Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lfdder (talk | contribs) at 02:01, 17 October 2013 (→You are welcome). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Georgian alphabet

Thanks for your cleanup! To answer the question in your edit summary, indeed theory was not the right word to use there. The tradition naming Mashtots as the creator of the GA has indeed been discussed abundantly by specialists (see the refs on "criticized by scholars, both Western and Georgian"), even though most are skeptical/dismiss personal role of Mashtots. Feel free to ask more or to suggest changes! Susuman77 (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to write this. It's been well over a month with people arguing on the talk page. I'll have a proper read later and let you know if I find anything. — Lfdder (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for - I couldn't figure out what was wrong, so did a temporary fix; you managed to fix it correctly. Adam Cuerden 06:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, no need to thank me....but thanks. :-) — Lfdder (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Please use the edit summary box

I beg you to leave a meaningful edit summary while reverting... It seems so weird to me to have to come here time and again, each time you revert me and to ask you the reason for it... Now, can you please tell me why did you decrease its size back? My reason was that with a Nastaliq font, the dots can become difficult to distinguish with a font size of 125%, making the text harder to read; but at 150%, the letters get easier to read as the dots do not get confused.—Шαмıq ☪ _тαʟκ✍ @ 20:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The readers of Urdu Misplaced Pages don't seem to have any trouble with that size. — Lfdder (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, I think that you should suggest Arabic text be made bigger and the proper fonts be used for Perso-Arabic in MediaWiki:Common.css or perhaps the mw:Universal Language Selector; this sort of hack ({{Nastaliq}}) shouldn't really exist. Arabic and Perso-Arabic should be treated properly by default. — Lfdder (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly so... I really felt that such a template shouldn't exist and the font selection should be by default as it is for Arabic. But I actually do not know how to do this... It would be really nice of you if you kindly tell me the procedure to do this... And as to the font size, the Urdu Misplaced Pages uses Naskh by default and has a consensus or something for not using Nastaliq. In the Naskh script (where letters are distinct and there is no vertical stacking), the dots remain distinguishable even when the font size is small, whereas in Nastaliq, due to its calligraphic nature (where the letters stack upon one another), the dots get mixed up if small font sizes are used. And as this template is being used to represent words, phrases, letters, etc., in Nastaliq, the font size should be big enough to keep things clear. Check this out as a comparison of the default (Naskh) and the calligraphic Nastaliq (the ubiquitous handwritten) form:
—Шαмıq ☪ _тαʟκ✍ @ 23:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah ok. Well, if using Nastaliq proved contentious on ur.wiki, then it might be best to see what people think, say, on WP:PAKISTAN first – though there is an established passive consensus. You could try making an edit request for MediaWiki:Common.css and see what sort of response you get. The bits to add would be:

:lang(ur) {
    font-size: 125%; /* or whatever size you think it should be */
    font-family: "Urdu Typesetting", "Jameel Noori Nastaleeq", IranNastaliq, "Nafees Nastaleeq", "Nafees Nastaleeq v1.01", Nafees, "Pak Nastaleeq", PDMS_Jauhar, sans-serif;
}

— Lfdder (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

送

送 is written /sʊŋ/ in Cantonese IPA. But this clip is , or  ? 198.105.126.178 (talk) 01:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Nativename parameter

Hi Lfdder. As one of the editors who helped draft Template:Infobox language, I was wondering if you could perhaps help me with something? An editor on the Somali language page has argued that the nativename parameter is reserved for English language names. On this basis, he has removed the Arabic transliteration for the language from both the infobox and the lede. However, the Template:Infobox language indicates that the parameter is earmarked for "native name, or a second alternative name ". It would appear that it's actually the name parameter which is reserved for the English language name/page title. Given this, I would like to add the Arabic transliteration for Somali as an alternative native name, as on Persian language. Arabic is an official language in Somalia and Djibouti, and the Arabic script is one of the official orthographies for the Somali language (c.f. Federal Constitution, Somali Airlines). The literal Somali language transcription for “Af-Soomaali” in the Arabic script would thus be "بالعربية الصومالية" (c.f. ); the Arabic language translation of “Af-Soomaali” would be “اللغة الصومالية”. I'm not sure which of the two is most appropriate here or what particular formatting to use. Please advise. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

