Template talk:Transliteration

documentation change

At this edit, Editor Ineffablebookkeeper added this to the documentation:

However, use of {{lang|xx-Latn|...}} can cause discrepancies in font display when used for transliteration; as such, {{transl|xx|...}} is preferred for transliterations.

@Editor Ineffablebookkeeper: do you have any examples that show that what you wrote is true?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: ooh, I'll have to dig this up from the depths of my Talk page, but I remember having this conversation with another editor about a year or two ago. On certain browsers, use of the -Latn parameter ends up displaying, say, transliterated Japanese text in a font built to support Japanese characters first and English second, so it sort of stands out from the surrounding text as a different font, even though it's in the Latin alphabet. For instance:

Hana {{lang|ja-Latn|Hana}}

Hana {{transl|ja|Hana}}

Both display identically to me, in the correct font.

However, on my Talk page archives here, it seems that, on my crunchy, powered-by-diesel laptop, they would display differently:

Might be me being stupid here. The point of the FOREIGNITALIC stuff is to make sure it's not jarring when you're using casual foreign terms, but it seems like the lang templates in certain browsers deliberately sets off the text (which is the only reason I noticed it in the first place)—so the text was weirdly a different typeface and looked bizarre in the plot summary... but it doesn't seem to do it on all the browsers and OS configurations I've tried, so I guess it's a specific setting. So I dunno. I hate it aesthetically because it looks like someone mad-libbed the text, but at the same times that's the point of the templates. I guess disregard. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Aha, don't worry! I think on my other (very dead at the minute) laptop, it does display differently. It's not a problem! It does look like a ransom note cut out of a newspaper at times, lmao. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, not sure what sets this off; I don't think it's user-defined CSS, as I'm not clever enough for that, and it's not different operating systems, as both this laptop and my hybrid petrol-and-coal-powered laptop operate on Windows 7 with Google Chrome. I have encountered at least one editor removing them in puzzlement in the past, thinking they were an error or a misused template. Though both templates do the same thing, I've been replacing ja-Latn lang tags with {{transl}} regardless for a while now.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 11:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

That is a browser issue and has nothing to do with the template. Compare:

• Hana ← <span title="Japanese-language text"><i lang="ja-Latn">Hana</i></span> ← {{lang|ja-Latn|Hana}}
• Hana ← <span title="Japanese-language romanization"><i lang="ja-Latn">Hana</i></span> ← {{transl|ja|Hana}}

The important part of those is <i lang="ja-Latn">Hana</i> which is the same for both {{lang}} and {{transl}}.

I have removed the above mentioned statement from the documentation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Articles containing x-language text

I may be mistaken, but unlike the Lang template, it doesn't look like the Transliteration template adds the category "Articles containing x-language text" to articles using it. Some articles contain only transliterated foreign-language text, not the original script, and won't have the category applied to them. Why are the two templates different in this regard? flod logic (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

For my part I can only say that because the wikitext version of this template did not categorize by language, the Module:lang version of this template does not categorize by language. You might ask Editor Dbachmann why the original wikitext version did not do such categorization.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't know enough about the technical side of it, but as a frequent language tagger, it would make sense to me to have them both categorize by language for consistency's sake. Is it possible to change that? flod logic (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Because {{transl}} accepts both language and script tags, it seems to me that this template should not share the categories:

• Articles containing <language name>-language text
• Articles with text in <language name>
• Articles containing explicitly cited <language name>-language text

So, if we do this, perhaps these category names:

• Articles containing <language name>-language transliteration
• Articles with transliteration from <language name>
• Articles containing explicitly cited <language name>-language transliteration
• Articles containing <script name>-script transliteration

And there is this: Creating these categories in Module:Lang will all-of-a-sudden create links to about a thousand redlinked categories that will need to be created. That can likely be automated if we create a template that can add appropriate text to the transliteration categories much like {{Non-English-language text category}} does for the language categories.

