Template talk:Lang-ur

Why bold is a bad idea

Okay Szhaider, I will try to explain to you why making Urdu text bold everywhere is a bad idea. If you still disagree with my rationale (which was the consensus prior to your changes), I will petition other Wikipedians for their opinions.

• It's inconsistent - it's not done for other language names (it might be done sporadically, but not as a general rule).
• It's of no relevance to English users and so there is no point in boldening it.
• It's done to address the fact that apparently Urdu text isn't legible enough normally. This makes no sense because making text bold at a small size only decreases the ability to read it because it merges the distinguishing characteristics of letters (especially true of Arabic script text because of the cursive letter forms).
• The solution is attempting to fix a problem which is a client-side and not a server-side issue. The onus is on the user to correct their individual settings by using their browser's font-size controls and/or specific font-overrides. This issue may also be caused by not using anti-aliasing or ClearType depending on the type of screen used to view text.

Now one script that *really* does have a problem in this sense is Bengali (which can be partly addressed by some of the points above, but is properly fixed by changing more advanced display settings or installing an Indic language pack on Windows). Arabic really isn't one of them. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You failed to produce any solid reason against bold style of Urdu script. Here are my own just three points:

• I use bold style of script only for the title of the article which in English appears bold ‎inside the article; in other words it's for consistency with English title. I do not use bold style of ‎Urdu script for other words for which Urdu script is relevant but the words are not ‎important enough to be bold.‎
• More than 90% Pakistan-related articles present bold styled Urdu script for the title of the ‎article. Just for the title of the article, Urdu script should be bold. Urdu script is relevant ‎for those Urdu-speaking readers who might confuse the English transliteration with ‎wrong words. There are literally hundreds of different Urdu words with same English ‎transliteration.
• You will be surprised to know that Urdu script is easier to read in bold style because all important curves are curves rather than line segments. Bold style for Microsoft-provided Urdu font is ideal for screen reading. That's what we use at Urdu Wikipedia if Microsoft-provided font is to be used. Szhaider 23:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• So, you CAN actually read the script in the body of the text but not in the title? Uhmm... if i remember correctly, your original reasoning was that you couldn't read it properly. So now this reasoning no longer stands.
• You've been responsible for a lot of this. And either way, it's not consistent with other pages (i.e. the majority of Wikipedia pages).
• I'm not suprised to know that "important curves are curves" - I'd imagine they'd be curves if they were, er, curves. Ideal for Urdu is a Nastaliq font, which afaik Microsoft doesn't provide. That's not an issue for Wikipedia. Other Indian languages have display issues too which are resolved using WP:COMPLEX and we don't use hacked solutions to resolve display issues. If Urdu has such issues, you can make a page that shows users how to download a Nastaliq font and how to set it for arabic script. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 08:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• I never said anything about zero readability. Not so important words' Urdu script's readability is reduced by not making it bold and otherwise for title.
• Currently provided Nastaliq corrupts Wikipedia's web pages and is not ideal for use. All Arabic based scripts (Persian, Urdu etc.) have their primary stress on the curves of characters. I have already presented the easiet way to solve the problem whcih cannot be considered hacking. Szhaider 16:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Er, yes you did. You original reasoning was that "some people" can't read the text because it's too small or illegible without being bold.
• Which Nastaliq font is this? How does it "corrupt" the web pages? What browser are you using? How are you overriding the Arabic script font? If you cannot answer these simple questions, then you really haven't attempted a proper solution before making all the text bold. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Also, if you do manage to prove the case for boldening the text (which you haven't at the moment) you're going about it entirely the wrong way. It would be entirely more appropriate to define a class for use in arabic language tags which has a different CSS entry. Of course, you're an expert at all such things, so maybe you should figure out how to get it done. It's a shame that so much time gets wasted on Wikipedia battling idiotic points such as this. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit request, 29 March 2010

New interwiki: es:Plantilla:Lang-ur

Galandil (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Killiondude (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request, 2 April 2013

Please sort this template into the more precise Category:Indo-Iranian multilingual support templates. Currently, the template is in Category:Indo-European multilingual support templates. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is usually not required for edits to the documentation, categories, or interlanguage links of templates using a documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage. It's in Template:Lang-ur/doc. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 September 2013

Edit to use {{Language with name}}:

{{Language with name|ur|Urdu|{{{1}}}‎|links={{{links|}}}|rtl=yes}}

— Lfdder (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Done. De728631 (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 September 2013

lrm needs to go outside:

{{Language with name|ur|Urdu|{{{1}}}|links={{{links|}}}|rtl=yes}}‎

Lfdder (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 September 2013

The template produces [[Urdu language|Urdu]]:..., but the article is actually at Urdu, resulting in processing an unnecessary pipe-link and an unnecessary redirect. Please change the pipe-link to an ordinary link to Urdu (i.e. change it to [[Urdu]]:...) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: WP:NOTBROKEN --Redrose64 (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• I believe the performance issues are over-simplified. Is there a technical discussion somewhere that explains how it can require the same amount of resources to process a direct link as a pipe and a redirect? Certainly the NavPopups and linkClassifier gadgets have to do extra work to follow them. Because the template is transcluded in 4200 pages, it seems to me that even an incremental performance improvement has the potential to matter and is worth doing. Anyway, that's why I requested the change – it instinctively makes sense to remove something that is unnecessary in one place when it affects thousands of other places.
• Looking at the individual bullet points, they either don't apply, or agree with the requested "un-piping":

• Redirects can indicate possible future articles: Not in this case.
• Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form. A weak argument IMO, but still supports the change.
• Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links. Again supports this change.