|nativename= is for the name of the language in the language the article is about. "Given this, I would like to add the Arabic transliteration for Somali as an alternative native name, as on Persian language." That's not the case with Persian language; Farsi is English and the writing underneath it is Persian. Is the Arabic script actually used to write Somali, is it a transliteration, or is it just the word for Somali in Arabic (the language)? — Lfdder (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

E says the Arabic script is "no longer in use". If that's indeed the case, then including it in the infobox would be inappropriate (anachronistic). @Kwamikagami: pinging kwami — Lfdder (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The Arabic script is certainly still used for the Somali language in an official capacity. It is present in most official government literature and much of the Somali media. Please see Omniglot] and the link above to the Federal Constitution of Somalia, adopted just this past August 2012. Also, the first Arabic text link above is in Somali. It's "Af-Soomaali" written in the Arabic script, as on the Persian language page where "Farsi" is written in the Arabic script. The second Arabic text above is just "Somali language" in Arabic. Middayexpress (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This may be something that's self-evident for someone from Somalia or a Somali speaker, but I'm neither -- and know very little about them -- so you're gonna have to show me some scholarly sources that say as much. — Lfdder (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

@Middayexpress: well? — Lfdder (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It's Arabic. He's arguing that we need to include Arabic because it's an official language in Somalia, but not Swahili, which is an official language in Kenya, because it's Bantu.

I said that the only non-native names should be what are found in English sources.

BTW, the reason there are so many non-native names under 'nativename' is that for years that was the only other name field available. I added 'altname' because people kept taking 'nativename' literally. — kwami (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not at all what I stated. Swahili is not a native language of Somalis, so I don't know why you feel the need to keep bringing it up. It's not an official language in any of the major Somali-inhabited areas, and isn't featured on any official Somali literature. It's irrelevant to this discussion. Middayexpress (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Lfdder: Perhaps we should also make use of the native_name_lang parameter. Does it work on Template:Infobox language? Middayexpress (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No, there's no native_name_lang param. I'm not sure if it'd be a worthwhile addition; you can always just use {{lang}}. — Lfdder (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Middayexpress (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lfdder. You wrote above that I can always just use {{lang}}. I did just that, yet you removed the language template from the page and indicated that there was no consensus for including Arabic . What gives? If you object to the inclusion of the Somali rendering in the Arabic script, please explain why and what policy and/or template this objection is based on. Note that the text isn't actually in the Arabic language, though it does use the Arabic script. It is "Af-Somali", the Somali language term for Somali, written with the official Arabic script, as on Tajik language with respect to Tajik. Also, the Greater Somalia region is the primary speech area of the Somali language; so what's the matter with indicating this? Perhaps the word "primary" should be also captioned in the map for clarification? Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you try answering my question above first? — Lfdder (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

What question exactly? Your last post above contained none. Middayexpress (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

right, stop wasting my time. You're not welcome here anymore. — Lfdder (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It can't be your last post, so I presume you're talking about the request for scholarly sources @ "19:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)"? I provided a link to several such sources in my first post, but there's indeed no telling if those are specifically scholarly sources. Anyway, it seems like a fair request, so I will try and track down some appropriate academic material that indicates this. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, please see Omniglot's rendering at the top for "Af-Somali" اَف صَومالي˜ Middayexpress (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Language

