Template talk:Arabic-script sidebar

This template is to help us merge information from fr:Modèle:AlphabetArabe to the English wikipedia through translation and create a coherent series like the French have. Feel free to change style, translation of title, etc. to make it fit better here gren 06:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arabic alphabet

My edits

I changed this a little so that on Arabic alphabet it lined up with the alphabet box in width. It shouldn't matter really on other pages but it looks better there. gren グレン 06:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to tweak the CSS on this template to remove the underlines from the links

I know the genreal wikipedia style is to always have links underlined, but in this case the informatiopn being conveyed is visual and the underlines do disrupt the letters. I tried to do it with what little CSS I know and did not achieve it. I am hesatant to do much more for fear of messing up any pages this template gets included on. Can someone who knows what they are doing give it a go? Dalf | Talk 03:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sin Shin

Sin and Shin have the same link?

Yes, in Syriac, Hebrew, Aramaic, Phoenician they're the same letter, in Arabic they're similar (but seperate). The Semetic lanagugues share the same articles on Wikipedia. Epson291 04:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not a good idea. the template presents the Arabic alphabet. There can well be separate articles for Sin and Shin, as with Ġayn etc., it just so happens that at present both ﺱ‎ and ﺵ‎ redirect to the same place. dab (𒁳) 14:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, in Hebrew it is the same way, Sin is שׂ and Shin is שׁ (with the accents on different sides), they are also technically seperate (but still the same letter), and accents in general are not normally written. However, as for Arabic, I don't have enough knowlege of it, I know they look similar (but seperate letters, with it replacing the hebrew samech), but you should raise that issue at Shin (letter). Epson291 17:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"rv not discussed" is rather bold seeing all the justification you gave for your change (after the template had been doing fine for over a year). dab (𒁳) 08:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]