Not a simple task. Worth doing?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Private-use language tags

Can the Transliteration template be modified to support Private-use language tags? I have been expanding Wikipedia's coverage of ancient history, and I am finding myself needing for the transliteration template to render Private-use language tags, but it seems that it does not currently do so.

Seeing as the expansion of Wikipedia's ancient history coverage would inevitably make it a necessity, can I request for the Transliteration template to be modified so that it can render Private-use language tags? Antiquistik (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Source

Hi @Jonesey95, why did you revert me?[1] “Source text to be transliterated,” foreign-script text like барахло, is never to be entered into this template. Only its corresponding Latin-alphabet target transliteration, like barakhlo.  —Michael Z. 02:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

My mistake. I was suspicious of the edit, because the documentation had been stable for a while, and I misread the documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you.  —Michael Z. 12:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 15 January 2024

Description of suggested change: Hi. I want to change the Proto-cuneiform listing to point to the main article ie "Proto-cuneiform" from the current "Proto-cuneiform numerals", which is a sub-article. Thanks.Ploversegg (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Diff:

−

ORIGINAL_TEXT

+

CHANGED_TEXT

Ploversegg (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Not done. You have not provided an explicit 'change-this-thing-in-this-part-of-the-template-to-this-other-thing' description. Don't make us guess at exactly what you want us to do.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, let me stare at it and figure out the right words. This is my first time working with this template.Ploversegg (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Description of suggested change: Lets see if I can do better this time. I would like to request that in "Template:ISO 15924 script codes and related Unicode data" in the line "Pcun" that "Proto-cuneiform numerals" be changed to "Proto-cuneiform" corresponding to the article Proto-cuneiform. Thanks.Ploversegg (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Diff:

−

ORIGINAL_TEXT

+

CHANGED_TEXT

Ploversegg (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

{{ISO 15924 script codes and related Unicode data}} is not part of {{transliteration}} per se. It is its own template. It calls {{ISO 15924 script codes and related Unicode data/row}} which has this:

[[{{ISO 15924/wp-article|1={{{alpha4|}}}}}|{{ISO 15924 name|1={{{alpha4|}}}}}]]

where {{{alpha4|}}} is the ISO 15924 tag (in this case pcun). {{ISO 15924/wp-article}} defines pcun as Proto-cuneiform numerals but {{ISO 15924 name}} defines pcun as Proto-Cuneiform.

The best place to post this edit request is at the template where the change will be made. Or, because you have extended confirmed editing rights, you can fix {{ISO 15924/wp-article}} yourself.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Now my brain hurts. I'm going to try to edit Template:ISO 15924/wp-article and will hopefully not break Wikipedia in the process. Amazing how one can edit for many years and still not be aware of all the stuff under the hood.Ploversegg (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Template error

The inclusion of the equal sign (=) in texts results in an error message instead of the text being displayed. This causes serious issues for the transliteration of languages like Hurrian, Urartian, Ancient Egyptian, and Luwian, whose transliteration requires the use of the equal sign.

For example:

• Hurrian "pašš-ēt-i=t=ān," when put through the template as [undefined] Error: {{Transliteration}}: no text (help), results in an error;
• Urartian "šidišt=u=nə," when put through the template as [undefined] Error: {{Transliteration}}: no text (help), results in an error;
• Ancient Egyptian "Ꜥnt Ꜥstrt n=f m jkm," when put through the template as [undefined] Error: {{Transliteration}}: no text (help), results in an error;
• Luwian "a=wa=mu zan allantallin ammis nannis piyatta," when put through the template as [undefined] Error: {{Transliteration}}: no text (help), results in an error.

