Template talk:Lang-rus

comments by Kwamikagami

I've found that I've been missing these IPA transcriptions when cleaning up transclusions of IPA-ru, so I'm splitting them off. I think that this will make maintenance easier; if we decide to change how something is represented at IPA for Russian, it will be more straightforward to bring the articles into line if they all transclude through the same template. But let me know if you disagree for some reason: We could also make this clear on the docs for the IPA-ru template. — kwami (talk) 09:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an experimental template (a "suggested modification of {{Lang-ru}}" as it's said in its Docs). The idea is that later the code of {{Lang-ru}} will be replaced with this template's code thus allowing not only the Russian spelling, but romanization and phonetic transcription to be included — in a standard and proper way. In theory it includes the functionality of {{Lang-ru}}, i.e. replacing with {{Lang-rus}} should not change how the page looks. So, I prefer to keep it being used to check whether its code causes any troubles.

I suppose the problem with splitting the Russian IPA transcriptions into two different templates can be solved by using of {{IPA-ru}} within this template. I guess it could look like this:

{{LangWithName|ru|Russian|{{{1|}}}}}{{#if:{{{r|{{{2|}}}}}}|, <small>[[Romanization of Russian|tr.]]</small> ''{{{r|{{{2}}}}}}''}}{{#if:{{{p|{{{3|}}}}}}|, {{IPA-ru|[{{{p|{{{3}}}}}}]}}}}

Hellerick (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that could work, but kill the brackets. IPA-ru already supplies them. (Or rather, loose the first one and change the 2nd one to a pipe, or you'll get "Russian pronunciation" thrown in.)

I try going through the IPA-xx transclusions every once in a while and cleaning up the stuff that doesn't correspond to the conventions it links to. — kwami (talk)

Also, at Soviet Union, this template with the IPA included forced the main text to start below the info box, leaving a huge white space on my (small) browser. Splitting off the IPA solved the problem. — kwami (talk) 09:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I don't know what are you talking about. I checked how the page looked in four browsers and it was okay in all of them. Hellerick (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm on one of those little Acer laptops w a small screen. AWB doesn't display properly either: there's a bug where all the buttons on the bottom of the window are cut off, and the AWB team has been unable to solve it. So I don't think it's the browser. — kwami (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Audio

Would it be possible/easy to add audio functionality like that of {{IPA-ru}}? Ideally, it would just be an additional switch, with the option of using a= Overall, this is a really good idea, and we need to replicate it with other languages. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess it could look like this:

{{LangWithName|ru|Russian|{{{1|}}}}}{{#if:{{{r|{{{2|}}}}}}|, <small>[[Romanization of Russian|tr.]]</small> ''{{{r|{{{2}}}}}}''}}{{#if:{{{p|{{{3|}}}}}}|, {{IPA-ru|[{{{p|{{{3}}}}}}]}}}}<small>{{#if:{{{a|{{{4|}}}}}}|  {{nowrap|([[File:Speaker Icon.svg|13px|link=|alt=]] [[:Media:{{{a|{{{4|}}}}}}|listen]])}}}}</small>

Thus introducing the fourth parameter, named a with the audio file name. Hellerick (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

what gives?

This has been here since 2009‎, and is now at 298 transclusions. Compared to lang-ru's 32169 transclusions, that's basically nothing. Should something be done? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ditto for Template:Lang-ru test. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The original intent was to replace {{lang-ru}} with this one. I think after three years of testing this can safely be done, unless it breaks something on the larger scale. Also, this template still has one unfixed bug (if I remember correctly, audio file link does not show unless IPA parameter is also supplied). The test template can definitely be shot.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 28, 2012; 18:50 (UTC)

When will we update the "Lang-ru" template?

Some questions on timing:

1. When will we incorporate the IPA and audio-file (a=) parameters into the "Lang-ru" template?
2. Are there any specific plans to do this by a given date, say: 30 June 2020?
3. Are there any outstanding problems with this template?
4. (e.g.) Does the audio-file require the IPA parameter to be set, as mentioned earlier on this page)?

I'd rather use this version of the template, which makes IPA and audio-file parameters available for editors to improve Wikipedia, than the older version, which doesn't. But apparently, few editors are aware this even exists! yoyo (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I too would like {{lang-rus}} parameters/code to be incorporated into {{lang-ru}}. Also, the new {{lang-ru}} page should show various examples in Russian (currently, it shows examples in German). The page should also clearly state whether to include the accent or not – {{lang-ru|коро́ва}} vs. {{lang-ru|корова}} (I think it should be included, as foreign speakers misplace the accent in Russian words so often, but we should have a vote on it). --46.242.12.2 (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The accents should definitely NOT be included, we have IPA for that. And IPA is internationally recognized, while accents are simply misleading for an international community. See WP:RUSTRESS (yes, it's currently just my personal essay that I use for edit summaries, but people generally agree with it, while valid arguments against it are yet to be seen). Of course I'd also like to see a clearly expressed statement on that. — Mike Novikoff 04:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

tr.

This template uses an acronym, "tr.", which links to Romanization of Russian. I'm presuming this stands for "transcription", but we should make this explicit using the <abbr> tag, as not all readers will be able to guess what it stands for. Opencooper (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

"links=no" by default

WP:OVERLINKING says that language names "with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar" should not be wikilinked. No doubt, Russian is one of such languages (no less than Arabic, Korean and Spanish given in MoS as examples), and indeed, almost every time I see this template in articles I add links=no if it's not already there.

So I suggest making it a default. Article editors will still be able to add links=yes if they deem it necessary (which is highly unlikely, but just in case). Any objections? — Mike Novikoff 16:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

No objections within a week, so I've implemented it. — Mike Novikoff 22:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, for now, as I can see, all the languages you mentioned as well as other widely spoken languages have their links automatically added and the Russian hasn't. It just looks strange when in the list of names in various languages only Russian language has no corresponding link. Q-Wert-273 (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

None of those languages should have links. The IPA for them already does. A link to the language article adds nothing and just clutters the lead. IMO no language that has a dedicated IPA key should be linked. — kwami (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The IPA links lead to Help:IPA pages, not to the articles about the languages, and transcription is not mandatory. If none of the major languages should have such links, then maybe such changes should be discussed and made in an organized manner in all the corresponding templates, and not to one language exclusively? Q-Wert-273 (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course it would be better if all the templates complied with MoS. And it would be yet better if we lived in a perfect world altogether. But in our real world it would take much effort, and an organized discussion would at least require a sharp definition of what is "widely known language" and what is not. Meanwhile my approach is not to demand all at once, but to do things step by step. One of the steps is my edit to this template. If you see an inconsistent linking in some article, maybe it's your turn to take further steps, such as adding links=no to the other languages, or maybe even editing some other templates too. It would be definitely much more constructive than arguing that "other stuff exists". Better still, start a wider discussion yourself if you can, and I'll definitely support making the templates consistent with each other. — Mike Novikoff 19:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Which languages are widely known is indeed a riddle. Also, according to MoS, links shouldn't be added unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article. And whether language templates are mostly used in such situations is one more riddle. You resolved these riddles by just turning off linking for one specific language, breaking the established practice of these templates' use. And instead of pinning "making war" on me, you could've taken part in this discussion and write some reply to the objections, which were here for months, but you showed no interest. But OK, I got it, you've made your step already and it is someone else's turn now to make it smooth and balanced again. Q-Wert-273 (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)