4,735
edits
User talk:Waahlis: Difference between revisions
→Template:term
Chrysophylax (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
I am still not in accord, and I await your response on DA. [[File:Waahlis.png|35px|link=Linguifex:Administrators]] '''[[User talk:Waahlis|<span style="color: Orange;">Waahlis</span>]]''' 23:25, 20 January 2013 (CET) | I am still not in accord, and I await your response on DA. [[File:Waahlis.png|35px|link=Linguifex:Administrators]] '''[[User talk:Waahlis|<span style="color: Orange;">Waahlis</span>]]''' 23:25, 20 January 2013 (CET) | ||
Hum? The logic I tried to explain was that reading/editing contionary entries is simplified (thus making it easier for new editors etc.) as transparency increases; on the other hand, when wanting to say link a word from a language article a short one-character template is more favourable, even more so as it is similar to existing interwiki linking. Thus in the contionary, according to my proposal, we would find “term” inline which makes contextual sense for the source code of a dictionary entry while “c”/“cw” (for "Contionary/Contionary word")in an article in the main namespace, where it makes contextual sense. Am I making any sense? It's why I argue for there being duple templates. | |||
I personally have not encountered any issues when writing the word term or any similar word such as where/were (three adjacent letters) and am thus sceptical of it being an encouraging factor of typographical errors. | |||
Also, I have responded on DA. [[File:Admin.png|35px|link=Linguifex:Administrators]] '''[[User talk:Chrysophylax|<span style="color: #3366BB ;">Chrysophylax</span>]]''' 00:24, 21 January 2013 (CET) | |||