Can this issue be fixed? Antiquistik (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

When an equal sign exists in an unnamed positional (or unnumbered) template parameter, MediaWiki interprets the positional parameter value as a 'named' parameter/value pair. This is not exclusive to {{transl}} and has been ever thus for all templates that use positional parameters. So, in |pašš-ēt-i=t=ān, pašš-ēt-i is interpreted as the parameter name and t=ān is that parameter's value. Because pašš-ēt-i is not a parameter name that {{transl}} recognizes, it is ignored. The no text error message occurs because {{transl}} did not get a valid second (text) parameter. The commonly used work-around for this is to number the second positional parameter:

{{transl|xhu|2=pašš-ēt-i=t=ān}} → pašš-ēt-i=t=ān

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Could you add this information to the main template page so other users won't experience similar issues in the future? Antiquistik (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 5 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Withdrawn; primary given reason for a preference mooted by ensuring AWB doesn't autoreplace transl with transliteration. Thanks, everyone! (non-admin closure) Remsense诉 06:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

---

Template:Transliteration → Template:Translit – The extra eration really contributes to a readability issue when there are lists, tables, or any preponderance of this template in an article—I get that {{transl}} is undesirably ambiguous, but frankly: the shorter the better. I would even prefer {{tlit}} if other people will let me get away with it.

No one in the 2022 move discussion mentioned an explicit issue with {{translit}}, so hopefully folks would be okay with it now. Remsense诉 18:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per the explicit issue I mentioned in the 2022 discussion: "Template function should be clear from the template name" (this is a quote from WP:TMPG, a guideline). "Transliteration" is the proper canonical name for this template. You are free to use the redirect, and other editors should not replace it in the wikitext, per WP:NOTBROKEN, another guideline. I do not object to the creation of a redirect at {{tlit}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  That's not the case, unfortunately, as WP:AWB does replace {{transl}} et al with {{transliteration}}, roughly in line with other substitutions, which I agree with in principle because consistency between articles is nice. I did specifically poke around the tool talk page asking whether such an replacement could be removed, but no one seemed interested, so I guess I'm just realizing this is a bit of forum shopping to that effect, whoops.

  I suppose the function of "translit" would be clear to me, and perhaps to most that would be in the business of using such a template, especially in context. Remsense诉 00:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, and to explicate: I think it's fair to say that "translit" is at least a hair less clear for editors, but when an article calls it 300 times, that's an extra 2.1kB on the article. Combined with a lot of the structural load in many template-heavy articles, extra length often makes articles physically more difficult to edit without going section by section. I don't want to be contrarian, but it feels like there are more concrete reasons to consider this move, and the case that {{transliteration}} is better solely for reasons of clarity is largely theoretical, as I haven't seen anyone say its meaning is actually unclear or confusing I hope you see how the flexibility in that guideline allows for us to disagree on this point. Remsense诉 01:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  I do not think that there is consensus for AWB to rewrite "translit" or "transliterate" to "transliterate". I would support removal of those two particular redirects from Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects. As the top of that page says, Before adding a rule here, you must ensure that there is consensus in favour of the template renaming. Those two redirects were added by Mclay1 in February 2023; that editor might be able to link to a relevant discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  Despite that message, consensus is rarely if ever established beforehand for individual templates. Previous discussions have established consensus for bypassing template redirects unless there is a reason not to. If there is an objection, as in this case, the template can easily be removed from the list. I don't have a problem with that. MClay1 (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

  In that case, I will be doing so and withdrawing this move request as my main reason for preferring it is moot. Thank you for the engagement @Jonesey95, @Mclay1 et al. Remsense诉 06:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• support 'Translit' is clear an unambiguous, also lang-xx templates use 'translit' and it's annoying to type out the whole thing when switching away from them—blindlynx 00:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per the WP:TMPG. The current name describes the template's function clearer than the proposed name. Redirect from the shorter name exists, and if the issue is a few characters saved in the database, then talk to the folks at WP:AWB. -- Netoholic @ 13:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – Proper English names for templates are much easier to understand. There is nothing stopping editors from using shortcuts in articles if they desire. MClay1 (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:TMPG. Nardog (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Style guidelines for multiple templates

