Template talk:Greek

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikipedia[edit]

In Wikipedia, see Template:GreekFont. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Now redirected to Template:Script/Greek. Library Guy (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Polytonic[edit]

It looks like {{Polytonic}} does the same thing, but someone wants a template that just manipulates the "lang" while using the automatic font? Perhaps Polytonic should be chosen, but some bot work (mapping Polytonic usage to {{Greek}}) will need to be done to preserve the expected effect of existing usage first. If both are going to continue to be used to circumvent the auto font, the redirect makes sense. Library Guy (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It has been my understanding that {{Greek}} marks the text as being in Greek, and {{Polytonic}} is intended to additionally override the font when polytonic orthography is used. For this reason, I use {{Polytonic}} in most works as the original is polytonic, but I would use {{Greek}} for modern Greek or, for example, in the "notes" parameter of headers where the Greek name of an author or the Greek title of a work is to be specified.
That being said, I don't really know if that's the intended purpose of having two separate templates for Greek text. I like {{Polytonic}} because the font used looks much more similar to the font used in most works I have proofread for polytonic Greek text. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Polytonic fonts in the Greek template[edit]

There seems to be inconsistencies the Greek template. There are several polytonic fonts in the Greek template and the behaviour is different on different PCs. See below, I have my sandbox page (User:DivermanAU/sandbox) showing the plain Greek alphabet and with Greek and polytonic templates. Screen shots shown below are taken from two different Windows 10 PCs showing the same sandbox page.

Greek and Polytonic Wikisource templates-compare.png

PC #2 shows the text with "Greek" template the same as 'polytonic" template, PC #1 does not.

@EncycloPetey: I've moved the discussion here. I'm trying to understand, if the "Greek" template is not meant to show polytonic fonts, why are there several polytonic fonts in the Greek template? All of the fonts in the "Polytonic fonts" template (Athena, Gentium, 'Palatino Linotype', 'Arial Unicode MS', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Code2000) are also in the "Greek' template. As I've found, the "Greek" template does show polytonic fonts on some PCs. DivermanAU (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Probably because of confusion from past editors who did not know about the {{polytonic}} template, coupled with the fact that the majority of texts we host here use polytonic Greek. There is not reason that the Greek template cannot support a broad sense of Greek, but it is not required that it do so. It can be used to display non-polytonic (modern) Greek.
Since I do not use Windows10 on the PC that I use, I will not be able to see what you are talking about. The only difference I see in your images is the lack of serifs from one. Serifs are not a big issue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I discovered by that removing the "Deja Vu Sans" fonts from PC #1 that text using the Greek template does display the same as the Polytonic template. I still maintain that "DejaVu Sans" font should be removed from the Greek template. Why would you want text using the Greek template to display text without serifs (like PC #1 and not PC #2)? DivermanAU (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
From my perspective: Why would you want to eliminate that option? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I support DivermanAU's removal of the "DejaVu Sans". I undid EncycloPetey's reversion mainly because there was no explanation, but now that I have done it, my Greek looks a lot better to me. I don't really understand Great Brightstar's font additions, but certainly the "DejaVu Sans" didn't help as far as I am concerned. Library Guy (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
You can adjust your own settings, if you like. Please do not force the decision on everyone else. Forcing serifs is not a solution. We want to provide all options, not just the ones with serifs. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
If you don't want serifs, then why use a template anyway? Just use plain Greek text e.g. αβγδ. The current Greek template has a mixture of serif and non-serif fonts and should be cleaned up. I can't see the point of having the current Greek template that (a) has a mix of serif and non-serif fonts and (b) produces inconsistent results. DivermanAU (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
What is it with serifs? Why do you keep raising the issue of serifs? Serifs are not the purpose of this template or the Greek template. The purpose of this template is to support the extended system of characters needed for polytonic Ancient Greek. The purpose of the general Greek template is to ensure that modern (tonicless) Greek is supported. The templates are supposed to work with or without serifs, not to require serifs or to omit them. It's not about serifs. So please stop harping about serifs. --EncycloPetey (talk)
Re: serifs, the issue is that the some works, e.g. 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, show Greek text with serifs. Using the Greek template means that sometimes Greek text will display with serifs (so the Wikisource version looks like the printed version) and sometimes won't (so the Wikisource version doesn't look like the printed version) depending on which fonts are installed. If the Greek template is meant to work with or without serifs, how do you make it show serifs reliably?The doco for the Greek template states it: "Automatically selects an appropriate font for Greek characters." So, what is deciding is "appropriate". DivermanAU (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
It checks which fonts are available on their browser, and chooses a font that can display tonal marks, based on the options in the template. If your personal browser is not displaying things the way you want, you can adjust your browser settings. Please stop harping about serifs. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Polytonic fonts[edit]

There have been some recent updates to Template:Polytonic fonts in the last month or so. After seeing some changes reverted and rereverted I pre-emptively locked the page and made a note to consolidate the discussion of Greek lang fonts on this talk page. @Great Brightstar: @DivermanAU: and cc: @EncycloPetey: please discuss and establish consensus here on font changes, as this template is very common and not well used or understood. Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

