templates. Re: moving uses of both templates out of pronunciation sections and into alt forms sections: the templates are so little used and offer so little of use that I think it would be best to simply remove them, like the (generally malformatted) "Shorthand" sections one may still stumble across from time to time as (as DCD once put it) "remnants of clearly failed experiments". Why would "we all agree there shouldn't be entries for them"? The only reasons I can think of are that they are categorically unattested, or there is some notion that the only attested form of English we should have entries for is the Latin-script form. But if either of those is the case, then why should we list the Deseret forms anywhere? - -sche (discuss) 17:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Old discussion: especially WT:Beer parlour/2013/January#(X)SAMPA; also WT:Beer parlour/2010/May#Customized pronunciation display and WT:Grease pit/2010/April#Template:shavian.—msh210℠ (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- These have been orphaned for a little over three weeks, and (as was to be expected from the minuscule number of uses which exited to begin with) no new uses have arisen. - -sche (discuss) 02:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Deleted by -sche, striking. — Keφr 20:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)