Module talk:Lang/data

Module:Lang/data is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible module. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lang/data module.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1: 3 months

Edit request 8 January 2025

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

Description of suggested change:

Diff:

Northern Moonlight 00:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? {{lang-fra-que}} was a wrapper template around this:

{{Language with name|fr-CA|Quebec French|{{{1}}}}}

Replacing {{{1}}} with text:

{{Language with name|fr-CA|Quebec French|text}}

Quebec French: text

When that template was deleted in favor of {{langx}}, ["fr-ca"] = "Quebec French" was added to Module:Lang/data so that there would be no visual changes to articles:

{{langx|fr-CA|text}}

Quebec French: text

Is there discussion somewhere that has achieved consensus to make this change? Link?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 24 March 2025

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

Description of suggested change: Add support for additional proto-languages, under their family's ISO 639-5 codes:

Proto-Kartvelian: ccs
Proto-Uralic: urj

I ran into the need to tag these languages while performing language cleanup in Laryngeal theory. I'm certain their articles would benefit from proper tagging, as well.

Diff:

EnronEvolved^{My Talk Page} 22:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{lang|fn=name_from_tag|link=yes|ccs-x-proto}} → Proto-Kartvelian

{{lang|fn=name_from_tag|link=yes|urj-x-proto}} → Proto-Uralic

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 24 March 2025

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

Description of suggested change: Add a language code for a couple more proto-languages, also using their groups' ISO codes:

Proto-Finno-Ugric: fiu
Proto-Samic: smi

I hear Proto-Finno-Ugric a debatable proto-language these days, but I'm running into the need to tag it in Laryngeal theory.

Diff:

EnronEvolved^{My Talk Page} 23:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{lang|fn=name_from_tag|link=yes|fiu-x-proto}} → Proto-Finno-Ugric

{{lang|fn=name_from_tag|link=yes|smi-x-proto}} → Proto-Samic

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian Latin alphabet

@Trappist the monk: I am curious what you think of the Belarusian Latin alphabet AKA "łacinka". The IANA language-subtag-registry for BCP47 does not seem to say much in this regard. For "be", I could only find variants "be-1959acad" and "be-tarask" and that "Cyrl" script should be suppressed with "be" (but not "Latn"). Since some Belarusian seems to actually be/have been originally written in "łacinka" (vs. transliterated for readers of Latn scripted languages) is this better as a variant via something like "be-łacinka" (I am not sure that technically qualifies due to the "ł") or a romanization via something like "be-Latn-łacinka"? And should "łacinka" be added here as a transliteration addition to translit_title_table? What is the best way to markup such text: with a {{lang|be-Latn-łacinka|...}} or {{translit|be|łacinka|...}} or something else? Thank you, —Uzume (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the point of view Module:Lang, latn script is latn script regardless of alphabet so the general case is {{lang|be-latn|łacinka text}} or {{langx|be-latn|łacinka text}}. When the text is a łacinka-alphabetic romanization of Cyrillic Belarusian, you can use {{transl|be|łacinka}}. So far as I know, łacinka is not a 'romanization standard' so is not supported by {{transl}}.

We do not create variants like 1959acad and tarask because they must first be registered with IANA (there is no external standard from which variant subtags are derived).

If it is important to do so, you might consider creating a separate template like {{lang-sr-Latn}} which hard-codes the language label to link as [[Gaj's Latin alphabet|Serbian]]. I don't think that easter-egging the language label is a good idea so the practice should be discouraged.

Łacinka is a latn script so should be simply marked up as a latn script.

Did I answer your question?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk: Yes, pretty much. You seem to be advocating for {{lang|be-Latn|łacinka text}} and {{langx|be-Latn|łacinka text}} and perhaps something like be-Latn-latsinka (where latsinka is BGN/PCGN for лацінка or łacinka) if and when such a beast gets registered with IANA in much the same way as zh-Latn-pinyin is although pinyin seems to also be a romanization here as well. The only downside I see if that there is no real way to differentiate between {{langx|be|лацінка}} (Belarusian: лацінка) and {{langx|be-Latn|łacinka}} (Belarusian: łacinka) except for the fact that the latter is Latin script and thus gets automatically italicized. —Uzume (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]