You're a little late to the party. Brightstar was unaware that the English WS had two templates, and got an explanation. He'd been hopping to different projects adding one of the new fonts that supports polytonic Greek. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I saw that. I was more concerned about some changes being added-removed-readded, which was only just this morning. Trying to prevent edit warring in a template with a lot of use. Sorry if I'm stepping on toes. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
There haven't been any changes for over a month. The last changes were the result of BrightStar adding to the wrong one of the templates because he was unaware that we had two, and he made the changes to the wrong one of the two templates. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Is it possible to drop two Garamond style fonts in Template:Polytonic fonts? I decided to remove them. --Great Brightstar (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I support the removal of the Garamond fonts. I did some testing in the word processor on my PC choosing the fonts that I did have (only a few of those listed in the template) and saw Garamond did not show consistent font size (e.g. the two characters: ( ἄ α ) showed as a different size in Garamond). Maybe if someone who has the other fonts installed can test. 'Palatino Linotype' was a good font for displaying Polytonic Greek. DivermanAU (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Pending further testing on other fonts, can we please have the two Garamond style fonts removed. Great Brightstar has also requested this. @Beleg Tâl:. DivermanAU (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
No, he asked whether it was possible to "drop" (insert) two different Garamond style fonts into the template at the same time and therefore support both simultaneously, because he had a second Garamond style font in addition to the one that we have. He asked nothing about removal of the previously supported Garamond font. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
No, that's not right EncycloPetey. Great Brightstar added 'EB Garamond 12' in his first edit on 22 Sept 2017; then he added Garamond in his second edit on 22 Sept 2017 (see [1] and check both edits). He asked above to "drop two Garamond style fonts" on 12 October 2017 - meaning "remove" as the two Garamond fonts he added were both in the template at that time. He also says above "I decided to remove them". Hope that's clear. Also, we shouldn't allow edits by newbies on templates that affect thousands of pages. DivermanAU (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Huh? He added fonts in that edit; he had previously removed them from {{Greek}}. You are confused. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I do not believe I am confused, EncycloPetey. Yes, Great Brightstar did add a total of two Garamond style fonts in two edits of 22 Sept 2017 of {{Polytonic_fonts}} (which I linked in my previous post), that is why I said added (twice) in my previous post — so we agree there. To quote directly from Great Brightstar above (12 Oct 2017): “Is it possible to drop two Garamond style fonts in Template:Polytonic fonts? I decided to remove them.” So Great Brightstar wanted to remove the two Garamond style fonts (that he previously added) from Template:Polytonic_fonts. I couldn't see where Great Brightstar had added or removed Garamond fonts from {{Greek}} as you say, which edit was this?. DivermanAU (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
It's a matter of understanding the English "drop in", which means "to add". To remove them would be to "drop out", which is not what Brightstar said. I hope this has cleared up your confusion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@ EncyclopPetey (a) I am not not confused, do not assume I am. (b) No one used the phrase "drop in" until you did in your above post why did you introduce that phrase? Please check your facts, you are misquoting Great Brightstar. (c) Read the context in which "drop" was used by Great Brightstar. Great Brightstar's following sentence (after the one with with "drop" in it) is "I decided to remove them." (my underline). See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/remove for definition of remove. (d) The fonts in question were already in the template at the time Great Brightstar wrote his message above. Why would anybody request fonts be "dropped in" to a template that were already there? Check the timing (allow for these message times in UTC). (e) Can we please drop the accusations of confusion in future discussions? :) DivermanAU (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
(b) Brightstar himself used the verbal phrase "drop in". His post is plainly visible above. (c,d) I'm sorry you do not understand my reasoning, but why would someone ask to remove something that had already been removed? Why would someone say they had decided to remove something, then ask about it? Your reasoning makes no sense to me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I also understood the request as "please drop these fonts , which are currently in the template". The fonts in question have since been removed. Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Beleg Tâl. A request to remove two fonts from the template was made, this was supported and you implemented it. I like your work! DivermanAU (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Lang = grc?[edit]

I see that the lang element in {{Greek}} is set to grc. Would it make more sense to set it to el, since the template is mostly used for modern monotonic Greek? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, mostly. The problem is twofold. (1) Wikisource deals with texts in PD, and modern Greek orthography was standardized in the 20th century, so the only Greek we typically have uses polytonic orthography. (2) Knowing this, editors have tried to split the templates along different lines, having an automatic font selection versus a controlled one. I can't say I fully understand the details of that attempt, but I believe @Billinghurst: or someone more technically savvy could say. We probably should consider having this template for modern Greek, and shift the intended 2-function of this template to another name, but that could get confusing, and would mean that we have three Greek templates to juggle and explain. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Diverman wants a serifs-only version, but we have never used templates to force (or abolish) a particular fontstyle feature such as serifs. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I guess I'm just after a way to display Greek text reliably as shown in the EB1911 e.g. check the "Anchor" article on Page:EB1911 - Volume 01.djvu/1000. Even the 'Times New Roman' font does a pretty good job. I started using the Polytonic template (which was good until the recent edits) because the Greek template produced different results on different PCs. DivermanAU (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)