Template talk:Transl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Transl is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template.

Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.

see Template_talk:Lang#smart_selection_of_css_class

If this page is fully protected, it should probably use the Template doc page pattern. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

good point. dab (𒁳) 16:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Unification

the template should ultimately be unified with {{lang}}: It should amount to identical results whether you say {{transl|xx|...}} or {{lang|xx-Latn|...}}. But this will have to wait until we get a clearer picture of what is required in terms of disambiguation of various cases in the css file. At present, we are setting class="unicode" (formerly "latinx") regardless of which language is being transliterated. This is a progress over various ad-hoc classes we used to have ("IAST", "Arabic Unicode", ...). If it would be possible to tell the browser "if the 'lang' parameter contains '-Latn', use class 'unicode'", we would be done, but an exhaustive list of ":lang(xx-Latn)" pseudo-classes would clutter the css file too much. The best solution may be to just wait for another half year, and then try to silently transclude {{lang}}, hoping that soon the vast majority of browsers out there will not have problems rendering the Latin Extended range even without being told "class='unicode'". dab (𒁳) 13:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello dab, I think this template for transliterations (well, really for romanizations) is a great idea! I used to employ the {{lang}} template with the "Latn" script code for transliterations, but now I will use your template because in many cases there are more than one possible translations. But I not sure if this template should be merged with lang (adding some optional parameters to indicate the transliteration scheme). However, I have some ideas to add a simple transliteration capability to the lang template, see Template talk:Lang#Overspecifying and Template talk:Lang-ru test. Anyway, I do believe there are far too many multilanguage templates, and we should unify them. Best regards —surueña 12:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
yes -- the many legacy language templates reflect formatting problems of common browsers in the early 2000s, and the immediate need of using them will die off with better out-of-the-box rendering capabilities of, let's face it, M$IE. It is a good idea to unify them gently. As I state in the usage notes, this template should ultimately also be a shortcut to {{lang}}, inserting a "-Latn" string. dab (𒁳) 17:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see your point now. I though your idea was to merge this template with lang (adding optional arguments), so editors only have to use one template for non-English words, but you are saying that the transl template should use internally the lang one, isn't? From my POV that's fine, but I think that editors should employ both templates for different usages, and so they shouldn't be ultimatelly merged: {{lang}} for foreign words, and {{transl}} for transliterations of those non-English words (there are languages using multiple scripts, including Latin characters). But I think it is very important to note that these templates are not only to resolve current browser issues, but to provide semantic info that can be computer processed. In the future, even if browsers don't have any presentation problems, the language code and the transliteration scheme should also be specified (that's the reason I think {{script}} is not a good approach, because it doesn't provide the language info), but I'm sure you have read the rationale at the Template talk:Lang documentation. Best regards —surueña 19:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

you misunderstand.

  • the various obsolete templates were created because of rendering issues.
  • this template should (ultimately) redirect to lang in the sense that {{transl|ar|...}} and {{lang|ar-Latn|...}} are equivalent. "ar-Latn" already means "romanization".
  • {{script}} is for cases where the script itself is under discussion
  • your point about semantic info is well taken, but that can all be done with a single template, {{lang}}.

dab (𒁳) 19:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but now I understands correctly your point. "ar-Latn" means "romanization", but this is not always the case. Tajik language uses indistintively the Cyrillic, Latin and Arabic scripts, so in some cases "tg-Latn" would refer to an actual Tajik word in the Latin alphabet, or to a romanization of a word in Cyrillic or Arabic (are not the same, see Tajik alphabet#Tajik Latin, Tajik Cyrillic, and Perso-Arabic). Thus the lang template cannot provide enough semantic info for transliterations. In addition to the case of Tajik, there are usually more than one transliteration scheme for each language, so Latn is not enough and private language code must be created. For that reason, these transliteration codes shouldn't be directly inserted by editors using the lang template, but by the transl one. Best regards —surueña 21:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
of course not. One of the reasons I have created this template is precisely the possibility to specify romanization schemes. I have also documented this in Template:Transl/doc. dab (𒁳) 07:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{{{PAGENAME}}/doc}} change to {{Documentation}}

{{editprotected}} Please change {{{{PAGENAME}}/doc}} to {{Documentation}} so that it notes that it is transcluded. Direct transclusion, even if marked with <noinclude> tags, is not clear as to whether it is part of the template or not. --Geopgeop (T) 07:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Y Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Font for translated words

Why is the font for translated words different from the rest of the text? It makes the page look really ugly. At least, it is rendered differently in firefox. In IE it appears to be the same font. Please see Go (boardgame) for an example. --- SuperMidget (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arabic not visible

Why is the Arabic in the first line of Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī not showing up (although visible when editing)? Badagnani (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)