Template talk:Script/Nastaliq

Protection

{{editprotect}}: Hi Admin, I took the doc out into /doc. This one: over 250 links in article-space. I'd say pp-template please. -DePiep (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it meets the criteria for protection of highly used templates. In the future, please use WP:RFPP for protection requests. - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. -DePiep (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 8 Native Support

Not sure if anyone watches this page, but Microsoft has recently added native support for Nastaliq in Windows. They have done this through a fully Unicode compliant font that they call "Urdu Typesetting". Here is a blog post about it by a Program Manager at Microsoft. http://www.siao2.com/2012/01/29/10145717.aspx. Would there be any objections to adding this font to the Nastaliq template. I am currently using Windows 8 Developer Preview, and it seems like my browser (Chrome 18) is reverting to regular arabic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kas1234567 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've created a sanbox version of the template and a test case. Look's much better on my machine using Windows 8 Developer Preview (on both IE 10 and Chrome 18). Kas1234567 (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 4 February 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request to add the Microsoft "Urdu Typesetting" font to this script. This is being pushed by Microsoft as the standard font for Urdu Typesetting going forward. If you count just the number of people using the Developer Preview, it probably already exceeds the number of people who have any of the other third-party Nastaliq fonts. Once the public beta comes out (Feb 2012), the number will be in the tens of millions. I have a sandbox page and test case if testing needs to be done.

Kas1234567 (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this subtemplate used? No links to Article space. -DePiep (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Nastaliq template is used on many English Wikipedia pages where showing Urdu proper nouns in Urdu is appropriate. One prominent exmaple would be the page for Pakistan (the name of the country on the first line and in the info-box). There are many others on Wikipedia. Plus I'm sure the Urdu-language Wikipedia needs to render Nastaliq as well, although I'm not sure if this template would affect them or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kas1234567 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it won't affect the Urdu-language Wikipedia. Anomie ⚔ 16:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Although really this should probably be moved into MediaWiki:Common.css in some manner. Anomie ⚔ 16:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 6 September 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove the lang and xml:lang tags. ~~'und' is invalid and~~ {{lang}} should be used to define the language/script/variety/whatever. — Lfdder (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any tags with those names in this template - there are the following four tags:   <noinclude> </noinclude>. Of these, the first has a lang= attribute and a xml:lang= attribute. I assume that you want something done to those attributes: per WP:TESTCASES, please put your proposed change into Template:Script/Nastaliq/sandbox

Also, do you know if this will sort the problem shown at WP:VPT#Nastaliq template broken? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What else could have I possibly be alluding to? Yes, I meant the attributes. You assume that I want something done. Right. I said 'remove'.

That seems to be something in the parser, forcing sans-serif for lang="und". Changing the code to ar forces font-family: Amiri, sans-serif;. Delegating lang code handling to {{lang}} would resolve this, 'cos this will be a ... inside the lang's ... and will have precedence. So yes, this will sort that problem. An empty string for the first param will work on live, i.e. {{Nastaliq|text here}} instead of {{Nastaliq|text here}}.

I've made the change in the sandbox. — Lfdder (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you meant by "the parser" some piece of JS hosted on wikipedia.org, but that's definitely what is causing the problem. I don't have the skills to find out where, though the web fonts loader looks suspicious. The sandbox version works fine for me. 140.182.204.229 (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yeah, it seems to be the UniversalLanguageSelector. — Lfdder (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is 'und' invalid btw ? It is an appropriate language code standing for "undetermined" [1]. I agree that ULS and the browsers screw it up, but that doesn't make it invalid, it makes it have unintended consequences perhaps, but no more. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not used in the way it was intended here. [2] — Lfdder (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's linguistic content, but the user didn't indicate the language (which to me seems caused by a lack of template documentation, since the template does have that option). That seems to be pretty well covered by und. I agree that it would be nice to have it define the proper language next to the font wrapping, but both are separate issues. I agree it would be better if the template actually set a proper language, but that would seem to start primarily with documenting that the thing has a language param to begin with. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have {{lang}} for lang tagging. Why complicate things? — Lfdder (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. I'm not sure that there's a consensus here to make any edits yet, but the template only had 3000 transclusions so I've reduced the protection to semi. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google Noto Nastaliq

Google have been working on a Nastaliq font as a part of the Noto fonts project.

The first two links are using a webfont, the third links to a downloadable font:

Jabran Rafique (11 November 2014). "Quick overview of Google Noto Nastaleeq Urdu web font". Retrieved 21 November 2014.
Behdad Esfahbod (11 November 2014). "Noto Nastaliq Urdu test page". Retrieved 21 November 2014.
"Noto Nastaliq Urdu Draft". Google Noto Fonts. Retrieved 21 November 2014. Downloadable draft font
"Noto font project". Google Code. 23 October 2014. Retrieved 21 November 2014.

I think it's worth us including those — preferably the webfont, imho, but certainly the downloadable font, for users who've installed it. I don't know enough about Nastaliq font use to be able to give an opinion on the sequence they should be offered in, though :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And another link I found, via Ali Eteraz (@eteraz), who wrote an excellent Medium piece, The Death of the Urdu Script:

Kamil Waheed (12 November 2014). "Noto Nastaliq Urdu Demo". Github. Retrieved 22 November 2014.

— OwenBlacker (Talk) 00:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Detached "پ" when not supported in some old browsers?

I noticed on the Punjab page that the "پ" in "پنجاب" is detached in two places.

When I look at the page source, it is not detached. What I see is this template, ie. the source has "{{Nastaliq|پنجاب}}" in both places.

I was using an old version (3.6.9) of Firefox on Linux, I switched to Windows 7 Google chrome and this template has no effect (it just renders the same as پنجاب).

