Has this template been superseded by the above? If so, let's correct the pages and delete it. --Bobnottstalk 10:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I was not sure, but now I noticed that LnkTxt is displaying the text in italics by default, so I guess your're right. —Carlos 12:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I authored both templates back when it was our idea to make text-translations categories which would, with the application of either template to a works page, automatically put that works page in the category (without having to go through the tedious manual updating of text-translations pages. I still think that having such text category pages (maybe now hidden and redirected to the corresponding ordinary text pages) is a good idea, from a maintenance standpoint. It would make the (by hand) updating of the corresponding text pages easier.
Originally, LnkTxt gave only bold text (for non-Latin texts) and LnkLatTxt was given to provide bold italic text as an alternative (for Latin texts). Later, this situation was reversed (I'm not sure why, unless there was a feeling that most texts at ChoralWiki are Latin?). With this reversal of roles, LnkLatTxt does indeed became obsolete, although now we now have the unfortunate situation that most non-Latin texts using LnkTxt appear in italics, when plain would be better form (probably because users haven't consulted the documentation and/or are not aware of the preference for plain text over italic text for non-Latin texts. This makes me think it was indeed best to have the original separation into two templates: LnkTxt (giving plain font citations) and LnkLatTxt (giving italic font citations).
Indeed... so is that a "yes" to deletion? --Bobnottstalk 22:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
12:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)