Template talk:Dir

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

More RTL languages[edit]

After this template was created, we have created following 3 Wikipedias in right-to-left languages:

We should add these 3 codes to this template, shouldn't we? --Kanjy 03:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup! They have been added. Only 19 months after your request! Jon Harald Søby (WMF) 23:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please add also azb in South Azerbaijani (en:Azerbaijani language) (تۆرکجه). The Azerbaijani language (when not distinguished) is the northern language, official language in Azerbaijan, the southern one is spoken regionaly in Iran. They are not considered dialects of each other and the major difference is the script used to write it (Arabic vs. Latin). It is referenced in the Meta:Language select documentation. However it still has no Wikipedia because the southern language is a minority language. Some think it is the same as a Old Azerbaijani. Both modern languages have the same ISO 639-1 code az (as a meta-language, not as a collection), but distinct ISO 639-3 codes (as isolated languages). Transliterators may fail to convert old texts with the rules used by the modern languages, and modern Southern Azerbaijani has numerous imports from Persian/Farsi (including grammatical, orthographic, phonologic adaptation and vocabulary). Thanks. verdy_p (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

azb Yes check.svg Done Jalexander--WMF 00:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Also needed: "ug-arab" (in addition to "ug"), already used in translations but thare are displaying some templates with the incorrect direction.

  • that it most cases, it should be handled like "ug" alone. But Uighur is a language written in two scripts, Latin and Arabic, and some resources in "ug" may be in one script or the other or both. However it is not possible for now to develop a transliterator between the two scripts so that "ug-latn" and "ug-arab" are handled like with Chinese or Serbian to convert pages dirctly from one script to the other, with a user preference as a "variant". So "ug-latn" and "ug-arab" are still plain locales separate from "ug". In y opinion, either we have resources in "ug" alone, or we create distinctions of the two scripts by keeping "ug-latn" and "ug-arab" only (removing then "ug" completely), so that users would still use the variant selector even if they are translated separately rather than simply transliterated like in Chinese and Serbian.
  • There's a simliar complex case for Kashmiri (which is also written in the Sinographic script for the part of Kashmir occupied by China, bit locally, Kashmirir prefer using the Latin script if they can't use the Arabic script like in Pakistan, or the Devanagari script like in India!) and "pa-arab" ("pa" is Pandjabi is generally written in the Gurmukhi script in Western India, or Bengali script in Eastern India, but also in the Arabic script with the Perso-Arabic variant in Pakistan, exactly like Urdu in both Pakistan and India). In Southern Asia, the script used by languages of muslem population is a known difficult problem as the script is often a problem.
  • The use of pseudo-phonetic singograms for the Chinese Kashmir has been attempted in the past up to the 1980's, but China no longer applies it and accepts now the Arabic script for all languages except Chinese and its sinitic variants (but still refuses the Indic scripts due to the persisting conflict of China with the governement in Kashmir in India, and China does not want to enter in conflict with Pakistan and still has severe political turmoils with muslem popuplations in Xinjiang and there are many muslems throughout China mainland using the Arabic or Latin scripts, notably for Turkic-Mongolian languages). China even accepts and develops now the use of the Latin script for all its sinitic languages (with the standard Pinyin romanisation), except in Southern China were traditional Han script is very vivid and prefered to the simplified Han used with success in Northern and Eastern China (and internationally in Singapore, and growing in usage in Hong Kong, Macau and even by a small minority in Taiwan). In Central Asia, with people speaking languages with Turkic origins, the choice was done since long in favor of the Latin script, modified like in Turkish with the "Altaic' alphabet, featuring the distinctive dotless (vs. hard-dotted) letters i and j (however there's still a large use of the Cyrillic script, but transliterations of Turkic languages between Latin and Cyrillic scripts is well defined, so we don't need separate "xx-latin" and "xx-cyrl" resources).
  • It should be interesting to get opinions from Wikimedian in Kashmir and Pandjabi (in all three countries around this border), or with origins in those regions but now living in the worldwide diaspora and that want to preserve their cultural heritage or still have local contacts with their families in India, Pakistan, China or Bengladesh (and possibly also in Nepal) about which script they want to support. These discussions should occur also in the respective Wikipedias to see which solutions can be developed and used there (like they occured in Wikipedia editions for Chinese, Serbian, Romanian/Moldavian and Portuguese/Brazilian
  • May be later, it will be decided that Serbian-Latin, Croatian, and Bosnian ill be merged back to the same language called again "Serbo-Croatian/Latin", and Serbian and Montenegrin becoming again "Serbo-Croatian/Cyrillic" by finding mutual agreements for accepted orthographies in a richer shared vocabulary and for the accepted scripts and a common working transliteration method between the two scripts, this type of discussion allowing cooperation as well between the two main Tosk and Gueg dialects of Albanian used in Albania, Kosovo and Macedonia and Albanian minorities in Serbia and Croatia). In general we need a more flexible system to support transliterations, or transciptions, or reasonnable language fallbacks for such languages (and even for others, such as supporting trasnliterations to the Deseret script for English, or to the Latin script for Yiddish, or to the traditional Mongolian script from Cyrillic for Mongolian language). Developing transliterations would also bring an educational role that would help those communities to rediscover their historic linguistic resources, and revivid their own languages with a wider audience under the umbrella of a common and rich "hat" language (like English and French) with many etymologies and new productive ways to maintain a rich and modern usable language (let's then ignore "purists" that try to divide languages, often for bad political reasons, all they do is only to promote a dramatic divide with English, or to promote the shift to very different large foreign languages like English, French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Hindi, Arabic or Indonesian as the only viable alternative to their own language).

-- verdy_p (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello Please add bgn in Western Balochi (en:Balochi language) (روچ کپتین بلوچی). The Balochi language (bgn - Western Balochi) is the Baloch people language, official language in Balochistan (Pakistan), regionaly in Afghanstan, spoken by Baloch people in Iran, Turkmenistan and other countries . --Ibrahim khashrowdi (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I confirm: bgn must be added to the rtl list (see an example on Template:LangSelect where it is still rendered aligned on left in the correctly sorted list of RTL languages).
Note: there's still no Wikipedia open for this language, but translations in Balochi are already present on this wiki, and there are pages as well in Incubator.
For now "{{Dir|bgn}}" returns "rtl", should be "rtl".
Only an administrator of this wiki can add it, because this template was protected by blocking edits, with the "cascading option", on two minor pages (for logging blacklists) transcluding it.
To admins: beware of the cascade option when you block pages like these two minor log pages: at least create exceptions, and manage separately the protection of templates they may transclude.
Note: this Dir template is extremely used by lot of pages (including via many other templates using it), so it should remain protected. verdy_p (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)