Template talk:lang

Needs transliteration and meaning gloss parameter
This template needs tr= parameter for transliterations, as well as the third positional parameter for translation, for it to be a complete replacement for and. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose you mean the second positional parameter, because there is no second currently. This template isn't meant to replace them, because it explicitly does not link. Rather, it's meant to replace calls to the script templates when using them to tag text in a certain script. 12:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But when you don't want to link, but want to provide transliteration and translation, then we are supposed to do what? Use and  without the first parameter? That would introduce ambiguity with respect to "missing script" case. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose we've never had a good solution for that. It could be added to this template, but I'm not sure. Maybe someone else thinks differently? 12:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

RFD discussion
Same as above. Heavily used at Wikipedia, honestly not sure why we'd need it here. If we really need to talk about an entry without linking it... we can just write it. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's been surpassed by a long way by stuff like and . Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This template specifically does not replace and . The purpose of this template is to provide language and script support without making a link. There is a difference between writing ombudsman and writing . The former is English, the latter is Swedish!  20:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Um... that really doesn't make any sense. Can you actually tell the difference between ombudsman and ombudsman, or for that matter between those two and ombudsman? I doubt you can predict which one uses which language/template combination to generate its output. But perhaps you might want to have script support, say, for a word in Yiddish, but you don't want to link to it. We already have script templates which serve that purpose. I can write and get the script support without making a link, which is exactly what this template seems to attempt to do. I think the reason this is so underused is that it serves no purpose that we haven't already filled. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And yet it's true. And is also different from . Try it out and then look at the HTML code. :)  21:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

delete. It is already possible to do this with the term template; writing yields. -- Liliana • 21:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Iff can do for screen-readers all the things this does, delete it. But it is useful to be able to mention, without linking, a term in such a way that a good screen-reader will pronounce it in the correct language. - -sche (discuss) 21:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is also useful for things that are not terms, like citations or usage examples. That is something term can't do and shouldn't do. 22:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For example: > Dit is een test. but  > .  22:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. There are indeed cases where a usage example isn't in the language of the section it's in, and I'm not referring only to the English translations that should always be given; there are also things like [[pochotl]], which has a Spanish usex in a ==Nahuatl== section. Weak keep. - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The sections don't really matter. It really comes down to this: every word on Wiktionary that is not English should be wrapped in a HTML tag with a lang= attribute to specify the language. Every word on Wiktionary that is not English and is not in Latin script needs this too, but also needs special support for the script. Some time ago I proposed unifying these two things into one so that we would never have to worry about scripts anymore. 22:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Umm... does take a lang= parameter. Just do  to get this is a test. -- Liliana • 23:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I'm aware of that. This is just another way to do it, really, but it was specifically intended to be used when we phase out script templates. 23:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * CodeCat sort of has a point, but it's kind of an insane one. "every word on Wiktionary that is not English should be wrapped in a HTML tag with a lang= attribute to specify the language". Um, we have trouble defining stuff like in in English. Also, there comes a point where you're putting computers ahead of human users. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This doesn't affect human users in the slightest, neither positively not negatively. But just because editors don't know or care doesn't mean that something shouldn't be done. There's quite a distinction between not actively pursuing a certain style of writing entries, and actively prohibiting them which this nomination seems to do. 23:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are human users who it should affect; screenreaders can switch voices based on the language tag. If French is marked as French, blind users are much more likely to get a correct pronunciation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it will make pages larger and hence load more slowly, and as you concede, with no counterbalancing positive effects. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just barely, though, because it's a very simple template. 14:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. If people were using it, I'd say sure, keep it, but it seems that no one is, and there's no advantage to (e.g.) over . —Ruakh TALK 18:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That is true but how many people would add to anything?  18:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually think this is pretty useful. The only reason I never used this is because I didn't know about it. --WikiTiki89 18:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: "how many people would add to anything?": About the same number, I imagine, as would add . —Ruakh TALK 19:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * According to the standards, languages’ default script codes are unnecessary and shouldn’t be added (these are the ones labelled  in the subtag registry). So the shorter  and  are correct. The script codes should only be used in cases where more than one script is possible, like  and, or in unusual cases, like transliterated text  —Michael Z. 2013-02-02 19:54 z 


 * What does that have to do with anything? —Ruakh TALK 20:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The user meant the equivalent of is actually, which is shorter. --Z 20:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you. The author should always mark the language, but only needs to specify the script in special cases, if at all. —Michael Z. 2013-03-31 00:15 z 

