How about adding Old Armenian (code {{xcl}}
) to this list? Admittedly, the language is not terribly important, but the default font (Sylfaen) and size (too small) of Armenian letters in all versions of Windows is extremely badly chosen, unlike Cyrillic or Georgian, so it is important to have sc=Armn always forced. --Vahagn Petrosyan 06:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
So for now, suggested additions:
code | script | language | comments |
---|---|---|---|
xcl | Armn | Old Armenian | default font (Sylfaen) and size (too small) of Armenian letters in all versions of Windows is extremely badly chosen, done |
ur | ur-Arab | Urdu | probably a good idea, especially as Nastaʿlīq script is distinctive, done |
cu | Cyrs | Old Church Slavonic | would be a default (all others are known, not defaulted), display w/o it is okay, done |
got | Goth | Gothic | Opera and IE apparently display boxes even with font installed w/o this, done |
bn | Beng | Bengali | under consideration, ~180 entries, ~350 trans, bn.wikt |
mr | Deva | Marathi | under consideration, ~90 entries, ~450 trans, mr.wikt |
gu | Gujr | Gujarati | under consideration, ~60 entries, ~300 trans, gu.wikt |
ka | Geor | Georgian | under consideration, ~800 entries, ~1400 trans, ka.wikt |
Others: cu Old Church Slavonic would be a good idea, but has two scripts (Glagolitic and Cyrillic) with probably no useful default. We might decide to default it to Cyrillic and require sc=Glag on the others; this sort of thing (defaulting) has not been considered carefully yet.
{{Cyrs}}
, not {{Cyrl}}
. And Glagolitic is used much, much rarer so it would indeed be a good idea to explicitly require sc=Glag everytime needed. --Vahagn Petrosyan 14:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Added above: note that by treating Cyrs as the default (rather than always correct) script for cu, this is modifying the semantics of the template a bit. Probably an okay idea. Robert Ullmann 07:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
As Hindi and Urdu are essentially two dialects of one language and while working on one, I frequently edit and make use of the other, I am going to re-add ur=ur-Arab to the template. A month of indecision is quite enough for at least this one edit. — opiaterein — 23:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I could take this opportunity to be myself, but I'd rather just leave it to an investigator to see what the hell this strike was for. — opiaterein — 23:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Problematic template. Though very widely used, only used via very heavily used template such as {{term}}
, {{l}}
and {{t}}
. So in actual fact, it could be orphaned very quickly. The problem is, as I understand it, that it slows down the loading of pages too much, and it only contains a handful of languages, because to contain more than that it would make entries so large, you'd be unable to read them. So I spend a lot of time adding sc= parameters to bypass Xyzy, therefore saving space in entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
{{langscript}}
's pile of language-script listings, autocreates things like {{sc:en}}
, {{sc:fr}}
, {{sc:he}}
, etc. (with the four letter script code as its content), and fill those not covered by langscript with "None". Then we can deprecate Xyzy and other templates. --Yair rand (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Discussion has been moved to WT:GP#Replacing {{Xyzy}}, {{langscript}} and others
Failed. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
See Wiktionary:Grease pit#Script support. A proposed new version would not have a magic list of hard-coded languages, but would instead use {{en/script}}
and so on. Also, it would offer a sc= parameter, so that other templates can do something like {{ Xyzy | ... | sc={{{sc|}}} | lang={{{lang|}}} }} rather than something like {{ {{#if: {{{sc|}}} | {{{sc}}} | Xyzy }} | ... | lang={{{lang|}}} }}. —RuakhTALK 20:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
{{language}}
is used for language codes. —CodeCat 21:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
{{langscript}}
already do this? Could we just redirect Xyzy to that? --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
{{langscript}}
does only a very small part of what is needed: it doesn't support face= (which is necessary) or sc= (which is desirable IMHO, for the reason I gave above), and only partially supports lang= (whereas full support would be desirable); and it breaks horribly when lang= is not specified (which currently occurs in {{Xyzy}}