See also: Template talk:Translation § Style guidelines for multiple templates

Are there style guidelines for the use of both {{translation}} and {{transliteration}} in conjunction with {{lang}}? E.g., "להד״​מ​ (lahada"m), לא ה​י​ו ד​ב​ר​י​ם מ​ע​ו​ל​ם (lo hayu dvarim meolam) - transl. such things never were, no way" -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Underdocumented error type

(Redirected from Category talk:Transliteration template errors)

In the middle of an unrelated Citation bot cleanup run, I found myself at Scythian languages, where {{transl}} is emitting oodles of errors of the type transliteration text not Latin script. This error is not documented at the help link, which points to Category:Transliteration template errors.

It's pretty clear what this means, and I tried to fix by subbing in {{lang}} per the documentation here, but that broke several links where the {{transl}} output was piped to an internal link. (Upon review, this is already broken.)

Not sure if that ever worked or how to fix it, or what the behaviour of {{transl}} used to be for reconstructed languages, when fed mostly Latin script with a few pronunciation glyphs like ϑ, δ, and γ. I'm not comfortable updating Category:Transliteration template errors to address the error mentioned, in case different use cases call for different fixes.

Dimly aware of the recent Module:Lang-related overhauls, Folly Mox (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Error message documented; copyediting probably desirable because I suck at documentation – it is known.

This construct (and others like it at Scythian languages):

[[Ariapeithes|{{transl|xsc|*Ariyapaiϑah}}]]

violates the first sentence of the {{transliteration}} documentation:

This template is used to mark up text transliterated or romanised from a non-Latin alphabet script to Latin alphabet script.

In *Ariyapaiϑah, ϑ is U+03D1: GREEK THETA SYMBOL; not a Latn-script character.

To avoid the error message, one might write:

[[Ariapeithes|{{lang|xsc|*Ariyapaiϑah|nocat=yes|italic=yes}}]] → *Ariyapaiϑah

{{transliteration}} knows that Unicode does not have a Latn-script theta (θ; U+03B8: GREEK SMALL LETTER THETA). See Template talk:Lang § Non-latn text/Latn script subtag mismatch errors in ancient Iranian articles. I gotta wonder if the decision to accept θ was correct. I guess I want to see that θ really is needed for romanization. If it is, and a sufficient argument can be made for ϑ, perhaps we can collect a carefully curated list of other non-Latn-script characters that may be accepted as 'Latn'.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

It appears something changed recently? -- I am here from the Etruscan_language#Syllabic_theory page/section where the is a new(?) transliteration text not Latin script error. I could not find a clear definition from the help pages of what `Latn` script was. It seems to include all sorts of non Latin character modifiers, and glottal stops for Arabic, and θ (theta) randomly, as also required for Etruscan, but not φ (phi), which is equally required. This seems like many transliteration schemes will have special 'extra' symbols affected. Etruscan and Scythian are two examples. Assuming transliteration schemes must be Latin or 'Latn' (without being clear what that means, or why) seems an unnecessarily limiting restriction. I reverted another editor's good faith edit which added a IPA phi, (IPA is Latn?) which presumably removed the error message before I understood the reason behind it. I'm looking for a correct way to correct this and remove the error message, but am not sold on the seemingly arbitrary character restriction for un-specified transliteration schemes. Salpynx (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Salpynx, it was my edit that you reverted. I am also baffled by the restrictiveness of transliteration templates.
For Greek "γ χ φ" - "ɣ ꭓ ɸ" are considered Latn by the template (and look almost the same as the Greek characters in Wikipedia's fonts), Greek θ is mostly accepted, however Sigma "σ" doesn't seem to have any accepted equivalent. I've tried to remove the errors as best I could; you're welcome to revert the edits again if it is imperative for the Etruscan transliterations to use Greek characters, however unless the templates are changed swiftly the errors will stay. Samsattet001 (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: Came here to check what's happening. Eurovision: Europe Shine a Light has a lot of errors. — IмSтevan ^talk 23:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