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

To change the link means to stop using {{Language with name}} and to stop using {{Language with name}} means we can't easily propagate changes to all lang-x tpls. — Lfdder (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. I didn't realize that the code wasn't actually in this template. My bad. I do see that there are many other instances of this issue, where the language article name is the language alone, not "Something language" (e.g. Afrikaans), so I guess another template would be needed to really handle it for everything – more trouble than it's worth. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It takes longer to reparse a page than to follow an existing redirect; this is because when you click a link which happens to be a redirect, the extra processing needed to follow that redirect has already been done - when the page was last reparsed (or saved). Changing the template means that all pages transcluding this template will need to be reparsed. The job queue is overloaded as it is. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

OK – thanks for the explanation. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 November 2013

Please update the code to the one I listed at {{lang-ur/sandbox}}. I've added a second parameter nq, so that Urdu text can be rendered in Nastaliq from this template itself without using an additional template. {{lang-ur/sandbox|اُردُو|nq}} → Urdu: —ШαмıQ✍ @ 11:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

These Lang- tpl's should all be standardised so they can be phased out; we shouldn't be adding edge cases. Just wrap it inside both like you've always done -- what's the big deal? — Lfdder (talk)

To save a bit of typing? —ШαмıQ✍ @ 13:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Sorry, but you need a consensus to make this change to the template. If you still want to go through with the change, I recommend advertising this discussion at WP:VPT and any other relevant places you can think of, and leaving the discussion open for a week. If a consensus has formed after that, please reactivate the {{edit protected}} template so that someone will see the request again. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: Consensus? For including Nastaliq? It would not make any change to previous uses of the template. It would just save me typing {{lang|ur|{{Nastaliq|...}}}} (which I always have to do) in favour of the more compact {{lang|ur|...|nq}}. (I add these templates too often and using two templates seems cumbersome for a large amount of broken text) —ШαмıQ✍ @ 15:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Your proposed edit runs counter to Lfdder's plan to phase these templates out; if your edit is to be made we will have to resolve the question of whether it is more important to standardise the templates or whether it is more important to make it easy to add Nataliq to articles. That's not something I can just decide by myself. We need a proper discussion to find a proper consensus, and admins are only authorised to make edits to protected templates if those edits have consensus. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, you people can standardise first and till then I'll keep on using {{Nastaliq}} —ШαмıQ✍ @ 17:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Add Nastaliq

I propose adding {{Nastaliq}} so it doesn't have to be added to articles in the form {{lang-ur|{{Nastaliq|text}}}} as is currently done. This was proposed above two years ago and rejected for reasons I don't completely understand (what is the standardisation plan they were talking about?).  Liam987(talk) 17:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This is definitely worth doing. It would need a bot (or AWB) to search {{lang-ur|{{Nastaliq|text}}}} and replace it with {{lang-ur|text}} as well as embedding that template within this one. A better solution, though, might be to get the code from Template:Nastaliq added into MediaWiki:Common.css for :lang(ur). — OwenBlacker (Talk) 10:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I proposed this earlier, it was rejected here. I proposed over to MW:Common.css as well, but they refused saying it needed to go into ULS. ULS didn't accept those fonts. :/ I finally abandoned it at the time. We can try doing it again and see how that goes. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 15:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 May 2015

Please remove the ‎ object, since it is now being automatically included for all {{lang}}-derived templates using the rtl field. — Quoth (talk) 09:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 September 2015

Kindly include the parameters, lit as in {{Language with name|de|German|''{{{1}}}''|links={{{links|{{{link|yes}}}}}}|lit={{{lit|}}}}}. — harith (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Done Bazj (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit request, 28 August 2016

Please replace the contents of this template with the contents of the sandbox (revision 736508380), which I have converted to use Template:Language with name and transliteration (like Template:Lang-pa and some others), allowing passing transliteration into the template. Thanks! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 01:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed changes Nastaliq

Request to include {{Nastaliq}} to {{Lang-ur}} by default so that users don’t have to type Urdu language text in Nastaliq script like {{lang-ur|{{Nastaliq|text}}}}, rather just {{lang-ur|text}} should do the job. It was proposed in November 2013 and the reasons for denying the request seem to have exhausted. I strongly recommend you to please include this. Be advised that Urdu language is always written in Nastaliq and users on Wikipedia have to manually add {{nq}} inside {{Lang-ur}}, {{Lang|ur}} etc every time. Idell (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC), edited 09:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: As far as I can tell, this request needs to be made at Module talk:Lang. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 September 2022

old format is without breaket Jai Parkash Ukrani Urdu: جے پرکاش اکرانیis a

it should be with small breakts. Please add breaket ; Jai Parkash Ukrani (Urdu: جے پرکاش اکرانی) is a _ Noor Gee __WikiFriend_☺ 04:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: This is by design. If you want parentheses around the template, put parentheses around the template: (Urdu: جے پرکاش اکرانی). – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)