Difference between revisions of "Help talk:Template"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Should administrative templates be translated?: re 3x)
(Should administrative templates be translated?: edit)
Line 89: Line 89:
 
::As the discussion about other [[Help:Template#Article status templates|article status templates]] is getting slightly off-topic, let's take a list of one item for now, [[Template:Deletion]]. How do we mark it as non-translatable? The translated versions could then be redirected to the English template and deleted when there are no backlinks. -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 22:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 
::As the discussion about other [[Help:Template#Article status templates|article status templates]] is getting slightly off-topic, let's take a list of one item for now, [[Template:Deletion]]. How do we mark it as non-translatable? The translated versions could then be redirected to the English template and deleted when there are no backlinks. -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 22:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  
:::I think the [https://docs.python.org/3.4/glossary.html#term-eafp EAFP] approach is better in this case, we can either:
+
:::I think the [https://docs.python.org/3.4/glossary.html#term-eafp EAFP] approach is better in this case, I can think of 2 implementations:
:::* create a redirect for each Template:Deletion_(Language) title and protect them from editing with an exhaustive justification in the summary
+
:::# Create a redirect for each Template:Deletion_(Language) title and protect them from editing with an exhaustive justification in the summary (this solution would A) be more consistent with the usage of the other status templates and B) allow us grouping the backtransclusions of Template:Deletion by language in its WLH page).
:::or
+
:::# Redirect the existing translations temporarily, convert them all with a bot, then delete them and finally protect all the Template:Deletion_(Language) titles from creation with an exhaustive justification in the summary.
:::* redirect the existing translations temporarily, convert them all with a bot, then delete them and finally protect all the Template:Deletion_(Language) titles from creation with an exhaustive justification in the summary
+
:::I prefer 1), do you agree/disagree or have additional options?
:::Any preference or additional options? -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 05:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
+
:::-- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 05:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:08, 14 September 2014

Grouped Notes/Warnings/Tips and numbered parameter

According to Help:Style#Notes.2C_Warnings.2C_Tips, we should use unnumbered list to group successive Notes/Warnings/Tips into a single template. However, this can't be (easily) done when it's necessary to use numbered parameter, e.g. when some note contains URL with "=" symbol. See:

Note: * first note
  • second note

-- Lahwaacz (talk) 08:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It's funny how this trick would fix that :)
{{Note|1=<nowiki></nowiki>
* first note = 1
* second note = 2
}}
Note:
  • first note = 1
  • second note = 2
However I don't think we should recommend it (too hacky), maybe this is one of the cases where the "recommended only when the solutions above are not practicable" note in Help:Template#HTML entities can be rightfully applied. Other ideas? Avoid recommending to merge stacked note templates? The problem would persist in note templates that have to start with a list anyway...
-- Kynikos (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

A "Welcome" template? - reopen

A bit more rational this time, how about a welcome template for greeting new users? Wikipedia is full of those. Wouldn't something like that be nice? --Sudowoodo (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Uhm... And what would you write there? I don't see the need for a template like that; for the moment your only argument in favour is that it would be "nice" :) Can you find some more precise and convincing reasons? And then who would put it in the talk page of every user that is created? And for how long would this user keep doing it? -- Kynikos (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
A welcome template would be useful to help new users find their way around and feel welcome. It could be a table with a message and some "see this for that" etc. -Sudowoodo (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, to play devil's advocate, ArchWiki:Contributing is right on the Main Page... --Alad (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Not only there, it's also constantly visible in the left column, in the "interaction" panel, I'm pretty sure every new user at least sees the link. Those who don't click on it would very likely also ignore a welcome message pasted in their talk page (the question of who should paste it every day is still unanswered). -- Kynikos (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's true. The wiki is great as it is. So, I think that ends my template brainstorming. Sorry for wasting your time with silly suggestions, I'll get back to editing. -Sudowoodo (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The wiki is indeed great, but changes, even radical ones, are always welcome if well reasoned. Brainstorming is good, if you have more ideas in the future, don't be shy and share them :) -- Kynikos (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Reopening this as there's an influx of new users that appear unaware of Help:Style, Help:Editing, ArchWiki:Contributing, or similar. For example I've counted 49 substitutions of Template:Editsum, and there is a current trend in editing (e.g [1], [2], [3]). I suppose the previous statements on constantly visible to not apply .. (there's some background to this). On a positive note, users seem to respond well to reminders (and they are in plain sight).

Thus I propose to make a Welcome template similar to Template:Editsum, but with a few key articles added, such as the aforementioned Help:Style. -- Alad (talk) 01:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The same thing I said to Sudowoodo: who is going to substitute the template for every new user?
Anyway it's nothing new that most new users aren't aware of the Help articles, I think statistically they tend to start with little edits, for which they don't want to waste time reading articles on syntax and style; probably only those who stick longer become interested in the wiki customs. Now, what effect would a Welcome template have on new users? Would it make them read the linked articles before their typo fix, or would it scare them and make them desist, worried that they could "break" something because of their inexperience? I think the "previous statements on constantly visible" still apply instead, what I said is that most people at least do "see" (or "notice") the links on the left, but that doesn't mean they actually follow them to read what they say, and I think only a small minority does at least before the first few edits.
Regarding the 3 examples you've linked, I really doubt that those edits would have been prevented even if their authors had skimmed the Help articles.
Maybe we could consider creating a template similar to Template:Editsum but aimed at users who make edits that clearly show a lack of knowledge of the (basic) syntax or style rules?
Let's keep this open this time and read other opinions.
-- Kynikos (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Should administrative templates be translated?

I have coincidentally encountered a stub page (Яндекс Диск (Русский), now deleted) with wrong localized title, which was marked for deletion using a localized template, Template:Deletion (Русский). This was obviously wrong, because the page was not listed under Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Deletion, which is the list which is systematically checked.

I admit that localized "administrative templates" can be useful for coordinating the effort of a translation team, and having English messages on localized pages might be considered ugly, but there are considerable downsides in splitting the Special:WhatLinksHere by language this way.

Another step deeper, maybe we should put together a list of templates that should not be translated?

-- Lahwaacz (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I think what you're saying makes sense (and a lot) only for Template:Deletion; the admins (like any other user) can't expand, merge or update articles written in languages they don't speak, right? :) What other templates were you thinking about? -- Kynikos (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
True, every other article status template could be used in localized form by the maintenance team. Regardless, there will always be fragmentation of the Special:WhatLinksHere: for example when fulfilling the requests, it is common to use English message (and template) on localized pages if the editor does not speak the language. This should be definitely considered by the translation teams.
Personally, I find it strange that outdated or inaccurate content from English pages can be spread by translation (see [4]).
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
About the first point on "fragmentation" of WLH pages, do you mean that it inevitably happens that some localized articles are marked with localized templates and some with English templates? In what cases is it possible that somebody adds a status template to an article without being able to understand its language? And if (s)he does, is that really the right thing to do? And if it is, maybe we could recommend to use the localized version of the template even if the message is then written in English?
About the second point on template "spreading", I don't find it "strange" if it happens when somebody translates from an article that is marked with such status template: he's adding the localized template not only to remind to the team that the article contains outdated content, but also to notify all non-contributing readers about possible inaccuracies. But maybe I haven't understood what you meant exactly?
Just to come back to the original topic, isn't it a good thing that the WLH pages for the English status templates are not (ideally) "polluted" by non-English articles? (Doesn't apply to Template:Deletion, I know)
-- Kynikos (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
For example when fulfilling ArchWiki:Requests, there is often some unique keyword or phrase to identify the relevant section, even in localized pages. Google translate can be used to partially understand the surrounding text, even if the translation is grammatically incorrect. This makes it pretty easy to mark the section with English message (translating the message from English would be risky, the grammar mistakes might alter the meaning), which I think is an improvement (any warning should be better than none). Using a localized template in this case would require checking if such template exists, and even if it does, combining localized template and English message is even more weird.
About fragmentation and using localized article status templates generally, its advantage is that it filters out other languages in the WLH lists, but this only partial (the global list will always contain some localized pages, unless we want to create the necessary templates for each language and do some mass cleanup, and the localized lists will not point out localized pages marked with global templates). The disadvantage is that global maintenance, if only marking as outdated as per ArchWiki:Requests, will be harder.
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, of course each solution has pros and cons (will we need a summary table for this issue too?): honestly I wouldn't find it too weird if a localized template had an English message, which could also be translated afterwards by somebody else. Yes, adding a localized status template requires a bit more typing, sometimes even copy-pasting if there are non-Latin chars in the language name: this could be mitigated in the future by Help talk:i18n#Language namespace(s) in place of suffixes?; I understand this could effectively discourage adding status templates to translations. On the other hand, a bot would be able to convert the templates to the proper localized versions very easily, so that's a task that could be performed periodically (it could be used to check also other templates). And yes, having a translated version for each template would be required if we enforced such a policy. Finally, let's not forget that localized templates would be more useful to casual readers than English templates.
-- Kynikos (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
About the template spreading, it is safe to assume that Template:Poor writing will never be translated. Instead, the translator will probably fix the English article prior to translating it, which is happening a lot, even when the style issues are not marked with a template, and this is absolutely great. On the other hand, I have never noticed any other article status template being resolved during translation. Admittedly, sometimes it is best to just translate the inaccurate content along with the template, or the translator might be unable to resolve it, but in terms of statistics I think that I should have noticed at least some effort by now.
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, Template:Poor writing does have a translation already with some backtransclusions, I'm not sure if you'd delete it (I wouldn't). -- Kynikos (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
As the discussion about other article status templates is getting slightly off-topic, let's take a list of one item for now, Template:Deletion. How do we mark it as non-translatable? The translated versions could then be redirected to the English template and deleted when there are no backlinks. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the EAFP approach is better in this case, I can think of 2 implementations:
  1. Create a redirect for each Template:Deletion_(Language) title and protect them from editing with an exhaustive justification in the summary (this solution would A) be more consistent with the usage of the other status templates and B) allow us grouping the backtransclusions of Template:Deletion by language in its WLH page).
  2. Redirect the existing translations temporarily, convert them all with a bot, then delete them and finally protect all the Template:Deletion_(Language) titles from creation with an exhaustive justification in the summary.
I prefer 1), do you agree/disagree or have additional options?
-- Kynikos (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)