in all instances of {{term}}
where neither sc= nor lang= is specified, and who-knows-where else). If we make my proposed change to {{Xyzy}}
, then I think we'll be able to redirect {{langscript}}
to {{Xyzy}}
without harm; but if we were to redirect {{Xyzy}}
to {{langscript}}
right now, without greatly enhancing the latter, then we would cause noticeable breakage in a lot of pages. —RuakhTALK 23:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC){{langscript}}
does something a bit different. It is equivalent to the new {{Xyzy/script}}
. —RuakhTALK 15:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
{{Zyyy}}
("Code for undetermined script"), which didn't exist. I've created that template, but also changed the page not to use it, since we're giving the word in Latin script. Thanks for pointing it out. —RuakhTALK 22:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)I propose that the Xyzy template's code be replaced with the following:
<{{#switch:{{{face|}}}|ital=i|head|bold=b|span}} class="{{#if: {{{sc|}}} | {{{sc}}} {{#ifeq:{{{face|}}}|term|mention-{{{sc}}}}} | {{ Template:{{{lang}}}/script }} {{#ifeq:{{{face|}}}|term| mention-{{ Template:{{{lang}}}/script }} }} }}" lang="{{{lang}}}">{{{1}}}</{{#switch:{{{face|}}}|ital=i|head|bold=b|span}}><noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>
This would remove calls to templates like {{Latn}}
entirely. Additionally, the Xyzy subtemplate calls, langprefix calls, and does-template-exist calls are all removed.
You can test the code by copying the code to the Xyzy edit box and using the "Preview page with this template" tool. --Yair rand (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
{{Xyzy}}
were eliminated altogether, in favour of my earlier proposal of doing everything through CSS classes and/or language tags. Then we wouldn't even need to call Template:{{{lang}}}/script at all, which would be faster still. —CodeCat 18:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC){{Xyzy}}
actually failed deletion, so any measures that lead to phasing it out are a good thing. —CodeCat 19:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
<{{#switch:{{{face|}}}|ital=i|head|bold=b|span}} class="Hebr {{#ifeq:{{{face|}}}|term|mention-Hebr}}" lang="{{{lang}}}">{{{1}}}</{{#switch:{{{face|}}}|ital=i|head|bold=b|span}}>
, with all of their script-specific behavior being handled in the site CSS, then — yes, we should do approximately that (though this is not the right place to propose it), and then afterward we should modify {{Xyzy}}
accordingly. If that is not possible, then we can't do this, either. (I say "we should do approximately that" because I think a few tweaks are warranted. Firstly — it should be {{{lang|}}} rather than {{{lang}}}: no need to generate garbage HTML when the language-code is missing. Or maybe even {{#ifeq:{{{lang}}}|{{urlencode:{{{lang}}}}}|{{{lang|}}}}}, so we don't produce e.g. lang="proto:gem-pro". Secondly — if we're defining our script templates in such a way that it's literally impossible for them to distinguish face=head from face=bold, then we might as well eliminate one or the other. Similarly perhaps with face=ital and face=term, though with those two there's at least the possibility of distinguishing i from e.g. i.mention-Hebr. Thirdly — we may want to include some bidi-helping stuff, like adding ‎ before and after.) —RuakhTALK 18:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
{{proto:gem-pro}}
, not any other times. —CodeCat 19:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
{{Hebr}}
, but I've never quite had the courage to try to identify and deal with all existing entries that would be affected by it. Currently I add it directly to entries in many cases where I can see that I need it. (Its purpose is: {{Hebr|פוּ|lang=he}}, {{Hebr|בָּר|lang=he}} currently puts the fú to the right of the bár, because there are no left-to-right characters between the two stretches of Hebrew, whereas {{Hebr|פוּ|lang=he}}‎, ‎{{Hebr|בָּר|lang=he}} puts them in correct English order.) —RuakhTALK 16:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
This has been orphaned as well, as the extra logic is no longer needed and it's more straightforward to write the code directly. —CodeCat 19:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)