Template talk:Script/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments

Latnf is a problem, Fraktur letters are separately encoded at 1D56C-1D59F (bold), 1D504-1D537, pluis C: 0212D, H: 0210C, I: 02111, R: 0211C, Z: 02128, long s: 017F. Supported e.g. by Code2001.

de-Latf

de-Latf

Choosing "Latf" should however somehow map an ascii string on these letters.

another problem is Nasta'liq script, considered a font variant by both Unicode and ISO 15924. This will need a solution like {{cuneiform}} where the font variant can be selected by an additional parameter.

The "Fraktur" block is intended for mathematical symbols only. Latnf should not map to those, but enforce various Fraktur typefaces. A difficult choice, since there exists a large number of these but none seems to be somehow the 'standard Fraktur' font recommended for Latnf. dab (𒁳) 07:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Language codes

Hi, I've notice that in all scripts supported the language code is added to the HTML code (either a fixed language code for {{script/Runic}}, {{script/Gaelic}} or {{script/Coptic}}, or 'und' for undermited if not specified in {{Script/Nastaliq}}) but Hebrew and Cuneiform. Any reason why for these two scripts the language code is not included, not even 'und'? Thanks. —surueña 21:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure if language codes should at all be included, or if we should give 'und' whenever this template is used (see above...). I guess I missed Hebrew. Cuneiform should also give 'und'. Maybe we could allow an optiona paramenter for the langauge code, and give 'und' whenever it is omitted. Feel free to fiddle with this. dab (𒁳) 15:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:lang

Hello, I'd like to ask in which cases this template should be used instead of {{lang}}/{{rtl-lang}}. There are a lot of multilingual templates, and this confuses the user if they are for the same purposes. Couldn't this template be merged with these other more general one (via CSS styles, for example)? Best regards —surueña 20:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• this template is intended to address rendering issues, e.g. switching between various modes of cuneiform. There is currently no ISO code that would allow you, say, to distinguish between Old Assyrian and Neo-Assyrian cuneiform, it's all just "Xsux". A similar case is Nastaliq. Also, there are ISO scripts that are not necessarily used with a particular language, such as "Latf".
• it is intended for cases where the script itself is under discussion. E.g., when discussing Cyrillic letters, there is no pertinent language code except 'und' "undetermined", since the string А Б В Г Д Є Ж is not in any particular language. Granted, there is nothing wrong with just using 'und' А Б В Г Д Є Ж since it is clear anyway that these characters are Cyrillic, no need to annotate that.

dab (𒁳) 19:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I see, these aren't easy use cases... :-) First of all, it is worth noting that these are very "rare" cases, I mean, only a few people will really write about these topics. My main objection with this template is that it is not needed to enforce the language code (because in some cases this is the purpose of the template, of course, adding the 'und' language code). So I'm afraid of wikipedians widely using this script template to tag normal words, i.e. where the language should be specified. So as you said, for the second case, when the script itself is being discussed it is easy to document that the editors should use {{lang}} with the undetermined language code. For the case about specifying the cuneiform epoch, I think that this is a difficult topic: few people has installed a font for rendering cuneiform (there are even no fonts available for all the different epochs), so I would rather use images rather than forcing the wikipedians to install multiple fonts. However, if a template is really needed for this usage, I must say that I suppose this is one of those few cases where a specific {{cuneiform}} template should be created (again). Even if there are more ancient languages where the epoch should be specified, I not sure whether a common template should be created to handle them because it would be misused very easily. Finally, for the case about Nasta'liq, I would like to ask if a possible solution is to employ this callygraphy when the language is Persian, Pashto or Urdu (in the CSS, e.g. via {{lang}}). I really think your template is awesome, and in fact I think a lot of its functionality should be added to template lang, but in my opinion only the minimum number of multi-language templates should be available otherwise editors would be confused, and this script template can be easily (and it is being) misused. We can create private language/script codes for the Wikipedia (in fact, we will have to create and document private language code for transliterations, until the W3C creates a standard solution). What do you think? Best regards, —surueña 21:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

surueña, this template is intended to address the "difficult cases". It should only be used by people who know what they are doing, and I do not suggest that it should be used widely. However, there are a few cases where it is (still) necessary to use it: the enforcing of script variants that are considered font variants by Unicode (Latf, Latg, variants of Xsux and Ital). These are the rare cases where we are forced to give a list of known fonts for those users who have them installed. Obviously, if a system doesn't have a font with the script, there is nothing we can do to render it. How this template should and should not be used should be stated in its documentation, as with every other template. I would be happy with a good css solution for Nastaliq though. For Latg, since we don't want Irish rendered in Latg by default, this could be done in the css for "ga-Latg", "mga-Latg" and "sga-Latg", exclusively. Similarly, "de-Latf", "en-Latf" etc. Similarly, for Xsux, we could distinguish "sux-Xsux" and "akk-Xsux". Unfortunately, "akk-Xsux" could be either Old or Neo-Assyrian (but the difference between the Old and the Neo-Assyrian script is considerable -- I know there are no widespread fonts yet, I'm looking into the future here). As I say in the doc, I never even got round to addressing Hani, this should be done cleanly in the css. Since Unicode is now recognizing Coptic as separate, this is not a problem any more, but we still do need a disambiguation of the various Old Italic scripts (Ital). No, I do not think we should introduce idiosyncratic language or script codes. If there are no ISO codes, we should use specialized templates, not the css. dab (𒁳) 15:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

there are other cases, such as {{Coptic}} and {{Hebrew}} that are here only for historical reasons. These should indeed be addressed in the css, and after that, use of the script template should be deprecated. But they have to be addressed properly first. Thus, for Hebrew, the css should anticipate all of "he", "yi", "yi-Hebr", "lad-Hebr", "ar-Hebr", "und-Hebr", and if possible any "...-Hebr" code. dab (𒁳) 11:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection?