So I guess what's happening is: neither browser supports the more urdu-style script, but in the latter case, something detects it and renders it as it would without the template, but in the former case, something goes wrong.

Maybe this is just a bug in the browser, and granted it is an obsolete browser that has all sorts of problems and I would happily dismiss it as that, except that since it looks like you have some sort of "fallback" case, that should just render as if the template wasn't there, I thought perhaps I should bring it to your attention in case the problem is on your end.

Thanks for your time, and also thank you for trying to make the script nicer! --174.112.129.234 (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text

The rollover/alt text for anything wrapped in the nastaliq template reads "Nastaliq", overriding any indicator of the language being printed (for example, text wrapped in the lang-ur template would ordinarily read "Urdu language text" as the alt text). Is there any way to change this? It seems like the intended language may be a preferable alt text when applicable, since text may be wrapped in the nastaliq template in combination with lang-ur or lang-pa, for example. --Avg W (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Avg W: is this still a problem? and does the order they are nested in make a difference? i.e.

language template first / outside: Urdu: پاکستان

code for above: {{langx|ur|{{nq| پاکستان }}}}

vs

Nastaliq template first / outside: Urdu: پاکستان

code for above: {{nq|{{langx|ur| پاکستان }}}}

Irtapil (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Irtapil: The order doesn't seem to make a difference, the result is the same. Avg W (talk) 05:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Avg W: definitely needs fixing then. I tried the edit request template, but it doesn't seem to fit, do you know which to use? Irtapil (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 1 December 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The 125% font-size is much too big and is interfering with line leading. See for example, Aga Khan I (may depend on your OS and font installed). Could you change it to something like 110% instead? Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC) Kaldari (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done I expect someone will come tell me I've done something horrible shortly, but this looks uncontroversial. ;) Izno (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 26 February 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the ‬ (POP DIRECTIONAL FORMATTING) character from this template. As discussed on the talk page of {{script/Hebrew}}, it is not needed because it does not follow a LEFT-TO-RIGHT EMBEDDING, RIGHT-TO-LEFT EMBEDDING, LEFT-TO-RIGHT OVERRIDE, or RIGHT-TO-LEFT OVERRIDE character (see the documentation of the Unicode Bidirectional Algorithm), and it causes problems on an older browser, Opera 12. — Eru·tuon 02:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have removed the character on the good faith assumption that it is not needed. I expect that someone will report here if that removal causes undesirable effects. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people keep adding the Nastaliq templates to Pashto?

A lot of the characters of the Pashto alphabet isn't available in most Nastaliq fonts, but people keep adding this template and {{nastaliq}} to Pashto text.

Most of the fonts these templates use include just Urdu and sometimes a couple of varieties of Punjabi. About a third of the Pashto alphabet displays as nonsense characters.

Why do people keep using these templates on Pashto and other languages?

Do they have an unusually comprehensive Nastaliq font on their own device that makes it work? or do they have none of the fonts on their device and just add the Nastaliq templates for consistency without knowing what they do?

Irtapil (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replace Awami Nastaliq with PakType fonts

Awami Nastaliq seems to be broken and isn't displaying words correctly, it seems to be displaying words letter by letter instead of joining them. I have found PakType Naskh Basic to be much better and it also properly supports 08C7 (For Punjabi), which previously only Awami Nastaliq did, although it is not a Nastaliq font.
- Taimoor Ahmed^{(Send a Message?)} 14:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nastaliq on mobile

How come the Nastaliq script isn't showing on Wikipedia mobile, or even on Wikipedia accessed via mobile browser (in my case Chrome)? I don't think this is an issue with any fonts on my device, as other websites I've visited on Chrome mobile (such as Siasat) display Nastaliq without any problem. Gowhk8 (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request to replace with Uninastaliq

The template at Template:Uninastaliq simply works better than this one at this point which relies on legacy fonts. The different fallbacks for different languages would not be needed with Uninastaliq either, though it could be refined if other fonts improve in the future.

See for example, ٻ vs. ٻ from the Saraiki alphabet. If you have Noto Nastaliq installed you can see it clearly in the second one. (This is part of the Saraiki alphabet.) Middle river exports (talk) 22:43, August 21, 2022‎ (UTC)

@Middle river exports: I agree, Template:nq should just be redirected to Template:Uninastaliq, it works so much better. It would also be much easier than replacing this template with Uninastaliq. Pinging previous editors @Jonesey95, Izno, Great Brightstar, and Primefac: نعم البدل (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no opinion on the merits. This template has 13,000 transclusions. Template:Uninastaliq has 56 transclusions. It stands to reason that some additional testing may need to be done to cover unusual cases that this template renders well but that the newer template does not handle as well. The newer template does not have a sandbox or a testcases page, which stands out to me (an experienced template editor who has made many mistakes in template editing) as a warning.

If it is decided that the other template is better, the two templates should probably be merged, with the newer template's code copied here, since this is a standard name that lives in a family of templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, the only difference between the main template and Template:uninastaliq is that certain fonts are specified for specific languages (like Persian, Ottoman Turkish, Burushaski, Urdu, Punjabi etc), whereas Template:uninastaliq just includes a whole bunch of fonts to fallback on – in case the user doesn't have any of the preferred fonts. What I will say is that Noto Nastaliq Urdu, though a great font is larger than than normal fonts. نعم البدل (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 10 November 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add Category:Pages with Nastaliq text. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 05:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of the sister templates track their usage? Could a transclusion check be sufficient? SWinxy (talk) 08:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto: as requested. I'm inclined to agree with SWinxy that Special:WhatLinksHere is sufficient and we don't need a category, so deactivating. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

whoops didn't see the ping request SWinxy (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]