Template talk:Lang-ur

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Why bold is a bad idea

Okay Szhaider, I will try to explain to you why making Urdu text bold everywhere is a bad idea. If you still disagree with my rationale (which was the consensus prior to your changes), I will petition other Wikipedians for their opinions.

  • It's inconsistent - it's not done for other language names (it might be done sporadically, but not as a general rule).
  • It's of no relevance to English users and so there is no point in boldening it.
  • It's done to address the fact that apparently Urdu text isn't legible enough normally. This makes no sense because making text bold at a small size only decreases the ability to read it because it merges the distinguishing characteristics of letters (especially true of Arabic script text because of the cursive letter forms).
  • The solution is attempting to fix a problem which is a client-side and not a server-side issue. The onus is on the user to correct their individual settings by using their browser's font-size controls and/or specific font-overrides. This issue may also be caused by not using anti-aliasing or ClearType depending on the type of screen used to view text.

Now one script that *really* does have a problem in this sense is Bengali (which can be partly addressed by some of the points above, but is properly fixed by changing more advanced display settings or installing an Indic language pack on Windows). Arabic really isn't one of them. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You failed to produce any solid reason against bold style of Urdu script. Here are my own just three points:
  • I use bold style of script only for the title of the article which in English appears bold ‎inside the article; in other words it's for consistency with English title. I do not use bold style of ‎Urdu script for other words for which Urdu script is relevant but the words are not ‎important enough to be bold.‎
  • More than 90% Pakistan-related articles present bold styled Urdu script for the title of the ‎article. Just for the title of the article, Urdu script should be bold. Urdu script is relevant ‎for those Urdu-speaking readers who might confuse the English transliteration with ‎wrong words. There are literally hundreds of different Urdu words with same English ‎transliteration.
  • You will be surprised to know that Urdu script is easier to read in bold style because all important curves are curves rather than line segments. Bold style for Microsoft-provided Urdu font is ideal for screen reading. That's what we use at Urdu Wikipedia if Microsoft-provided font is to be used. Szhaider 23:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • So, you CAN actually read the script in the body of the text but not in the title? Uhmm... if i remember correctly, your original reasoning was that you couldn't read it properly. So now this reasoning no longer stands.
  • You've been responsible for a lot of this. And either way, it's not consistent with other pages (i.e. the majority of Wikipedia pages).
  • I'm not suprised to know that "important curves are curves" - I'd imagine they'd be curves if they were, er, curves. Ideal for Urdu is a Nastaliq font, which afaik Microsoft doesn't provide. That's not an issue for Wikipedia. Other Indian languages have display issues too which are resolved using WP:COMPLEX and we don't use hacked solutions to resolve display issues. If Urdu has such issues, you can make a page that shows users how to download a Nastaliq font and how to set it for arabic script. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 08:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I never said anything about zero readability. Not so important words' Urdu script's readability is reduced by not making it bold and otherwise for title.
  • Currently provided Nastaliq corrupts Wikipedia's web pages and is not ideal for use. All Arabic based scripts (Persian, Urdu etc.) have their primary stress on the curves of characters. I have already presented the easiet way to solve the problem whcih cannot be considered hacking. Szhaider 16:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Er, yes you did. You original reasoning was that "some people" can't read the text because it's too small or illegible without being bold.
  • Which Nastaliq font is this? How does it "corrupt" the web pages? What browser are you using? How are you overriding the Arabic script font? If you cannot answer these simple questions, then you really haven't attempted a proper solution before making all the text bold. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, if you do manage to prove the case for boldening the text (which you haven't at the moment) you're going about it entirely the wrong way. It would be entirely more appropriate to define a class for use in arabic language tags which has a different CSS entry. Of course, you're an expert at all such things, so maybe you should figure out how to get it done. It's a shame that so much time gets wasted on Wikipedia battling idiotic points such as this. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)