Maybe the template needs Template:pp-template potection. But: about 100 links, no more. Anyway, I separated the documentation. -DePiep (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

FreeSans vs Free Sans

See MediaWiki_talk:Common.css#FreeSans_vs_Free_Sans --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Automatic right-to-left handling?

Is there any way text in an individual language can be automatically enclosed within a right-to-left span tag using this template? ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I finally found the subpages that hold script-specific code, such as Template:Script/Runic, so this is solved. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Nastaliq musn't be used for unrelated languages

That phrase {{script|Arab|أبجدية عربية}} specifies that the computer must show Arabic letters with a Nastaliq font. It's a fault, because Nastaliq isn't the regular way of rendering Arabic letters. Do something, to make the code, instead, choose an appropriate font, such as those specified there {{script/Arabic}}. The problem also affects rendering Arabic letters with that template {{Phoenician glyph}}. If it is intended that Nastaliq fonts be used for Urdu or languages which may use that style regularly, then its OK, but please, make sure that not all Arabic script languages be shown that way. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Aegean font-face for Old Persian

Could someone add the Aegean font-face for the Xpeo language code? Thanks! 96.241.150.64 (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• @96.241.150.64: done.--El caballero de los Leones (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Andalus Script Style

HI, I SEE YOU USE LOT OF STYLE, IN TEMPLATE…

• {{Script|Arab|أبجدية عربية}}‎ → أبجدية عربية‎‎ (uses {{Script/Arabic}})
• {{Script|fa-Arab|فارسی}}‎ → فارسی (uses {{Script/Nastaliq}})
• {{Script|ps-Arab|پښتو}}‎ → پښتو (uses {{Script/Nastaliq}})
• {{Script|ur-Arab|اُردُو}}‎ → اُردُو (uses {{Script/Nastaliq}})

BUT I NEED, THE ANDA‑LUSIA ONE (WINDOWS MONOTYPE ANDALUS), WHO IS THE PERFECT SYNTHESIS BETWEEN ARABIC & HEBREW, UNIFYING FONT SHARING COMMON VALUE, THAT WOULD BE MY FONTS IN TAÔQODÊKRÊSË PROJECT…

I NEED THAT TEMPLATE, TO AVOID TO WRITE LONG COMMAND :

<font size="4px"><span style="font-family:Alndasuë,Andalus">[[wikt:سفراء#Arabic|سفراء]]</span></font>

I ALREADY VRITTEN TO MONOTYPE TO ASK TO ADD PERSIAN, URDU KURDISH & SUPPLEMENT IN IT…

--ͰΑΘϷΕΝΑΝΑΤΕΣ‑ΥΣ (dôr.) ΗΤϷΑΝΑΝΘΕΣ‑ΟΣ (att.) ͿΗϷΑΟΛΙΕΥϷΟΛϜƏ Α̃ΜΑΝΓΖΕΔͿƏ - حطشأنانثس يشأعليهوسعلۋ أمنجزهدي (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Runes going the wrong way

Could someone help us out over at Talk:Thor#Runes? The runes are going the wrong way now, apparently due to a recent template edit. Haukur (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

After some trial and error in the sandboxes I have managed to fix the template for script/runr to take an "rtl" parameter in order to display runic text with right-to-left directionality (of course in rtl mode the individual runic letters should be mirrored, but that is done at the font level using OpenType, which may not work even if the runic font supports rtl mirroring ...). BabelStone (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Haukur (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Inscriptional Parthian

I'm confused by the change from "Inscriptional Parthian" to "Pahlavi" on Template:Script and its doc page for ISO 15924 code Prti (Inscriptional Parthian). @DePiep: Can you shed some light on it? What am I missing? DRMcCreedy (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This edit I made. The change is, for |1=Prti: instead of calling

{{Script/Inscriptional Parthian}} N,

{{Script/Pahlavi}} Y

is called (transcluded).

Obviously, Template:Script/Inscriptional Parthian is a redirect. The edit makes {{Script}} skipping that redirect, calling the target template directly. Since all is in the background (not visible for editores using {{Script}} in an article), for regular editors nothing changes, they can use {{Script}} as before. This is also why I think this is not controversial. HTH -DePiep (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand now. Was confusing script Prti with ISO 15924 Prti. I now see that the fonts for Inscriptional Parthian are covered. Thanks. DRMcCreedy (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is causing headaches over here too ;-)

We have four ID's for a single script: enwiki-article, Wikidata-item, ISO-alpha4, Unicode alias. ({{ISO 15924/overview-4id}})

Then, with these four, there is still the issue: show them correct! Is where {{Script}} comes in, and css and preferred fonts.

So we need more edits sure ;-) -DePiep (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)