K  Tagging script instead of language is harmful, as demonstrated in the first few paragraphs above. Authors should specify language, and the necessary language tags and formatting should automatically follow. Here we have experienced editors recommending template usage that applies a meaningless class attribute for font styling, while omitting language tagging altogether. Everyone has forgotten that the script tags were a hack introduced because MSIE 6 doesn’t know Unicode from its ass. —Michael Z. 2013-03-31 00:41 z 

Kept, is now widely used, also per Mzajac's reason. 12:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Test

 * → 骨
 * → 骨
 * → 骨
 * → Quote
 * → Quote
 * → Quote
 * → Quote
 * → Quote
 * → Quote

RFD discussion: October 2016–October 2022

 * We could also try orphaning it instead. I believe there are many uses that could be replaced with other templates. Try orphaning it and see how far we get. —CodeCat 14:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I use this template frequently for the text of quotations, which helps screen readers know what language the text is in; also, it's needed for display purposes sometimes, like wrapping text in to display German text in Fraktur. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * We have other templates for quotations, that are more suited to that specific task. —CodeCat 21:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'm aware of them. Could you link to them, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 09:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * and various other templates beginning with "quote". —CodeCat 14:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * And to mention a word without linking to it, you can put it in the 3rd positional parameter of l or m, thus: de. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * @Aɴɢʀ: Thanks; I was already aware of and do already use and  like that.  I frequently find those templates to be flawed; they can't handle the quotation of works with unusual internal structure (Wittgenstein's ', with its hierarchically organised propositions, is a modern example). Unless there is something that can perform the function of  without the problems of the   templates, I shall have to oppose''' this orphaning. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you give an example? —CodeCat 14:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, an example of what? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * An example of a case where no other existing template works. —CodeCat 14:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I confess to not being very experienced with those templates (the bad experiences I've had have been other editors trying to shoehorn existing, manually-written citations into them). Maybe one or another of those  templates could cope with the TLP; I wouldn't know. Could any of them cope with the modern translation of a scholion by one ancient author, commenting on the work of another ancient author, appearing in a volume of translated works of ancient authors (writing on a common theme), with the texts emended by different modern emendators, the volume as a whole edited by a modern editor, and that volume constituting one part of a series which itself has a different modern general editor? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That has nothing to do with what either or  does. I suggest you familiarize yourself with these templates before commenting further. DTLHS (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * My mistake. I thought CodeCat was only referring to and the like. I was not aware of the existence of .  My apologies; I misread what you wrote.  is great; I'll use that instead of  from now on. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I am moving this discussion from WT:RFM to here since it is about whether to delete a template. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 20:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I have been using to ensure that non-Latin texts (for example, Greek) are properly rendered. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Same for me. Thadh (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is useful where an author has included, say, a Greek word or phrase in a Latin, English, ... work that is being quoted. (It's also apparently being invoked by some other widely-used template or module: it's currently used in almost 232,000 entries.) This, that and the other (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * : if you add filtering for namespaces to WhatLinksHere or linkcount you'll see that there are 3,535 templates and 41 modules. A great many of the templates are babel user-language templates and inflection templates, with a good number of reference templates and more than a few list templates. The module usage seems to be mostly if not completely via documentation subpages. That means orphaning it from just the template namespace would likely require a bot. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The Babel templates demonstrate another very valid use of lang. There's even less of a reason to delete this now, in my mind. This, that and the other (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Kept - the "used 200,000 times" is a damn valid reason not to delete it. GreyishWorm (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

RFM discussion: October 2016–March 2017
to something more sensible like "template:text"? lang could be used to display the language name from a language code whenever "there is no other template (like or ) that can be used instead". --Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Or ? That'd make it very clear. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It also has 'face' and 'sc' parameters. Maybe ? --Dixtosa (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * (There's no need to be facetious; I responded, didn't I?) is fine. What does the face parameter do? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I was just making a point. hope no feelings were hurt )) My implicit question was: why do you feel lang suffix is necessary? It's not like this is the only template that can work with languages. --Dixtosa (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I just figured that it made its use clearer, that it's a template that marks the language of the text it encloses. But I really don't mind what it's called. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Question: I have used on talk pages. Would a bot convert these instances to whatever template name is chosen as a replacement for ? — Eru·tuon 17:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it should not be moved since its equivalent on Wikipedia has this name. —suzukaze (t・c) 07:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)