By writing {{transliteration|Ethi|ፍቅር ልቤ}}, you are saying that ፍቅር ልቤ is a Latn transliteration of Ethi (Ethiopic-script) text. Clearly that is not correct. You would be better served were you to write:

{{lang|am|ፍቅር ልቤ}} → ፍቅር ልቤ

or

{{langx|am|ፍቅር ልቤ}} → Amharic: ፍቅር ልቤ

Same applies for the Belarusian and Ukrainian items in that list.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the template should be changed so that it is not exclusive to Latin transliteration. 2A02:FE1:9293:F00:D1E5:C603:2AD2:4855 (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Please allow modifier letters widely used in transliteration

ALA-LC and other romanization schemes use some of the following modifier letters:

• ʼ (U+02BC MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE)
• ʻ (U+02BB MODIFIER LETTER TURNED COMMA)
• ʿ (U+02BF MODIFIER LETTER LEFT HALF RING)
• ʾ (U+02BE MODIFIER LETTER RIGHT HALF RING)
• ʺ (U+02BA MODIFIER LETTER DOUBLE PRIME)
• ʹ (U+02B9 MODIFIER LETTER PRIME)

Locoluis (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

They are allowed:

• {{transliteration|und|ʼ (U+02BC MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE)}} → ʼ (U+02BC MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE)
• {{transliteration|und|ʻ (U+02BB MODIFIER LETTER TURNED COMMA)}} → ʻ (U+02BB MODIFIER LETTER TURNED COMMA)
• {{transliteration|und|ʿ (U+02BF MODIFIER LETTER LEFT HALF RING)}} → ʿ (U+02BF MODIFIER LETTER LEFT HALF RING)
• {{transliteration|und|ʾ (U+02BE MODIFIER LETTER RIGHT HALF RING)}} → ʾ (U+02BE MODIFIER LETTER RIGHT HALF RING)
• {{transliteration|und|ʺ (U+02BA MODIFIER LETTER DOUBLE PRIME)}} → ʺ (U+02BA MODIFIER LETTER DOUBLE PRIME)
• {{transliteration|und|ʹ (U+02B9 MODIFIER LETTER PRIME)}} → ʹ (U+02B9 MODIFIER LETTER PRIME)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Right half ring is not allowed for Arabic: {{transliteration|ar|ʾ}} gives [ʾ] Error: {{Transliteration}}: transliteration text not Latin script (pos 1) (help). I see this error at Sabians#Etymology. I've noticed similar problems with {{langx}} and Greek γ in transliterations of Old Turkic; presumably the root cause is the same. Why is the template so hardass about this? Such behaviour violates Postel's prescription and makes contributing to the encyclopedia a pain. Hairy Dude (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Right half ring is a 'modifier letter'. That naming suggests that it 'modifies' something. In isolation, as it is here:

{{transliteration|ar|ṣ}}-{{transliteration|ar|b}}-{{transliteration|ar|ʾ}}

right half ring modifies nothing. When there is something for right half ring to modify, as in:

{{transliteration|ar|Ṣābiʾ}} → Ṣābiʾ

then right half ring is accepted. Even when it doesn't actually modify anything in the text that includes it, as I demonstrated above, right half ring is accepted.

This same is true for all of the other modifier letters listed above: in isolation, there is nothing to modify so it is meaningless, and perhaps even misleading, to individually markup these modifiers as romanizations.

If there is a transliteration/romanization standard for Old Turkic, en.wiki does not, apparently, have an article describing it; see this search. I have to wonder then if the use of Greek gamma in Old Turkic romanizations is something someone made up which other editors then parroted. I suspect that the common misapplication of the Cyrillic small o-with-combining-macron in the Japanese romanization: 'Tettei Kо̄sen' is the same sort of parroting. There is a Latin small-o-with-macron: 'ō' just as there is a Latin small-gamma 'ɣ'.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)