Template talk:Okina

"This template is an experiment"??? Hardly; it already works. Plus it is needed for Hawaiʻi articles

This template already works. Just look at any of the What links here for the Template:Okina.

The ʻokina is necessary for many Hawaiian language words. On the EN Wikipedia wikiproject, where I do most of my editing, there are three methods:

• Copy-and-pasting the ʻOkina character, ʻ, which is impractical for those who do not have a handy example.
• Using the ʻ HTML entity, ʻ, which the typical editor does not usually know.
• Using the Template:Okina, ʻ. Residents of Hawaii and other Polynesian islands are well familiar with this word, & that is the probable reason why the Wikipedia version of w:Template:Okina is used so often. It is easy to remember.

The template works & is necessary for articles that use Hawaiian and other Polynesian names. So why not use it? Check with other editors from Hawaiʻi if you need further opinions.

Peaceray (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify any confusion, all new templates are flagged as "experimental" unless they are discussed in advance (see Wikivoyage:Using Mediawiki templates). The explanation you've provided for this template makes sense, so let's wait another day just to ensure that there aren't any concerns raised and then the experimental flag can be removed. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I Support this template. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being abstruse, but I can't see any conceivable reason not to remove the experimental tag and use it in a variety of appropriate articles. --118.93.67.66 11:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the experimental tag given that the template's usage has been explained and there are no explicit objections. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it sets a bad precedent. Most Hawaiian words (such as "Hawaii" itself) have been adapted into English without the ʻokina, so the number of uses should remain fairly low. And it opens up a big can of worms -- which foreign letters will get templates for "ease" of typing and which ones won't? LtPowers (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

If you'd rather add the okina to the special character set and substitute that for the template, go ahead, but I don't see what the problem with the precedent is. How could that hurt anything? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly what I said -- how do we decide which foreign letters are important enough to get templates and which ones aren't? Or should we create templates for every character in every foreign alphabet? LtPowers (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say that the editors "on the ground" should be the authority. They would know best when a character is critical to the spelling of a name.

It is true that many Hawaiʻian words have been adapted into English-style spelling, but that does not reflect the reality here in Hawaiʻi where what we call the host language is integral to the tourism marketing efforts, local music, & the culture that makes Hawaiʻi unique. The state government itself often uses the ʻokina, & Hawaiʻian is one of the official languages here.

Forbidding the use of the ʻokina in Hawaiʻian names would be as absurd as prohibiting accents in French or Spanish. As accents can be critical to correctly pronouncing Spanish or French names; so, too, is the use of ʻokina in the pronunciation Hawaiʻian names.

Peaceray (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather the okina was not added to the "special character set" along with ₵ ¢ ₡ ₫ € ƒ ₲ Kč ₭ £ ₦ ₱ $ ৳ ₸ ₮ ₺ ₩ ¥ zł лв РСД ₪ ֏ ₹ ៛ ₴ since it clutters it up and is too tiny to be seen. (Incidentally, ₵ ¢ ₡ ₫ ƒ ₲ ₭ ₦ ৳ ₸ ₮ ₺ zł лв РСД ֏ ៛ ₴ all need to be removed from that list now that we have simplified and rationalised our wv:$ policy)

Why ever should we not have as many foreign letter templates for "ease" of typing as are needed. If the template names are as clear and unambiguous as this one, where's the problem exactly? If we advance to a liberal and utilitarian template policy, why does this "opens up a big can of worms", please? --118.93.67.66 03:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I support continuing to use the Template:Okina. I oppose adding the ʻokina to the "special character set". Peaceray (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. (Sorry to all for inadvertently losing some edits with my recent comment - I assume it was some sort of weird caching error.) --118.93.67.66 03:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

What's the advantage to having this as a template, instead of a symbol in the character set? It's really too small to be seen? I don't get that. If it can't be seen in the character set, it also can't be seen in a word, right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a matter of editor convenience. Yes, it's very difficult for either readers or editors to spot the difference on most sizes of screen with most default skins and fonts but - the print version matters, eh? If we're so anal about m and n dashes, etc, etc then I don't see why we should not have consistently excellent typography where it is easy and painless to achieve and doesn't bugger up other more important things... --118.93.67.66 06:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, if it's really more convenient for editors, that's good enough for me. I think there shouldn't be special templates for characters in most cases, though, and they should be added to the character set when needed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways; if a template is the most convenient way to incorporate nonstandard characters, then you would have to have a really good reason not to create a template for every such character. LtPowers (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and here's another reason not to use it: it clutters up the wikicode. That's inconvenient for editors. LtPowers (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

This last point is really the reason it bothers me as a template. Texugo (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion about cluttering up code - I really don't know about such things. The only thing I'll say is that I don't think it follows that if it's most convenient for editors to use this template because they'd have trouble seeing the character in a character set, every extended character should thereby have its own template. This seems like an exceptional case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Well here we go. This is exactly what I was afraid of. Can anyone see how this wikitext might be a bit confusing to editors? Never mind the fact that we should be spelling it "Kauai", not "Kauaʻi", because that's the proper English spelling. LtPowers (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see the problem with confusing editors. It's less confusing for most newbie editors than the non breaking space character that needs the HTML entity of " " to create it. If editors are initially confused, then a quick Google of "okina" will rapidly enlighten them. Now if you were to join me in pushing to change our advice at wv:aou (that we have a mild preference for separating the unit from it's amount with a space), then I might think you have a more pertinent point. While that kind of intimidating " " code is scattered all over the wikitext of our pages, then this "confusion" argument is always doomed to fail.

Your second point is relevant. I agree that for overwhelmingly common Anglicisations like Vienna/Wien, Venice/Venezia, etc our current naming policy is appropriate; where it falls down is in these border line cases where the locals feel that the "occupiers" are exercising cultural hegemony - we've had the same ructions in New Zealand with the "Māori macron" in place names and I don't think we should declare war on Hawaiʻian editors by depriving them of their beloved okina. This is a prime example of where we can be less rigid and interfering when editors are adding good content. When one of these articles is up for a Star nomination will be the time to have the great and definitive okina or macron debate... --118.93nzp (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I would rather not derail a star nomination with a discussion that should have occurred long before. And I think said local editors would be on firmer ground if they used the Unicode okina character directly rather than this clunky, wikitext-cluttering template. LtPowers (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right about deciding policy before Starnoms. Where's the best place to have that debate do you think?

If you really think that the okina template is better replaced by the Unicode okina character directly, then there is nothing to prevent you bringing this discussion to the attention of the relevant editor on their talk page (so they understand your reasoning) and then making the relevant search and replace in the article you have concerns about... --118.93nzp (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with LtPowers. We can change the name of the place to Kaua'i or introduce the 'okina into the character set, because it makes no sense to have an article called Kauai and have the place referred to in the article over and over again as "Kauaʻi". Let's end this experiment and either substitute the 'okina with an apostrophe or add the 'okina to the character set. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)