Template talk:Lang-sr-Cyrl

Template:Lang-sr-Cyrl is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. 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. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

Target

My question is, why does this template end up at Serbian language via a pipe from the equally absurd Serbian Cyrillic language which is neither here nor there. It is an alphabet so should rightly land on Serbian Cyrillic alphabet. Am I out of touch with something? ----OJ (TALK) 19:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian language uses both Cyrillic and Latin

So this parameter was made to indicate clearly the Serbian Cyrillic version. Can someone please restore the change done. FkpCascais (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit that I made and that you have reverted was intended to bring this template (not parameter) into line with the other 600ish {{lang-??}} templates listed in Category:Lang-x templates, most of which are using the code and data-set provided by Module:Lang.

Serbian is not the only language that is written with more than one script; there are many. There is no real need to specifically label Serbian Cyrillic text as Cyrillic text; that is obvious by inspection.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat disagree on that - Serbian is not the only one, but it's one of the few languages that has equal standing between latin and some other script. Of course users will readily identify if the text isn't in latin, but the point is different: for example, Sombor article. It starts with Sombor (Serbian: Сомбор), as if Sombor is not a Serbian name for the city. The Cyrillic lang template was there only for those cases (as I understood it) when the article name and Serbian latin name are the same - so there's no need to repeat the name within another lang tag (it still exists on many articles in the form of Sombor (Serbian: Сомбор / Sombor), which is redundant. I think it's best to revert to Sombor (Serbian Cyrillic: Сомбор) for the sake of clarity and to reduce unneeded redundancy and repetition. :) BytEfLUSh | Talk 03:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BytEfLUSh: I absolutely agree with you. I created this template many years ago exactly for that reason. This template (in the form "Serbian Cyrillic: Сомбор") is needed when we already have Serbian Latin name and we want to introduce Serbian Cyrillic version. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: thank you. So, @Trappist the monk: should we revert it to the previous version? BytEfLUSh | Talk 02:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I think that our readers are not feeble minded, that they understand that Sombor is the Serbian name for the city; that Сомбор is the name written with the Cyrillic alphabet. As an aside, I think that the practice of crowding all of the various languages, IPA, etc into the fist sentence of an article is distracting and counterproductive; it makes little sense to me to jump right into the all of that parenthetical detail before readers have even gotten to the point of the first sentence. Yeah, I know, a topic for another discussion in another place.

But, if it is necessary to beat readers over the head, then reverting to an older version of this template is probably not the best solution. It is anticipated that, in future, Module:Lang will support a |label= parameter that will allow editors to suppress or modify the default labeling provided by the {{lang-??}} templates at which point you can change this template to be something like:

{{lang-sr|label=[[Serbian_Cyrillic_alphabet|Serbian Cyrillic]]|script=Cyrl|{{{1}}}}}

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can the editor please restore the previous version? This way is wrong, because exemples such as Peć, or Bojan Čečarić, are now giving the wrong perception that the Latin title version is some other language that not Serbian and that only the Cyrillic one is Serbian. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so now many people are removing the template, as in this edit, and replacing it with a link to Serbian Cyrillic. Was that the point of this change, to stop its use? FkpCascais (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this not being fixed?

There are thousands of articles needing this template. FkpCascais (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]