Content deleted Content added
Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Module talk:Zh) (bot |
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Module talk:Zh) (bot |
||
Line 233:
: I wouldn't worry about it. Use whichever makes sense. I tend to use lang for single instances of Chinese or pinyin as it's shorter and simpler. In general performance is not something editors should worry about; that's for the people running the servers, who can actually study where the bottlenecks are and come up with solutions whether it's hardware or software such as optimisations to the source code. Very occasionally pages hit one of the limits of the software and get added to a list or tracking category, such as those here: [[Special:TrackingCategories]]. If this happens to a page you're working on then it probably needs addressing but otherwise don't worry about performance.--<small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> 19:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
== Italics summary ==
I've broken this out into a new section to summarise things. Based on the above discussions, surveys of existing use, etc. I've undone the <code>ital=no</code> option as unnecessary. It's been in for years, except with <code>noital=yes</code> to activate it, and never used. This is largely as it was added but not documented so the only way to discover it was via a note on the talk page or a careful examination of the template code. But the fact it was ''never'' used, or requested since, suggests there's no need for it. It could be added at a later date if there's demand for it but that's a separate discussion.
So the changes in the sandbox are just the additional italicisations for the other romanisations, for the reasons given above: consistency, to distinguish them from the labels, and to agree with [[MOS:FOREIGN]]. The other option to make it consistent would be to remove italics from pinyin but that would be far more disruptive a change, with pinyin being far more common than the other Romanisations, and does not agree with the style guidelines.
Does that seem OK ? I'm keen to get this merged into the main module, for the reasons above and as it arose from the language tagging so is in a way part of that. Get this in and I'd consider all the fields working properly - properly formatted, properly tagged with the appropriate language tag.--<small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> 19:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
{{edit template-protected|answered=yes}}
Please update the module from the sandbox to introduce the additional italicisations as summarised above. The main discussion is at [[#Italicisation]], where there was broad agreement with only one objection which was addressed, before getting sidetracked with the ital=no/noital=yes discussion.--<small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small><sup>[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> 17:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ETp --> [[User:Jackmcbarn|Jackmcbarn]] ([[User talk:Jackmcbarn|talk]]) 18:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
| |||