You asked about this template at WP:TFD/H. The discussion is Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 6#Template:ISO 639 name. Basically, there is already approval to merge Template:ISO 639 name with Template:Language, so you didn't need to open a second TfD :) Should I close that one? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ 00:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh right. Sure, you can close it. Thanks. (And if you can perform the merge, that will be even better. ;P) — Lfdder (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

word to the wise

Relax, willya? There's no need to call other people's contributions "bullshit" and so on; that's not how we roll here, you're liable to hurt the person's feelings, and it makes it harder to work together. Herostratus (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

what's it been now, 5 merge !votes? No one's articulated what it is we're meant to be merging and what with. We've basically got a bunch of passers-by desrupting TfD. This nom is one of a series to improve lang handling on Misplaced Pages, so to make the introduction of the new module smoother. These people are impeding progress, cos "lol it's not content so why should it matter". You (I) tend to lose your (my) temper at some point. Flippant !votes and remarks like the one I replied to with 'bullshit' certainly don't help. — Lfdder (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

in another word to the wise, if this makes you lose your temper, you should think very hard about the cost-benefit ratio of getting the wiki community to accept some technical "improvement" making some technical issue "smoother". I guess 99 times out of 100 it will just be "smoother" to do the implementation you want to do brute-force and ugly and instead avoid the social drama. Also, if your reflex is to tell people to "fuck off, moron" after you realize that you made a mistake, I would say you aren't quite ready for live editing. Sure people can get needlessly pissy if you make an innocent mistake, but as soon as you realize the mistake was yours, you just say "sorry, my bad" and move on, you do not tell them to fuck off in writing (you can tell them under your breath while you type your curt and civil reply but that's a different matter). It's none of my business, I just spent ten years on Misplaced Pages and I try to help you avoiding unnecessary conflict, leading to unnecessary frustration and eventually premature leaving the project in disgust. --dab (𒁳) 16:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

it wasnt me who made the mistake, it was the previous editor. He called both of us vandals. — Lfdder (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

how am i gonna brute force a change to a template/set of trnplates with more than 100k transckusions, probably? — Lfdder (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, let me just add that one more "trying to get things thru your thick head" remark will earn you a block. As suggested above (and below), the snark doesn't help your cause anyway. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

maybe blocking me will be a good thing. I don't think I can really be bothered anymore. — Lfdder (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

But you don't have to be bothered by it. You nominated it, you made your case--if your case is good, just let it ride. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

About half the people who've !voted haven't even understood what my case is, despite repeated attempts to explain it very early on. It seems few people bother to read or think. But pointing that out makes me a smartarse or something or other, apparently. The latest !vote is from someone who seems to think these are going away for good. Also we've got people taking the piss with 'solution looking for a problem' and the like, never bother to explain what they mean when asked. — Lfdder (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

All language icon child templates

I know you're trying to reduce the unnecessary templating and stick to one but a lot of editors have become accustomed to using them. My main objection is say I'm editing Aalborg and want a Danish external link with Danish given. If you'd deleted them and I went and added a da icon and found it red linked I'd be most annoyed, even if the main template could replace it. My problem essentially is that I wouldn't know this and I'd be temporarily frustrated at this. The solution might be to redirect each language template pointing to the general one but a complete deletion of them is unlikely to get support as you can see. I'd support it if you made a proposal to redirect the templates or whenever an editor tries to use da or fr icon that there are instructions for them to use the main one. I don't really see them as that problematic even as they are though, it's certainly not worth nasty arguments over IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. Maybe we could make them display a message then. — Lfdder (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

As much as I'd love to see the wrappers go, at this point I agree we need some compromise if we want any change at all. I liked the solution offered by howcheng, i.e. have a bot replace the templates to some {{licon}}, and officially make the wrappers {{deprecated template}}s. With time, people (esp. new editors) will get used to the new form. It's even less inconvenience than making them display an error message, which will probably not go down well looking at the !votes. In any case, I think we should start again, count to 100 and give a better explanation: what, how, pros/cons, common concerns/myths etc. Thanks for this. 219.78.115.45 (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's been amply demonstrated you can't change people's minds with rational argument. Time to move on to other things. — Lfdder (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)