Template talk:script note

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Template talk:script note. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Template talk:script note, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Template talk:script note in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Template talk:script note you have here. The definition of the word Template talk:script note will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTemplate talk:script note, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

The following information passed a request for deletion.

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.

The template was created after discussion at ]. It's used on only two entries currently:

  • ], which is in Cyrillic script, uses the template to note "Note: This is written in Cyrillic script. See ja for the Latin-script of the word".
  • ], which is capital-I lowercase-o, uses the template to note "Note: This is uppercase i, not lowercase L.".

IMO this is what {{also}} is for: These transclusions should use {{also}} instead, and this template should be gotten rid of.

(Arguably, the site-wide use of a template such as this should be discussed at the BP rather than here, but the template author, Bequw, has indicated that RFDO is okay with him.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Though creator, I'm ambivalent towards its existence. The real question is what to do with the pre-existing messages which this template merely regularized (and if similar messages would be useful as well). --Bequw → τ 17:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
It's not redundant as {{also}} doesn't allow any 'comments', it's a question of whether we should have any messages at all in these entries, I too am pretty ambivalent about it. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply


RFD discussion: January 2018–November 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

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.

Do we really need that? See its use at the top of the page at ја. {{also}} seems sufficient to me. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Abstain. Unlikely that someone would land on that page and get confused, but it might invite well-meaning vandalism if someone got linked to it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Meh, weak keep; for something like this where the characters are graphically identical, it seems like a useful note for, as Meta says, anyone who follows a link to the page. - -sche (discuss) 20:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply


Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia